Fuel Me Once, Shame On You

This was the best they could do?

The Obama administration's sweeping fuel-economy and emissions initiative announced Tuesday reopens a fierce debate over tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety.

[...]The plan requires automakers to sell cars that average 35.5 miles-per-gallon by 2016, a little more and a lot sooner than current law. It has been heralded as a brilliant solution to the nettlesome mix of problems related to fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions.

Oh brother!

So many problems in this nation could be solved if we actually broke our addiction to oil (perhaps the one truth Bush spoke in eight years). Right now, we are spending more in military aid and supporting troops in the Middle East than the net value of all the crude we are getting from there.

And the best step we could take at this time is to, you know, tweak things a little?

Here's what should have been done:

1) Raise the CAFE standards to 40 mpg. The 2016 time table is fine, for what it is, but at 35.5 mpg Detroit can meet that with minimal disruption. Since Detroit has been relying on the US government for twenty years as a bailout plan, perhaps a little discomfort for them will go a long way.

2) Remove the exemption for light trucks and SUVs. Factor them in as a fleet on their own right. In fact, I'd go one step further and insist these be reclassified as trucks, subject to the rules of the road and insurance and licensing requirements that truckers have to meet (including bonding).

We can, of course, offer some form of assistance to people whom this might impact adversely, like small farmers or poor people with large families who absolutely must have an SUV, minivan, or pickup truck, but lets face facts: any asshole who drives a Hummer to Starbucks because of that three degree incline on the entrance ramp at the mall parking lot will likely grasp with both hands the right to be called a "trucker". We can even throw in a hat.

This is a legtimate beef, by the way. SUVs and pickups use more gas, cause more wear and tear on the nation's infrastructure and are responsible for more fatalities and injuries than cars.

Yes, I'm aware of the apparent rise in fatalities when automakers increase their car fleet, but look at those accidents more closely.

First, automakers in an attempt to cut corners make vital safety components out of cheaper material, rather than re-engineer a car for safety. Second, many of those fatalities occured in accidents with an SUV or pick up!

Substantially reduce the number of those on the road, and auto fatalities will decline permanently. It's a simple matter of physics. When two masses collide, the smaller mass usually bears the brunt of the damage.

Of course, looking at how people who use four wheel drive vehicles behave, apparently, they believe the laws of physics no longer apply to them.

This is much like the steroids argument: if you want to make it a fair game, then take the supercharged ubersized vehicles off the road.

Thank You

I'm not sure where to begin, but I remember from my journalism classes that the lede should always have the most important fact in any story, or at least the most immediate one.

Thank you, all of you. Based on the final vote total, and barring any judge's decision to the contrary (remember, it's not your vote that counts but who counts the vote), Simply Left Behind has won the 2007 Weblog Award for the Best Blog, 5001st through 6750th...

This blog had much stacked against it: Whiskeyfire draws 30 times the number of visitors than Simply Left Behind. Had he wanted to, Thers could have crushed SLB. Likewise for The Stupid Shall Be Punished, the "liberal" from Idaho (which means by New York standards, pretty conservative, but I intend over the next few days to explore that blog further), which outdraws SLB by a factor of ten.

In truth, I missed that I was a finalist until the second day of voting, when I got an e-mail from someone who stumbled across the category. So not only was I outgunned, I was taken off-guard.

I truly did not expect to be named a finalist. So many awards in Blogtopia (© Skippy) attract so many entries, and this little pony of a blog never seemed to get noticed amdist all the thoroughbreds. I was thrilled that Miss Cellania, among others (including me...I'm never above a cheap self-promoting stunt :-D ), named me for consideration.

And shocked when I found myself in a race. After lacing...OK, velcroing (I'm from Noo Yawk, and need to move fast), and starting from several hundred votes down, I decided to give it a shot.

After all, it may be the only one I do win. I was in the right place at the right time, but I have a fairly loyal opposition who was determined to see me lose. How do I know this?

From a few comments sprinkled about Blogtopia (© Skippy) whereby people admitted in the open their dislike for me, and hinted that they would stop me from winning by any means at their disposal.

Knowing the nature (and identity, I should add) of some of these people, and guessing at the rest, I realized it would take something like 900 votes to win.

I also know that, as SLB gains notoriety, and is considered for more awards, I will be up against serious competition from the right-wing, which as I noted earlier this week, can self-organize like amoebae on a turd. This is, in large part, why I think this might be SLB's one shot at the brass ring.

Both of these, the right wing presence as well as my troll-ring, play to a weakness of mine: I like to goad people who don't like me-- and are disagreeable about it-- on, which just makes them angrier at me, and just makes them more determined to take me down a peg.

Which plays to a strength of mine, one I'm pretty sure my fanbois didn't take into account: my determination. I want to thank my fanbois for making me care about this race. When I first realized how far behind I was, I was merely determined to put up a good show, maybe latch down third, with a few hundred votes, make SLB respectable.

