Climate 411

The author of today’s article, Sheryl Canter, is an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.

In poking around the blogosphere recently, I found several references to a Popular Mechanics article about something called an "Air Car". Air Car?? What I read left me with some questions, so I found the inventor’s Web site and did some further reading.

It sounds like science fiction, but it’s true. A car that runs on air – compressed air – will be sold in India starting in August 2008. It’s designed mainly for city driving, and produces zero carbon emissions.*

Read More »

Yesterday, The New York Times published an editorial about coal-to-liquid technology. Their warning against so-called energy solutions that actually worsen climate change is right on target.

For more, check out a post I wrote last month, about why coal-to-liquid technology is a bad idea.

We know our growing dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security. It is also now widely recognized that climate change is a serious national security risk.

Fortunately, we can often kill these two birds with one stone. Many solutions for climate change would also diminish our dependence on foreign oil, and vice versa. For example, a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions would spur more fuel-efficient vehicles, low-carbon fuels and other modes of transportation. All of these would reduce demand for foreign oil. (And, to sweeten the deal, lowering demand would also help reduce the price of traditional gasoline.)

Unfortunately, some ideas being considered to address our dependence on foreign oil would make global warming worse.

One of the most vexing examples is “coal-to-liquids,” a process that converts coal to liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel for cars and trucks. At first blush it might seem like a great idea – we have huge coal reserves, so why not use them to replace foreign oil?

Read More »

Planet Earth won a major victory in the Supreme Court today. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had maintained that regulation of greenhouse gases was beyond its authority. Today in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed. For background on the case, see our article “Supreme Court Hears Global Warming Case” or the full text of the decision [PDF]. Environmental Defense was one of the petitioners in this case.

And that wasn’t the only Supreme Court victory today. The United States and Environmental Defense filed suit against Duke Energy for violating Clear Air Act rules when it renovated its plants, and today the Supreme Court agreed. For background on the case, see our article “Pivotal Clean Air Case Before Supreme Court” or the full text of the decision [PDF].
Read More »