BUILDING A WORLD THAT WORKS
TM
WWW. HYDROGENCOMMERCE .COM
Welcome
to the International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce
"First they laugh at you,
then they ignore you, then they fight with you, then you win."
-- Ghandi
As wind energy continues to expand
across the U.S. heartland, rural America is likely to experience a
revitalization not experienced since the homestead land grabs of the 19th
century. Green jobs - high-quality employment for environmentally
sustainable industries - and related spin-off opportunities are
proliferating across West Texas.
Former Vice President Al Gore has
challenged the United States to shift its entire electricity sector to
wind, solar and geothermal power within 10 years. "This goal is
achievable, affordable and transformative," Gore said during a speech at
the Daughters of the American Revolution Constitution Hall in Washington.
"It represents a challenge to all Americans in every walk of life: to our
political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers and to every
citizen."
Alternative Energy Expert Tai Robinson
Discusses the Hierarchy of Automotive Fuels
The Standing Committee on Emission Regulation — under the Ministry of
Shipping, Road Transport & Highways — today approved addition of hydrogen
to CNG (compressed natural gas) for use in vehicles. The proposal is to
use CNG with 20 per cent hydrogen content. When this gets notified, India
will become the first country to use this mix on a commercial basis and
take a definitive step towards enhancing the use of renewable energy in
automobiles.
An urgent message from the League of
Conservation Voters 7/17/08
We're so
deep in a hole, you'd think we'd stop drilling...
Unfortunately not everyone
agrees. Big Oil's allies in Congress are trying to scoop up more land for
drilling—including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Later today,
President Bush is expected to go so far as to repeal the long-standing
executive ban on offshore drilling put in place by his own father.
This is not only an
environmental disaster, it will give us zero relief from gas prices and
will pad Big Oil's bottom line. That's a raw deal.
Every
week, we can expect a new, outrageous drilling provision. And we urgently
need your support to stop them! Please give today—there will be votes on
drilling in the next TWO weeks.
Big Oil's cronies in
Congress are using high gas prices as an excuse for this greedy land grab,
and they plan to make this a major campaign issue. Even some of our
pro-environment friends in Congress are feeling pressure to support
drilling legislation. But renowned oil businessman T. Boone Pickens is
publicly broadcasting a different message: "I've been an oilman all my
life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of."
We believe
that the facts will triumph over the fear mongering, but we need your
support to keep up the fight and deliver our message to Congress:
America simply can't drill its way out of this
problem. Our supply (less than 3% of world oil reserves) can't possibly
keep up with our demand (25% of world oil consumption). A few drops of
oil, up to a decade away from making it to market, cannot alleviate our
pain at the pump.
There are almost 70 million acres of proven
reserves in Big Oil's possession where absolutely no drilling is taking
place. As long as gas prices continue to rise, so does the value of the
reserves they're sitting on.
We need consumer choices, such as plug-in
hybrids and other fuel efficient cars—not a greater addiction to oil.
Cutting subsidies for Big Oil and giving rebates to consumers would be
true short-term relief.
The ban on offshore
drilling, which has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades, is in real
danger. Both President Bush and Senator John McCain have recently
reversed their position and now support this land grab.
Your support today will
allow us to conduct valuable polling in battleground states on this issue,
lobby key Members of Congress, and place ads to educate consumers that
drilling will not provide them with the relief they need.
Thank you, Norman, for
your continued support of the League of Conservation Voters. We'll never
match Big Oil's resources dollar-for-dollar. But backed by your
commitment, I know we will be able to build a clean energy future.
A phased urban roll-out, known as the
“urban center concept,” was employed to gradually create fueling networks
serving 20 urban centers. Southern California and the Northeast (centered
around New York City) were targeted for early infrastructure introduction
(around 2012 to 2015) during Phase I (“Initial Introduction”). Their
concentrated market potential and populations, numbering around 20 million
people each, are significantly greater than other urban centers. The next
phase, called Targeted Regional Growth, would focus on an additional eight
selected cities with populations ranging from 4 to 10 million people.