When I saw the enmity and spite being posted towards me, I wanted this! I had something to prove. There were times during the past week when I thought about conceding that I couldn't catch up, that this troll-presence had too big a lead and too big an advantage and hated me more than I wanted the win. And then I found more strength, and forced myself to work just that much harder...I thought if I kept it close enough until Wednesday, I could dig up a few hundred or so one-off votes around the Internets.

SLB had a lot more going for it than my determination, however. It had you folks, first of all. There may not be as many of you as so many other blogs seem to attract, but you are loyal and generous. As I said in my e-mail to my mailing list last night, this blog isn't about me, even if it features me and my opinions. It's about you:

I believe in this blog as an example of what's right about the Internet, a place to read and think and discuss, and to take something away from that can make a difference.

And YOU guys make that difference! Me, I just write. It's you guys that are the inspiration for all this.

I started this blog after being egged on by katrina, precisely because she read in my words on other blogs that which needed to be let out: my mind. I want to thank her, especially, for giving me the courage and idea for SLB. And I want to thank ThumbPer, too, for his wonderful support of this blog, and allowing me to annoy him (and you) weekly for his posts.

Too, SLB's win as a group effort had a lot more going for it from you guys. I don't think my opposition counted on the fact that among my friends I count more than one OCD sufferer. To my friends who really dug in deep and talked up this blog, thank you.

Another asset is a daughter at one of the biggest public universities in the world, who has friends that span the globe...and who was desperate for tickets to a concert this weekend. To you, my child, I owe a large vote of thanks.

I should also like to praise Thers and Whiskeyfire. It's a fine blog...hell, James WOLCOTT has referenced it, and for too long it has not appeared on my blogroll, nor been darkened by my shadow, an oversight I intend to correct. Thers has been nothing but gracious and ethical about this entire thing even in the face of my own belchings, and deserves a heartfelt thank you. He rocks!

Even Bubblehead has shown a good sense of humour about all this, and I thank him, despite his apparent hope that I'd be distracted by the Kucinich impeachment intiative...as I do to all the other contestants, each of whom deserved his or her place on the roster. Any of them deserved this award as much as SLB

I owe a very large debt of gratitude to John Amato, Nicole Belle, Blue Gal, and especially Mike Finn over at Crooks&Liars, for allowing me to post links to the voting from their blog, and to Mike in particular for allowing me a turn at the wheel of his Blog Round Up. Mike has always been particularly kind to SLB, posting links and such.

Which brings up another debt I have: to Dame Fortune, Lady Luck, or the love of Jesus in my sea-blue eyes. If this contest had been any other week, I likely would have been creamed like a porn star in a "multiples" money shot, but it happened the one week that I was guest blogging at an enormous site. I cannot discount the great cosmic wheel.

The record will show that SLB beat Whiskeyfire. The truth is very different. Since history is written by the victors, let me set the record straight: SLB captured the most votes because of the graciousness of Thers.

But Whiskeyfire won the race off the tally sheet.

We're Full Up!

This is really bad news, because carbon sequestration was one possible way to prevent a worsening global warming crisis:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen 35% faster than expected since 2000, says a study.
International scientists found that inefficiency in the use of fossil fuels increased levels of CO2 by 17%.

The other 18% came from a decline in the natural ability of land and oceans to soak up CO2 from the atmosphere.

About half of emissions from human activity are absorbed by natural "sinks" but the efficiency of these sinks has fallen, the study suggests.

Imagine a sponge. Drip water on the sponge when it's dry and not much of it gets out. The sponge absorbs a lot of the water.

Now imagine that sponge is as full as it's going to get. The water basically just rolls off the sponge.

That's what we've done with our carbon sinks. What are those sinks? Well, the oceans, for one. Remember, carbon isn't only created in the form of carbon dioxide. We've been dumping megatons of carbon in other forms into our oceans in industrial and human wastes.

Yup. You crap carbon.

Carbon has an unique ability to bond with other elements. In a balanced system, this can work miracles.

For example, take one atom of carbon and one of calcium, and you have the building blocks of a coral reef.

But, take TWO carbon atoms and one calcium atom and you get calcium bicarbonate, which works great on your stomach acid, but actually destroys coral.

Too, the oceans do a massive job of scrubbing the atmosphere. Plankton, which are probably the simplest form of vegetation on the planet, commit photosynthesis, taking carbon dioxide out of the air, and converting it to oxygen, absoring the carbon for use in their calcium carbonate skeletons. Thus starts the oceanic carbon cycle, ultimately sequestering massive amounts of carbon at the bottom of the ocean in decaying dead fish.

But look what has happened: as global warming has intensified the weather patterns over the oceans, winds have picked up. There's still plenty of carbon dioxide to go around, but it's harder for plankton to get at...after all, do you find it easier to eat when the boat is rocking?

Too, increasing carbon levels, particularly in the form of carbon dioxide, makes the oceans more acidic, which kills off the plankton. So you have fewer plankton, more carbon, and it's harder to get at.

Worse. Right now, the carbon that is sequestered deep in the ocean stays deep in the ocean because of temperature and density differences between the top and bottom waters, effectively forming a wall that mostly prevents mixing except where the oceans upwell and then over geologic time scales. If temperatures begin to rise higher in the ocean, the forces that created this halocline will cease functioning, which means that the oceanic waters will start mixing up more, bringing more carbon up to the ocean surfaces.

