Until recently, most of the attention paid to these pollutants has centered around their detrimental effects on air quality and human health – the pollutants include fine particles such as black carbon and gases that form smog.

But because these pollutants disappear from the atmosphere relatively quickly, they also give us an important opportunity to put the brakes on the rapid rise in global temperature. If people around the world can reduce the amounts that they emit, everyone will see an immediate benefit and help avoid dangerous tipping points in the climate system over the next few decades.

My colleagues Nadine Unger and Drew Shindell at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and I just published a paper in the journal Atmospheric Environment that offers additional insight into the climatic role of these pollutants. Our findings come at a time when activity on domestic and international climate policy in general and on black carbon policy in particular is ramping up.

For this paper, we delved into emissions from two key sectors, transportation and power generation, for the U.S. and the world. We primarily used a global climate model developed at NASA GISS that simulates the transport of pollutants by wind and the chemical and physical reactions that transform the pollutants into smog and particles. The model also calculates the warming or cooling effect of the different pollutants.

One of our important findings is that transportation is a particularly good sector to target quickly for emissions controls because it produces a lot of black carbon (think: diesel exhaust) and ozone-producing gases, in addition to CO₂. In contrast, emissions cuts in the power generation sector do not offer the same short-term opportunity. That sector emits little black carbon, but it does create much sulfate particle pollution. Sulfate particles are bad for air quality and acid rain, but in the short term actually counteract the warming effects of CO₂ emissions. Of course, it is essential to clean up the power sector to address long-term climate damage from CO₂, as well as health problems from sulfate particles, ozone smog and other pollutants. But short-term opportunities to slow global warming are more significant in the transportation sector.

We also considered a hypothetical example of switching the transportation sector to a zero-emissions or electric power source, such as in plug-in hybrid electric or pure electric technologies.The result: A hefty benefit for the climate.

The switch to a zero-emissions or electric power source would decrease the warming effect if you just consider CO₂ emissions.  (Though increased CO₂ emissions from the electricity generation sector would offset the decrease in direct emissions from vehicles to a certain extent.)

But reducing the non-CO₂ pollutants provides even more benefit for the climate. Zero-emission or electric transportation would greatly reduce black carbon emissions.  The short-term benefits to be gained from focus on the transportation sector are important for policymakers to note.

Last week's announcement by President Obama on national greenhouse gas emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks is a significant step in this direction. Further action is needed to clean up the exhaust from existing heavy-duty trucks and other diesel-powered transport, both in this country and internationally.

Unger and her colleagues are working to expand the published analysis to include a full suite of economic sectors, including industry, non-road transport and agriculture, and additional greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.

Look for another paper in the near future.

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Environmental Defense Fund has uncovered a document that provides a disturbing look at the White House's views on global warming science, views that were revealed as part of White House efforts to interfere with progress at EPA. On June 20, the White House Office of Management and Budget transmitted a fax to EPA with numerous comments on a critically important EPA technical document examining how global warming endangers human health and the environment.

The summary below highlights a few remarkable examples from the White House fax [PDF].

Example 1 – On Abrupt Changes (page 58, comment A29).

EPA scientists: "Abrupt climate changes are an important consideration because, if triggered, they could occur so quickly and unexpectedly that human or natural systems would have difficulty adapting to them (NRC, 2002)." See p. 58.

White House comment A29: "If referring to changes that take decades, one would think that human systems could adapt. Not sure what this is referring to."

Example 2 – On Hurricane Intensity (page 67, comment A39).

EPA scientists: "The IPCC (2007d) also projects likely increases in intense tropical cyclone activity as described in Section 6(b). Increases in tropical cyclone intensity are linked to increases in the risk of deaths, injuries, water and foodborne diseases as well as post-traumatic stress disorders (IPCC, 2007b)."

White House comment A39: "Is this relevant to the US?"