Three early corridors—Los Angeles-to-San Francisco; New
York-Boston-Washington, DC; and Chicago-to-Detroit—are also recommended
for inclusion in this phase. Phase III, Inter-Regional Expansion, expands
the infrastructure to 10 additional urban centers with populations of 1.5
to 5 million and adds more corridors connecting the urban centers and
enabling some cross country travel. ...Under Policy Case 3, the analysis
suggests that industry could begin generating a profit as early as 2017.
Policies would also help to reduce the cost of hydrogen to a level well
below gasoline on a cost-per-mile basis, and encourage the build-out of
hydrogen fueling stations.
NEWS YOU WILL NEVER SEE! "We Told You So!" Say Republicans
as Sun Stops Shining
Mid East Saber-Rattling Causes Wind kW/h Cost to Spike
New U.S. Wind Farms Cause Millions in Africa to Starve
Republicans Agree Oil is the Problem, Endorse Renewables
Wind Turbine Wreck Pollutes 100s of Miles of Coastline
Army to Protect Wind Farm Routes; Draft Reinstated
Military On High Alert for Terrorists at Wind Farm
Asthma Epidemic Blamed on Solar, Wind Turbines
Newly Empowered Democrats Refuse Oil Pay-Offs Chad Invades Sudan: Seizes Solar,
Wind Resources
Smog Alert Idles Wind Farm; Schools Closed
"We're Addicted to Wind Power," Says Bush
Wilkes said if the
Internet hawkers were truthful - or if they did careful enough
measurements - they would find more energy is expended by the motor to
turn the alternator than the energy produced by the minuscule amount of
hydrogen.
Hydrogenics will
provide its HySTAT-10 electrolyzer driven by wind turbines for the
production of hydrogen, which will then be used to power a Hydrogenics 1 x
HyPM 12 fuel cell power module. The hydrogen will also be used to fuel
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, including a delivery van and a shuttle bus
previously integrated with a Hydrogenics fuel cell power module.
Fuel
Cell Suzuki Sx4 Takes To Japanese Roads Suzuki
July
11, 2008
The SX4-FCV five-door hatchback uses a
GM-made high performance fuel cell, a Suzuki-developed 70 MPa (10,000 psi)
compressed hydrogen tank and a light, compact capacitor.
Lotus is one of the
big names working on the Zero Emission London Taxi Commercialization
Project that aims to have 50 to 100 non-polluting taxis on the road by
2012. Lotus brings to the effort its experience developing hybrids and
will integrate the fuel cell with the electric drivetrain and hydrogen
storage tank.
New York's Chrysler
Building, an Art Deco icon that helps define the New York skyline, was
bought by an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, the second purchase of a
Manhattan landmark by Middle East investors in as many months.
...Last month a Dubai
fund, Boston Properties Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. paid $2.8
billion for the General Motors Building.
"Congress has never been more
cowardly, nor more corrupt. All Bush has do is to make sure certain amounts
of money go in the direction of certain important congressmen and that's end
of any serious investigation. ...We no longer have a country. We don't have
a republic any more. ...They managed to destroy the United States - why?
Because they're oil and gas people and they're essentially criminals." Author Gore Vidal Gore Vidal: 'The US is Not a
Republic Anymore' PressTV (IR)
June 30, 2008
"We know that the
administration's efforts have been about covering up the real dangers of
global warming and hiding facts from the public. This cover-up is being
directed from the White House and the Office of the Vice President." Senator Barbara Boxer
Chairman, Environment and Public
Works
Cheney's Office Pushed Purge Of Climate Change Testimony Siobhan Hughes
Wall Street Journal
July 8, 2008
Cheney Wanted Cuts in Climate Testimony H. Josef Hebert
AP July
8, 2008
NATIONAL EMERGENCY:
A BEACON OF HOPE
Oil Magnate Boone Pickens Unveils Wind Power Plan Texas magnate says foreign oil is
'killing' the economy;
invested $2 billion in plan to build world's largest wind farm.