Which sinks (pardon the pun) any chance of using the deep oceans to store carbon that we might scrub out of our wastes.

Another sink, of course, is vegetation, which absorbs carbon dioxide as well as carbon in the soil (this is partially how burned forests bounce back so quickly). Any vegetation will do this, but trees are particularly efficient at scrubbing carbon out of the air and ground: extensive canopies, root systems, and large energy needs combine to make them oxygen factories.

Here, too, weather has played a prominent part, because as the earth warms...well, let's take a quick look at the hydrological cycle: temperatures rise, water evaporates, clouds form, rain falls. Basic physics tells us that warmer air can absorb more moisture, so literally, evaporation starts to suck the moisture out of the ground, parching the land. Now you have plants dying of thirst. Too, you have a higher risk of wildfires (we've seen that this week), which destroy vegetation outright.

Remove vegetation, either through clearing land or burning it out or simply creating a new desert, and you remove a major carbon sink.

We've reached, and passed, a tipping point in global warming, and I think there are some problems man cannot solve.

The Bush Energy "Policy" Takes Shape

When President Bush insisted in his various State Of The Union addresses that America needed to break its addiction to oil, many people, many sober, rational people, thought he meant finding and using alternative energy sources that would be less polluting than oil.

Apparently not. Two stories snuck under the velvet rope of the mainstream media that clearly delineate what the administration is thinking (and more important, doing) about energy policy, as well as global warming. Item #1:

HEILIGENDAMM, Germany (Reuters) - The United States will refuse to agree to targets and timetables for cutting greenhouse gases at a summit of the Group of Eight starting on Wednesday, a senior adviser to President George W. Bush said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been pushing for an agreement at the June 6-8 meeting that global cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 are needed to curb global warming.

"At this point in time we are not prepared to adopt that proposal," James Connaughton told reporters hours before a lunch between Bush and Merkel. He said he hoped the G8 would come up with a "common vision" rather than details of cuts.

Connaughton, the head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said Bush was working on his own plan announced last week to get the top 15 greenhouse gas emitters to agree to cuts in emissions by the end of 2008.

OK, just sounds like typical Bush intransigence, a sign that the cowboy lives on, despite the fact he rides sidesaddle.

Item #2:

LONDON (Reuters) - Hedge funds are only likely to participate in coal once it has become a fully liquid commodity, but the banks are already active players, the head of electronic trading platform globalCOAL said on Wednesday.

"Over the last year, we have seen more involvement from the banks," Eoghan Cunningham, Chief Executive Officer of globalCOAL, told the Reuters Global Energy Summit.

Speaking in London, he said Morgan Stanley (MS.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER.N: Quote, Profile, Research and Australia's Macquarie Bank Limited were involved in physical trade and others were "coming in behind."

"It's partly because of the difference between physical and financial. They can arbitrage," he said.

Admittedly, this story arises because there is, finally, a commodities market for coal.

Coal is far and away the most abundant energy source on the planet, and the United States has been called "the Saudi Arabia of coal" (China would have to be Iraq or Iran, in that analogy).

The interesting part of that story revolves around the involvement of hedge funds. Hedge funds will generally stay directly out of this market as much as possible, to avoid as many regulators as they can. Hedge funds make money in ways that are, while perfectly legal, not necessarily for the fainthearted, often investing in contrary positions in the same market, industry or even company, and then making a profit on timing discrepancies.

In short, they devour information and find the weak spots. Sometimes this means finding out things the general public will not know for quite some time and loading up big bets on the outcome.

That this commodities market is coming on-line worldwide now, and that hedge funds have started sniffing the waters, AND the Bush administration stance going into the G8 summit regarding Angela Merkel's proposal, cannot be coincidences.

Indeed, a quick persual of the advertisers who bought air time on the Sunday morning talk shows this past weekend indicates that the American coal industry has starting selling its line of bullshit that coal can ever be made less polluting that natural gas or oil.

And yet, you may recall that in May, Bush called for a "Twenty In Ten" program to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% in the next ten years.

Depends on what you call "reduce". Here's how they will measure it, from his own words:

was pleased to receive the Energy Information Administration's report today, which includes its "flash estimate" of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions for 2006. The report shows that emissions declined 78 million metric tons over 2005, or 1.3 percent, while our economy grew 3.3 percent. That means CO2 intensity decreased by 4.5 percent - the largest annual improvement since 1990 - putting us well ahead of what is needed annually to meet my greenhouse gas intensity reduction goal of 18% by 2012.

So while greenhouse gas emissions declined by only 1.3%, Bush is claiming more than three times that gain by adding in economic growth! My god! What's he's claiming then is that even activities that in no way contribute to greenhouse gas emissions (online sales, let's say) will be used to amplify an insignificant reduction in those emissions!

This is cynicism at it's uberworst, but it does open the door to allowing the shift to coal, in any form, as a legitimate "greenhouse gas reduction".