EPA scientists document the devastating impacts of Hurricane Katrina only a few lines later: "In 2005, Hurricane Katrina claimed over 1800 lives in the vicinity of the low-lying U.S. Gulf Coast and lower income groups were most affected (Graumann et al., 2005 in Nicholls et al.; Guidry and Margolis, 2005 in Confalonieri et al., 2007)."

Example 3 – On Water Contamination (pages 67, 91 and 92; comments A38, A65 and A66).

EPA scientists: "Flooding may also lead to contamination of waters with dangerous chemicals, heavy metals, or other hazardous substances, from storage or from chemicals already in the environment (Confalonieri et al, 2007)." (page 67)

White House comment A38: "What waters? The SDWA and EPA regulations protect our drinking water supply – thus clarification here is needed."

EPA scientists: "Increasing nutrient and sediment loads due to more intense runoff events will negatively affect water quality, possibly rendering a source unusable unless special treatment is introduced." (page 91)

White House comment A65: "Unusable for what? IF you are talking about drinking water we have a regulatory structure to protect us. Please clarify."

EPA scientists: "[E]xtreme events, such as floods and droughts, will likely reduce water quality. Increased erosion and runoff rates during flood events will wash pollutants (e.g., organic matter, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals) from soils into water bodies, with subsequent impacts to species and ecosystems." (page 92)

White House comment A66: "Are you referring to drinking water? Please clarify – we have a regulatory structure in place to ensure quality."

Example 4 – On Harm from Global Warming (page 92, comment A68).

EPA scientists: "Climate-induced environmental changes (e.g., loss of glaciers, reduced river discharge, reduced snow fall in winter) will affect park tourism, winter sport activities, inland water sports (e.g., fishing, rafting, boating), and other recreational uses dependent upon precipitation (Field et al., 2007). While the North American tourism industry acknowledges the important influence of climate, its impacts have not been analyzed comprehensively."

White House comment A68: "Can we talk about a longer warm season and the positive impacts on watersports as well to balance? This should be added."

Ultimately, instead of forcing EPA to accept the White House comments, the White House pursued a cabinet-level campaign to undermine EPA action. Nevertheless, these comments speak volumes about the misguided views within the White House Office of Management and Budget that have long obstructed and derailed EPA action to address global warming.

This post is by Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at Environmental Defense Fund, and former attorney in EPA's General Counsel's office.

Environmental Defense Fund has been working with some of the largest commercial fleets – including Fortune 500 titans Abbott, DuPont and Owens Corning – to identify ways to reduce fuel consumption, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions. Our efforts have delivered results. Fleets that fully implemented the program outlined below reduced their emissions by an average of 14 percent, and reduced lifecycle operating costs by 4 percent.

We first started working with commercial passenger vehicle fleets in 2005 when we partnered with PHH Arval, one of the world's largest fleet management service providers. At the time, most fleets were focusing their environmental efforts on a technological approach. They included a limited number of alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles, but made no changes in most of their operation. Together with PHH, we came up with a more effective plan that consists of five simple steps:

1. Measure emissions.
2. Consider projected emissions when selecting new vehicles.
3. Work with drivers to optimize fuel-economy.
4. Offset emissions that aren't reduced.
5. Report on the progress of reduction efforts.

Using this process, our partners are demonstrating that small improvements in a large number of vehicles can make a significant difference. Plus their initiative is causing ripple effects.

At two recent fleet events – American Fleet Leasing Conference in Phoenix, and the first ever GreenFleet conference in Chicago – nearly every speaker emphasized that fleets need to quantify and reduce their emissions. Fleet managers shared many innovative stories on ways they've been able to do this. Pepsico, for example, changed some delivery routes to avoid loading-dock congestion. Abbott Laboratories encouraged its sales staff to choose more efficient vehicles by up-fitting those vehicles with popular – and usually driver-paid – options.

The greatest sign of progress has been the response of other fleet management companies. PHH Arval, with our help, became the first company in North America to offer a comprehensive greenhouse gas management service. Now their largest competitors, including ARI, LeasePlan, Wheels, and Donlen, are following suit with programs that measure and reduce fleet emissions.