...His energy plan could be implemented within 10 years if both Congress
and the White House treat the current energy situation as a "national
emergency and take immediate action,"
he predicted. CNN Money July 8, 2008
"Car makers who
seize the opportunities to harness cutting edge technologies and forge
partnerships with innovative fuel makers up to city planners can make the
transitions society so urgently need - those who do not may go the way of
the steam engine and the pack horse." Achim Steiner
UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP
Executive Director
Daimler and United Nations Environment Program
Call for Hydrogen Infrastructure Fuel Cell Today (UK)
July 4, 2008
A STARVING CHILD CONSUMES ENOUGH GRAIN
IN A YEAR TO DRIVE AN SUV ABOUT 90 MILES ON ETHANOL
BIOFUELS: THE "FINAL
SOLUTION" "America, I'm sorry I took your ethanol."
"It's criminal to burn corn for
fuel when we are out of food!" BMO Financial Group strategist
Don Coxe
THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT AND
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL CATASTROPHE OF BIOFUELS.
-- RDM
Another
Inconvenient Truth
How biofuel policies are deepening poverty and accelerating
climate change 58 PAGES
Oxfam International
June 25, 2008
Summary
Biofuels are presented in rich countries as a solution to two
crises: the climate crisis and the oil crisis. But they may not be a
solution to either, and instead are contributing to a third: the current
food crisis.
Meanwhile the danger is that
they allow
rich-country governments to avoid difficult but urgent decisions about how
to reduce consumption of oil, while offering new avenues to continue
expensive support to agriculture at the cost of taxpayers.
In the meantime, the most serious costs of these policies –
deepening
poverty and hunger, environmental degradation, and accelerating climate
change – are being ‘dumped’ on developing countries.
Neither a solution to the climate crisis…
Rich countries’ biofuel policies currently offer neither a
safe nor an effective means to tackle climate change. By increasing
aggregate demand for agricultural land, they will drive the expansion of
farming into critical carbon sinks such as forests, wetlands, and
grasslands, triggering the release of carbon from soils and vegetation
that will take decades and in some cases
centuries of biofuel production to repay, at a time when emissions need to
peak and fall within the next 10 to 15 years:
•
Analysis published in the
journal Science calculates that the emissions from global land-use
change due to the US corn-ethanol programme will take 167 years to pay
back.
• European Union (EU) biodiesel consumption is driving
spiralling demand for palm oil both for use in biodiesel, but also to
replace rapeseed and other edible oils diverted into the European
biofuel programme. Oxfam estimates that by 2020, the emissions resulting
from land-use change in the palm-oil sector may have reached between 3.1
and 4.6 billion tonnes of CO2 – 46 to 68 times the annual saving the EU
hopes to be achieving by then from biofuels.
Even ignoring land-use change,
biofuels are an overly expensive way of
achieving emissions reductions from transport. Improving car efficiency is
far
more cost effective: while the costs of avoiding a tonne of CO2 through
biofuels run into the hundreds of dollars, ambitious improvements in
vehicle
efficiency can yield profits, as reduced fuel costs exceed technology
costs.
Biomass can be used far more efficiently in static applications such as
commercial boilers or combined heat and power.
…nor a solution to the oil crisis Rich countries’ biofuel policies currently offer neither
a safe nor an effective means to address fuel security. Consumption of oil
in rich countries is so huge that for biofuels to be a significant
alternative requires massive amounts of agricultural production. If the
entire corn harvest of the USA was diverted to ethanol, it would only be
able to replace about one gallon in every six sold in the USA. If the
entire world supply of carbohydrates (starch and sugar crops) was
converted to ethanol, this would only be able to replace at most 40 per
cent of global petrol consumption. Global oilseed production would be
unable even to reach a 10 per cent share of diesel consumption.