With 7 million passenger vehicles in commercial operations, there's a huge opportunity to reduce emissions. The current efforts are just a beginning. Company fleets can cut their global warming pollution and fuel expenditures even more. In these days of $4/gallon gas, that's a big win-win.

This post is by Jason Mathers, a project manager in the Corporate Partnerships Program at Environmental Defense Fund.

Source: Architecture2030, based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

From Architecture2030:

According to the US Energy Information Administration, oil production from drilling offshore in the outer continental shelf wouldn't begin until around the year 2017. Once begun, it wouldn't reach peak production until about 2030 when it would produce only 200,000 barrels of oil per day (in yellow above). This would supply a meager 1.2% of total US annual oil consumption (just 0.6% of total US energy consumption). And, the offshore oil would be sold back to the US at the international rate, which today is $106 a barrel. So, the oil produced by offshore drilling would not only be a "drop in the bucket", it would be expensive, which translates to "no relief at the pump".

Gernot Wagner is an economist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund.

• Not produce much oil.
• Not lower gas prices.
• Harm the environment.

If you (or someone you know) does not believe this, read on!

Drilling Cannot Produce Enough Oil

A recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) assessment says there is "considerable uncertainty regarding both the size and quality of the oil resources that exist in ANWR." Even if 7.7 billion barrels a day could be recovered (as estimated in one government study), "the current upper limit to ANWR oil production is the transportation capacity of TAPS" (Trans Alaska Pipeline System), or 2.136 million barrels per day. To put this in context, the U.S. burns 21 million barrels per day.

Plus, DOE says that the maximum potential capacity – accessing all the oil that's available to be pumped – would not be realized until 2026.

ANWR oil would be too little too late. Our planning for 2026 should not be centered around oil, but rather on new energy technologies. As Thomas Friedman said in a recent interview, we should be shouting "Invent, invent, invent!" not "Drill, drill, drill!"

I'm actually not against drilling. What I'm against is making that the center of our focus because we are on the eve of a new revolution, the energy technology revolution. It would be, Tom, as if on the eve of the IT revolution, the revolution of PCs and the internet, someone was up there standing and demanding, "IBM Selectric typewriters, IBM Selectric typewriters." That's what "drill, drill, drill" is the equivalent of today.

It Would Not Lower Oil Prices

EDF economist Gernot Wagner explained to me why drilling won't lead to lower oil and gas prices. What's mainly driving high oil prices today, he said, is increased demand. And the increase, in large part, is due to the newly mobile millions around the world who've been lifted out of poverty in the last few decades.

DOE predicts that world oil demand between 2010 and 2015 will increase by over 7 percent, and 30 percent by 2030. The U.S. only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, and less than one-fifth of that is in federal offshore waters. So even if we were able to tap into the full 3 percent, it would scarcely make a dent in the demand-supply balance.

Then there is this inconvenient fact: OPEC would have the final say on whether increased U.S. production lowered world prices. OPEC easily could scale back total production by the same amount to wipe out any price effects. They did it just this week in response to falling oil prices.

Drilling will not reduce fuel prices, and will not make us more energy independent. The only way to achieve these goals is to reduce our dependence on oil – foreign or domestic – through fuel economy, and a cap on carbon emissions. A carbon cap will spur innovation and shift us into a green energy economy.

It Would Harm the Environment

If drilling for oil in ANWR could possibly do us some good, then perhaps one could make the argument that we should do it – even if it did bring harm to wildlife and ecosystems. But to harm ecosystems for no benefit at all is just plain stupid – and it would cause harm.

The northern coastal plain of ANWR – the proposed area for drilling – has been characterized by the "drill, drill, drill" crowd as a "wasteland". But, says EDF geographer Peter Black, it's in fact a vital part of the ANWR ecosystem. Just because it doesn't look like an appealing tourist spot doesn't mean it isn't worth protecting.