Moreover, the costs of using biofuels to improve fuel
security are
prohibitively expensive. The European Commission’s own research body
has estimated that the EU’s proposed 10 per cent biofuel target will cost
about $90bn from now until 2020, and will offer enhanced fuel security
worth only $12bn. Policies to reduce demand for transport fuels, such as
regulation to improve vehicle efficiency, are far safer and more cost
effective.
Meanwhile 30 million people are dragged into poverty
Biofuel mandates and support measures in rich countries are
driving up food prices as they divert more and more food crops and
agricultural land into fuel production. Meanwhile sugarcane ethanol from
Brazil, production of
which has a far less significant impact on global food prices, is excluded
through the use of tariffs.
The World Bank estimates that the price of food has increased
by 83 per
cent in the last three years. For the world’s poor people, who may spend
50–80 per cent of their income on food, this is disastrous. Oxfam
estimates that the livelihoods of
at least 290 million people are immediately threatened by the food crisis,
and the Bank estimates that 100 million people have already fallen into
poverty as a result. Thirty per
cent of price increases are attributable to biofuels, suggesting biofuels
have endangered the livelihoods of nearly 100 million people and dragged
over 30 million into poverty.
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
notes that by
forcing up food prices,
rich-country support for biofuels acts as a tax on food – a
regressive tax felt most by poor people for whom food purchases
represent a greater share of income. Last year, it is estimated that
industrialised countries spent $13–15bn ‘taxing’ food, equal to the amount
of funding required to assist those immediately threatened by the food
crisis.
These amounts will continue to spiral as rich countries increase their
consumption of biofuels.
Herein lies the true attraction of ethanol and biodiesel for
rich-country
governments – an avenue for continued support to agriculture. Oxfam calls on
rich countries urgently to dismantle support and incentives for biofuels
in order to avoid further deepening poverty and accelerating climate
change.
Enthusiasts Predict Comeback in Hydrogen Ballooning Euan Rocha
Reuters June
30, 2008
Suppliers in the U.S.
shy away from catering to hydrogen gas balloons, concerned about the risks of
lawsuits in case of an accident. Despite the dangers, gas ballooning enthusiasts
are drawn by the thrill of the sport and the beauty of silent flight. In
Germany, hydrogen-based gas ballooning has been conducted successfully for
years. "Let's face it, the future of alternative energy down the road is
possibly hydrogen. This country needs to be better educated on hydrogen and the
energy that you can get from it," said Padelt, the balloon designer.
Food Hoarding Nations Drive Food Costs Ever Higher Keith Bradsher and Andrew Martin
New York Times June
30, 2008
When it comes to rice,
India, Vietnam, China and 11 other countries have limited or banned exports.
Fifteen countries, including Pakistan and Bolivia, have capped or halted wheat
exports. More than a dozen have limited corn exports. ...The export limits are
forcing some of the most vulnerable people, those who rely on relief agencies,
to go hungry.
Putting Rich Farmers First
David G. Victor
Newsweek
July 7-14, 2008
In rich countries like
Western Europe's and the United States, high prices could, in theory, make it
easier to wean farmers from lavish subsidies, plugging holes in the public
budget and putting the world's farmers on a more level playing field.
...Lowering subsidies could also lighten farmers' footprints on the landscape;
subsidized and protected farmers usually plow too much land and tread heavily
with fertilizers and pesticides.
Which makes it all the more surprising that the response of the
United States in particular to the food crisis has been to do the opposite of
what would be best for the world economy. Over the last month the U.S. Congress
has passed new legislation that will heap even more cash on farmers.
...It channels money to a wide range of farmers regardless of whether they need
it, and it indexes new subsidies to already high crop prices, which puts the
government on the hook for massive payments when prices eventually decline.
Anger Expressed Over Supreme Court's Exxon Decision Maggie Wall
Sitnews
June
28, 2008
They stretched the case out so long that
of the original nearly 33,000 claimants, 3,000 died while waiting for a decision
in the case.
The Promise of Hydrogen
Health News Digest
June 28, 2008
Stanford University
researchers in 2005 assessed the environmental effects of three different
hydrogen sources: coal, natural gas, and water electrolysis powered by wind.
They concluded that we’d lower greenhouse gas emissions more by driving
gasoline/electric hybrid cars than by driving fuel cell cars run on hydrogen
from coal. Hydrogen made using natural gas would fare a little bit better in
terms of pollution output, while
making it from wind power would a
slam-dunk for the environment.
Lord Stern of Brentford
made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend
1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels.
Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report
warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP. But speaking
yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening
faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be
reduced even more sharply.
"Democracy is not working the
way it's intended to work." James Hanson, NASA Climate Scientist
James Hansen, one of the world's
leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of
large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against
humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about
global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links
between smoking and cancer.
...He will accuse the chief executive officers of companies
such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the
disinformation about climate change they are spreading.
...He is also considering personally targeting members of
Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming
November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated.
He will tell the House select committee on energy
independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain
that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond
the safe level.
...He wants to see a moratorium on new coal-fired power
plants, coupled with the creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric
power lines buried under ground and spread across America, in order to
give wind and solar power a chance of competing. "The new US president
would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to
the moon."
June 23, 2008 U.S.
House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
My
presentation today is exactly 20 years after my 23 June 1988 testimony to
Congress, which alerted the public that global warming was underway.
There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big
difference.
Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood
about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is
known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of
scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic.
Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty
exceeding 99 percent.
The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the
schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb.
The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which
the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility
for
the present dangerous situation.
Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric
carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a
level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that
lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of
humanity’s control.
Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which
civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked
by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in
Washington and other capitals.
I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a
healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a
transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.
On 23 June 1988 I testified
to a hearing, chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had
entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases
almost surely were responsible. I noted that global warming enhanced
both extremes of the water cycle, meaning stronger droughts and forest
fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods.
My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism.
But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the
public. As scientists examine a topic from all perspectives, it may
appear that nothing is known with confidence. But from such broad
openminded study of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.
My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs
from basic physics, planetary studies, observations of on-going changes,
and climate models. The evidence was strong enough that I could say
it was time to “stop waffling”. I was sure that time would bring the
scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.
While international recognition of global warming was swift,
actions have faltered. The U.S. refused to place limits on its
emissions, and developing countries such as China and India rapidly
increased their emissions.
What is at stake?
Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost
innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations. But more
warming is already “in-the-pipeline”, delayed only by the great inertia of
the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points.
Elements of a “perfect storm”, a global cataclysm, are assembled.
Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur
large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming
initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight,
melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases,
the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.
More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and
Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming.
These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if
disintegration gets well underway it will become unstoppable. Debate among
scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In
my opinion, if
emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least
two meters is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would
become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time
frame that humanity can conceive.
Animal and plant species are already stressed by climate
change. Polar and alpine species will be pushed off the planet, if warming
continues. Other species attempt to migrate, but as some are extinguished
their interdependencies can cause ecosystem collapse. Mass extinctions, of
more than half the species on the planet, have occurred several times when
the Earth warmed as much as expected if greenhouse gases continue to
increase. Biodiversity recovered, but it required hundreds of thousands of
years.
The disturbing conclusion,
documented in a paper2 I have written with several of the
world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric
carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be
less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and
rising about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to
keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)
is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.
These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how
the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations
showing how the world is responding to today’s carbon dioxide amount. The
consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond
extermination of species and future sea level rise.
Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward.
Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting
the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and
southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further
unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.
Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds
of millions of people. These glaciers are receding world-wide, in the
Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear, leaving their
rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon
dioxide is reversed.
Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home for one-third of the
species in the sea.
Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including
warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a
direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life dependent on carbonate
shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes
more acid.
Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice
and the great ice sheets at today’s carbon dioxide amount, show that we
have already gone too far. We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to
preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is
still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural
practices, but just barely – time is running out.
Requirements to halt carbon
dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal
towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is
captured and stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving
global warming.
Oil is used in vehicles where it is impractical to capture
the carbon. But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must also
ensure that the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil
from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason
that prices are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually.
Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free
energy promptly.
Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable
energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil
companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco
companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated,
including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global
warming.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and
are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my
opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and
nature.
Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no
consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity
would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and
intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species
would leave a more desolate planet.
If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We
must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block
fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from
public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no
solution. They yield continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted
self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term
energy source.
Moving from fossil fuels to
clean energy is challenging, yet transformative in ways that will be
welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import
food from halfway around the world, for example, even with healthier
products available from nearby fields. Local
produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact
that climate change damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne
by the public.
A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a
carbon tax. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend3 is needed to
wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the
marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.
Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the
first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to
the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for
children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual’s bank
account.
Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On
the contrary, you can bet that low and middle income people will find ways
to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead. Profligate energy users will
have to pay for their excesses.
Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur
innovation, making our products more competitive on international markets.
Carbon emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies
grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel emissions will
decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is
possible.
Washington likes to spend
our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of high-priced lobbyists in alligator
shoes help Congress decide where to spend, and in turn the lobbyists’
clients provide “campaign” money.
The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our
planet, creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that
as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: “One hundred
percent dividend or fight!”
The next President must make a national low-loss electric
grid an imperative. It will allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant
fossil fuels for power generation. Technology exists for direct-current
high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in
less than a decade and expanded analogous to interstate highways.
Government must also change utility regulations so that
profits do not depend on selling ever more energy, but instead increase
with efficiency. Building code and vehicle efficiency requirements must be
improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.
The fossil-industry maintains its strangle-hold on Washington
via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to
rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in
the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in
developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing
countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will
cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain
from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.
We must establish fair agreements with other countries.
However, our own tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much
to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If
necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative countries can
level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.
Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short.
The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to
pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to
address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold
great expectations.
1
Dr. James E. Hansen, a physicist by training, directs the NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, a laboratory of the Goddard Space Flight
Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute, but he
speaks as a private citizen today at the National Press Club and at a
Briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global
Warming.
2
Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? J. Hansen, M. Sato, P.
Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Raymo, D.L.
Royer, J.C. Zachos, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1135
3
The proposed “tax and 100% dividend” is based largely on the cap and
dividend approach described by Peter Barnes in “Who Owns the Sky: Our
Common Assets and the Future of Capitalism”, Island Press, Washington,
D.C., 2001 (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=149&contentID=3867).
Committee Examines Political
Interference with Climate Science
Video of the March 19 2007 Hearing
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
---- JUNE 20, 2008
----
BUSH INVOKES
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
TO SAVE BIG OIL FROM CO2 RESPONSIBILITY
"I don't think
we've had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president; where
the president of the United States may have been involved in acting
contrary to law, and the evidence that would determine that question for
Congress in exercising our oversight is being blocked by an assertion of
executive privilege." Henry Waxman, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform
White House Asserts Executive Privilege in EPA Investigation Erica Werner
AP June
20, 2008
Waxman contends the White House
intervened with EPA to produce more industry-friendly outcomes in setting
new smog standards and denying California and more than a dozen other
states permission to cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.
For
months, the Committee has been investigating EPA's decision to prevent
California and other states from reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
motor vehicles and its decision to adopt new ozone air quality standards
weaker than those recommended by the agency's scientific experts.
These investigations have shown that the decisions in these
important environmental matters were made not at EPA, but in the White
House. In both cases, the scientists, the agency career staff, and EPA
Administrator Johnson wanted to take stronger action to protect the
environment. And in both cases, the White House rejected the agency's
position.