Nor does it make sense to argue that the area opened for drilling would be very small. First of all, these areas tend to expand. The nearby Prudhoe Bay oil fields were originally supposed to comprise 2100 acres, but today they spread over 640,000 acres. Plus, as EDF wildlife expert Michael Bean notes, "The effects of development extend well beyond the physical limits of that footprint."

And there's no question that it would do harm. Oil spills in nearby Prudhoe Bay are common and the consequences are devastating (see this Wilderness Society report [PDF] for pictures and statistics).

There's another issue to consider: Drilling in a wildlife refuge is a slippery slope. What's next? Drilling in wilderness areas? National Parks? What's the value of a protective designation if the land isn't protected?

There Are Other Places to Drill

ANWR isn't our only option for domestic drilling. There are millions of acres already open to drilling where oil companies have not yet explored. As my Mom used to say, finish what's on your plate before you ask for seconds.

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

People are proposing all kinds of extreme measures to lower gasoline costs, including offshore drilling in areas that would destroy ecosystems despite no additional gas (or savings) for at least a decade.

But there are simple things you can do to immediately lower your gasoline costs by an average of 15 percent. The steps are outlined in a useful new Web site on EcoDriving sponsored by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The site is user-friendly, and offers a variety of educational tools, including an informative video and extensive tips on fuel-efficient driving and maintenance practices.

Yesterday, a quiet public hearing on a hot August day in Washington D.C. drew a surprisingly large crowd. The official reason for the hearing, conducted by the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA), was to take comment on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for revised Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. A lawsuit forced NHTSA to draft an EIS that assessed global climate change impacts – including health – from improved fuel economy in the U.S. car and light truck fleet.

The 400-page document is technical, turgid, incomplete and misleading, and asserts that it is not possible to distinguish between the future health and climate impacts of a 41 mpg fuel economy versus the present 25 mpg. Needless to say, EDF does not agree with that conclusion or the methods used to come to it, but the comments at the hearing were far broader than just the EIS. Most striking was the lineup of citizens who called on NHTSA to take definitive action on climate change to help protect their future.

After a representative of the auto manufacturers told NHTSA that it didn't really have to do an EIS, a third-generation automobile dealer from Maine spoke of the unmet consumer demand for high mileage cars, and the failure of U.S. auto manufacturers to perceive, predict and meet that demand – a strong counter to the official industry representative.

Next, a series of twenty-somethings – some in suits, some in shorts – proceeded to the podium. They each told a personal story that illustrated their concerns about climate change, and hopes for their future. One speaker recalled having "the little engine that could" read to her at bedtime, and exhorted NHTSA to strengthen the standards with the same kind of attitude.

The passion of the speakers, and their stories of having to choose between gas and food, made for a powerful, personal appeal for NHTSA to revise the EIS and the standards. Perhaps the strongest authority came from Rabbi Fred Dobb, who quoted Deuteronomy 30:19 to provide a moral context for NHTSA's decision: "I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life – if you and your offspring would live."

Dr. James Keck, a preventive medicine resident from Johns Hopkins doing a rotation here at EDF, delivered a statement on behalf of EDF. He pointed out that NHTSA failed to assess the impacts of CAFE standards in the proper context. Though required to consider the "cumulative impacts" of policy decisions, NHTSA did not consider how U.S. CAFE standards contribute to the global fight against dangerous climate change. (See this previous post to compare of fuel efficiency standards in other countries.)

So on this 90+ degree day in August, one can only hope that NHTSA staff truly feel the heat and will strengthen the CAFE standards to the more stringent level they should have been in the first place.

On Monday, CONSOL Energy – one of America's leading coal companies – announced they would build America's first coal-to-liquid plant in West Virginia. The press release from coal country announces that a strategy for sequestering carbon dioxide pollution produced by liquefying coal will be part of the project. That's important because an EPA study found that diesel fuel from coal could result in double the greenhouse gas emissions of diesel fuel from oil.

Many Americans are feeling real economic distress with gasoline above four dollars a gallon. Economic hardship and energy security play to coal's strength as a traditionally low cost, domestic, and plentiful energy resource. Deploying the technology to convert it to gasoline and diesel fuel seems like a no-brainer. But it's not so simple.