Today the President has asserted executive privilege to
prevent the Committee from learning why he and his staff overruled EPA.
There are thousands of internal White House documents that would show
whether the President and his staff acted lawfully. But the President has
said they must be kept from Congress and the public.
In the case of the California motor vehicle standards, we
learned that EPA's experts and
career staff all supported granting the California petition. In a
briefing prepared for Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA's own lawyers said: "we don't believe there are any good arguments
against granting the waiver. All of the arguments ... are likely to lose
in court if we are sued."
Administrator Johnson listened and was prepared to support a
partial approval to California's request. But then the White House
intervened. In December, after secret communications with White House
officials, Administrator Johnson ignored the law and the evidence and
denied California's petition.
In the case of the ozone standards, the same pattern
happened. We learned that EPA's
expert advisory panel unanimously recommended a new standard for
protecting the environment. After considering all of the
alternatives, Administrator Johnson agreed with the new approach.
He was opposed, however, by industry and Susan Dudley, the
Administrator of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. And once again, the White House intervened.
On the evening before the final
rule was released, President Bush rejected the unanimous recommendation of
both EPA's experts and Administrator Johnson and instructed EPA to abandon
the new standard.
The Clean Air Act is clear about what can be considered and
what cannot be considered when EPA makes decisions under its authority. In
both cases, the EPA's methodical and scientific process pointed to
specific outcomes. In both cases, the outcome dramatically changed when
the White House became involved.
This Committee has a fundamental obligation to learn the
truth about what actually happened on these critical health and
environmental decisions. That is why we have been seeking documents in
both cases that would provide important details about the President's role
in directing Administrator Johnson's actions. This morning I have
been informed that the White House is asserting executive privilege over
thousands of documents the Committee is seeking. This is an
extraordinary step. Administrator Johnson has repeatedly insisted he
reached his decisions on California's petition and the new ozone standard
on his own, relying on his best judgment. Today's assertion of
executive privilege raises serious questions about Administrator Johnson's
credibility and the involvement of the President. Without the
remaining documents, it will be nearly impossible to fully understand the
President's role in overruling the unanimous recommendations of EPA's own
experts.
We had scheduled a vote on a contempt resolution for this
morning for Mr. Johnson and Ms. Dudley. We will not have that vote in
light of the executive privilege claim. I want to talk with my colleagues
on both sides about this new development and consider all our options
before deciding how we should proceed.
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND
STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
AND SUSAN DUDLEY, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY
AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WHITE HOUSE, IN
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESSFOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS DULY ISSUED BY THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM U.S. House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform
June 20, 2008
"SHAMEFUL, OUTRAGEOUS AND
IRRESPONSIBLE!" Governor O'Malley, Maryland "A DERELICTION OF DUTY!"
Senator Frank Lautenberg STATE
GOVERNORS EXPRESS EXTREME OUTRAGE AT EPA DENIAL OF CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS WAIVER
January 24, 2007 FED EPA DIRECTOR JOHNSON GRILLED BY CALIFORNIA'S BOXER ON C-SPAN
Hertz Iceland recently became the first
company to offer fully hydrogen-powered cars for rent. The first hydrogen
fuel station opened in Reykjavik in 2003, which makes filling up one of
Hertz’s three converted Toyota Prius cars a breeze.
For those who want the hydrogen
experience but who don’t want to drive, the first hydrogen powered
commercial vessel started sailing the Icelandic waters in April. The
Elding boat offers whale watching tours for EUR 43 (USD 66) a trip and has
got good reviews. Not only is the hydrogen-powered engine environmentally
friendly, but it is easy to shut down, which allows whale watchers to
enjoy the sounds of whales swimming and blowing, something a diesel engine
on most boats does not allow.