Perhaps yesterday's announcement is a sign that coal-to-liquids has turned a corner. I don't expect anyone in West Virginia to invite Al Gore over for barbeque and beers anytime soon, but it is a sign of how far we've come in the global warming debate that CONSOL is explicitly acknowledging that the future of coal-to-liquids is tied to reducing the global warming pollution the technology creates. This is an important first step if coal-to-liquids is ever to be a viable strategy for meeting America's future energy needs.

As the debate over national energy policy bubbles along, the golden rule is that we should not create one mess in the process of cleaning up another. Attempting to solve economic or energy security problems at the expense of the environment is really no solution at all, particularly when you consider the warnings of our nation's leading military commanders. A 2007 report by CNA Corporation stated that global warming effects destabilize societies and make the world a more dangerous place.

And so, in the spirit of the golden rule, here are four questions that I hope CONSOL can answer as they embark on their quest to develop coal-to-liquids at a commercial scale:

1. What is the plan for carbon dioxide? The press release talks about carbon capture and storage, which is a promising strategy for preventing carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere. But all too often, coal project proponents talk about building the power plant or coal-to-liquids facility today, and getting around to the carbon capture and storage part "tomorrow". Is CONSOL committed to making development of their coal-to-liquids facility contingent on capturing and storing the carbon dioxide it produces from Day One of operation? If so, then this is real progress.

2. How will the coal be mined? Blowing the tops off mountains and dumping the spoils into creek beds is not a happy thing, and a nation reluctant to allow additional offshore drilling, even with gas at four dollars a gallon, will not be enamored of technologies or companies that literally flatten everything in their path. Broad commercial acceptance of coal-to-liquids depends on finding a fundamentally different way to mine coal than some of the industry's current practices. Perhaps it's also time to admit that some seams are simply played out.

3. What about the water? Coal-to-liquids is a water-intensive process, and water scarcity is no longer an issue exclusively confined to the arid west. Proponents of coal-to-liquids as a viable alternative to foreign oil must be honest about the amount of water required to make the stuff (approximately 10 gallons of water for every gallon of fuel produced), and tell us where we will get the water and how much it will cost.

4. And speaking of cost, the final question is whether coal-to-liquids is really the best way to harness coal in meeting the energy needs of our cars and trucks. With innovations in plug-in hybrid technology, we may be just three to five years away from being able to use electricity to partially power our cars, minivans, pickup trucks, and SUVs. A Department of Energy study, issued by Pacific Northwest National Labs in November 2007, suggests we have the ability to displace up to 52 percent of current oil imports with hybrid electric vehicles recharged by our national electric grid.

   Given that 50 percent of our nation's electricity comes from coal, and given the strides in making future coal plants capable of capturing and storing carbon dioxide, I wonder whether there is much future for coal-to-liquids at all. Maybe at best it's a transition strategy, the way the 8-track tape player had a brief moment on the way to today's iPods and MP3 files. It would be interesting to hear CONSOL's views on this, and perhaps the views of American Electric Power, the nation's largest coal-burning utility, as well.

The answers to these four questions will give us some idea whether coal-to-liquids will ever be a viable option for a national energy strategy.

Think back to your last all-you-can eat buffet. Did you eat more than you would have ordering à la carte? The same applies to driving and car insurance. With insurance policies giving almost no consideration to miles driven, if you drive an average amount or less compared to other drivers in your neighborhood, you pay much more per mile for car insurance than high-mileage drivers, which are in the minority. Yet accident risks are clearly linked to miles driven.

Shouldn't your insurance premium correspond to your risk, saving you money if you drive less? That's the idea behind Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) Insurance – drive less, pay less. Pricing insurance by the mile not reduces premiums for the majority of drivers, but if universally available, would cut traffic by 8 percent, with corresponding reductions in greenhouse gases, air pollution, congestion, and oil imports.

Those are the findings of a new report on PAYD by the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project, which reveals the unfairness of current insurance pricing. Two-thirds of households would save money from PAYD, with those households saving on average 28 percent or $270 per car per year. Low and moderate income families would benefit the most because they are disproportionately represented among low-mileage drivers. Miles driven closely corresponds to income.

PAYD Concerns Addressed

Some have raised privacy concerns about PAYD insurance because some insurers propose using Global Positioning System (GPS) devices to obtain information. GPS devices can track where, when, and how aggressively people drive, in addition to mileage. But basic PAYD insurance needs only periodic certified odometer readings, which can be obtained during periodic inspections or through devices that transmit only mileage.

Still, there's a good argument for GPS-based systems. Aggressive drivers who often accelerate and decelerate rapidly are not only more accident-prone, but produce more greenhouse gases and air pollution, and use more fuel. Why should calm drivers subsidize the insurance premiums of aggressive drivers who endanger lives and harm the environment?

To address privacy concerns, GPS-based PAYD insurance can be kept voluntary, so only motorists who choose to save more by driving calmly will opt into these extra cost-saving plans. But I expect many Americans would choose it. GPS-based PAYD is no more intrusive than toll transponder tags, cell phones, and credit cards – technologies that are widely accepted for their convenience, even though they can reveal information about our behavior. Current law generally protects this data from unreasonable disclosure.

Another concern about PAYD is that it might discriminate against rural families who have to drive more, compared to urban drivers. But this concern is unfounded. Premiums still would be risk-adjusted for other factors, and urban driving is riskier than rural driving. The average mileage rate for rural drivers still would be far lower than for urban drivers. A person is classified as a high or low mileage driver relative to others in the same rating area.

A minority of all drivers account for a disproportionate share of all driving in urban, suburban, and rural areas. The Brookings study finds that a majority of drivers in each of these areas and in every income group would save money under mileage-based insurance.

Making PAYD Available to All

PAYD has been successfully implemented in Israel (Aryeh), the Netherlands (Polis), the United Kingdom (Coverbox), South Africa (Hollard), Canada (Aviva), and Japan (Aioi). In the U.S., PAYD is available though Progressive Insurance (the MyRate program, which is rapidly expanding) and GMAC Insurance (OnStar program), but not in every state. Other companies are preparing to launch PAYD products in the U.S. market in the coming year.

(This GMAC calculator lets you estimate your savings.)

But many state regulations do not permit PAYD – either by outright prohibition or conflicting requirements. Michigan, for example, requires that premium charges be stated upfront. California requires that insurers price auto policies according to driving record, miles driven, and years of driving experience, in that order.

California is working on eliminating these barriers. A bill to allow PAYD, A.B. 2800, passed 72 to 2 in the Assembly, and is expected to pass easily in the State Senate as well. Plus California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner has taken up the torch, and is pursuing PAYD programs through regulatory changes.

For PAYD to take off in the U.S. it needs regulatory support at the state level. But it also needs funding and stronger encouragement at the federal level. From the Brookings report:

There is a lack of knowledge on the part of insurance firms and state regulators about how to price and design PAYD, significant start-up costs involved with being a first mover, and barriers to potential entrants. Given the small private benefit but large social benefit from PAYD, a booster shot from the government may be needed for an insurance firm to offer it, which may then push other firms to follow suit.

PAYD pilot programs currently receive several million dollars a year in funding through the federal Value Pricing Pilot (VPP) program, but this isn't enough. The recently proposed Blumenauer bill (see my previous post) includes PAYD as one of the transportation choices eligible to receive funding. Another bill introduced by Rep. Gerlach (H.R. 2296) encourages PAYD through start-up tax credits for insurers that offer PAYD policies.

States need federal funding support to identify and eliminate regulatory barriers to PAYD insurance. It would be money well spent. PAYD, with its incentives to drive less, is one of the most readily available strategies to cut fuel consumption and greenhouse gas pollution while saving consumers money.

At a time of $4 a gallon gas, increased support for PAYD should be part of any economic stimulus package that Congress enacts to fight high gas prices.