The hydrogen powered ships and cars are just a few ways that
Iceland is using to become a carbon-neutral nation. Already, the country
derives 80 per cent of its electricity from hydropower projects and most
of the rest of its electricity from geothermal projects. Transportation,
including cars and fishing boats, remain the largest challenge to
Iceland’s becoming carbon neutral and if the Elding and the converted
Prius are a success, Iceland could be well on its way to achieving its
environmental goals.
"Gas prices? It's not our fault!" Republicans Reveal Energy Crisis Caused by
Democrats
THE SOLUTION: DRILL, SUCK AND
SELL UNTIL ITS GONE.
THEN LET YOUR KIDS DEAL WITH IT.
“I keep no secret from you that when
there were some new finds, I told them, ‘no, leave it in the ground, with
grace from God, our children need it’.” King Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia
Reuters
April 13, 2008
"We are in this situation because
of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil. The direction our
nation needs to go in, and where California is already headed, is toward
greater innovation in new technologies and new fuel choices for
consumers." California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Schwarzenegger Opposes Offshore Oil Drilling International Herald Tribune/AP
June 18, 2008
Shooting the Moon on Renewables Steve Hargreaves
CNNMoney June 19, 2008 While McCain wants to drill more oil to fight $4
gas, Obama calls for an 'Apollo project' aimed at alternative energy.
...The presumed Democratic nominee wants to fund renewable energy to the
tune of $15 billion a year for 10 years, paid for by auctioning off
permits to companies that emit greenhouse gases.
Floodwaters to Widen 'Dead Zone' in Gulf of Mexico Seth Borenstein
AP June
20, 2008
Scientists are worried that the jump
in corn production triggered by heightened demand for ethanol fuel could
worsen the dead zone because of the increased use of fertilizers.
Honda says it expects
to lease a few dozen units in the U.S. and Japan within a year, and about
200 units within three years.
Hollywood Stars Driving Hydrogen Cars Dawn C. Chmielewski & Ken
Bensinger Los Angeles Times
June 13, 2008
Fancy cars have long been integral
to one-upmanship among L.A.'s glitterati. But instead of Bentleys and
Bugattis, Hollywood's must-have vehicles of the moment are green. And
nothing conveys extreme exclusivity and earth-friendliness like a hydrogen
car.
"Everything is going up in price.
There is no escape." Ramirez de la O, Mexican economist
Mexico Freezes Prices on Food Dudley Althaus Houston
Chronicle (TX) June 18,
2008
The price of corn tortillas went up 22 percent early
last month, according to the federal consumer protection agency, while the
price of rice has spiked by 40 percent since the beginning of the year.
...Mexico imports some 40 percent of its gasoline, most of it from the
United States.
BY ESTABLISHING THE
GREAT ETHANOL FRAUD, THE IDIOTIC BURNING OF PRECIOUS FOOD FOR FUEL, IN
PLACE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF REAL RENEWABLE ENERGY - UNTAPPED, ABUNDANT,
FREE ENERGY THAT WOULD THREATEN CENTRALIZED FOSSIL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY'S
STRANGLEHOLD ON THE WORLD - THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AT THE BEHEST OF
ITS OIL MASTERS, HAS SET INTO MOTION AN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVIL SO
SOULLESS AND UNCONTROLLABLE THAT IT THREATENS TO DRIVE STRUGGLING HUMANITY
INTO A CHAOS THAT MAY RIVAL OR EXCEED THAT OF THE WORST OF THE
PREVIOUS CENTURY. - RDM When Third World nations do not
have food to export and First World nations are having their crops
destroyed by inclement weather, where does the food come from?
If current trends intensify, the food riots that two dozen countries have
already experienced will move to America.
Heavy Rains Drowning U.S. Crop Production Hopes The Trumpet
Philadelphia Church of God
June 11, 2008
BUILDING A WORLD THAT WORKS
TM
WWW. HYDROGENCOMMERCE .COM
"Oil! 
"Oil!
