Practical Information about LPG and the like

PRACTICAL INFORMATIONS

LPG and LPG Safe Usage

Description

LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) is a term which is used to define gases including 3 and 4 carbon (C3 and C4) hydrocarbons and being able to liquefy under low pressures. Naturally LPG is colorless, scentless, has not toxic properties. It is denser than air and stored as liquid under low pressure. For safety usage, to perceive any leak, smell is added to the gas. Besides the usage of home, commercial, and industrial fuel, it is also used in automobiles under the name of auto gas. In addition to that, it is used with in the spray boxes as a driving gas.

Chemical Component

LPG includes propane (C3H8), butane (C4H10) and sulfur based compound for smelling. In our country (as home, industry and auto gas) LPG includes as volume %30 propane and %70 butane. Marketed as "Dökmegaz" for home and industry, it includes commercial pure propane.

LPG Usage Safety

LPG is a highly flammable material and in atmospheric conditions it rapidly becomes explosive air-hydrocarbon mixture. LPG vapor is heavier than air. With density difference and air motion, it can be pill up far away from source at outdoor lower places and in home at basement levels. In LPG systems liquid leaks at great volume can be explosive and flammable mixture existence (approximately 1 unit volume LPG (liquid) makes 250 unit volume gas). In contact with eye or skin, cold burns could become. At high concentration, even shortly breath can cause faint and/or die. Breathing LPG vapor can cause irritation at noise and throat, headache and nausea, throw up, dizziness and unconscious. In closed or bad ventilated areas, LPG vapor can cause faint or smother.

First Aid

If eye contact: Eyes must be cleaned with water at least 15 minutes. During the cleaning eye must be opened with two finger and water should be touched with eyeball and eye closer. After the cleaning, it must go to a closer hospital for a treatment.

If skin contact: If skin burn happened because of cold, put it into lukewarm water and stay. During this period, go to closer hospital for a first aid.

If contact by breath: A high concentration breath may cause heart rhythm disorder. In this situation, person must be carried outside and than closer hospital.

Precautions at LPG leaks

Since LPG has a lower flammable point, probable leaks can cause severe fires and/or explosion. If LPG leak comes from tube or thank, rapidly close valves and stop the leak. During this time as flammable mixture is formed in the area, abstain from actions which may cause fire. Take away the things that may cause spark, from the area. Do not use switches. Provide air ventilation and take away persons from the dangerous area carefully and not cause any action causing spark. Call fire brigade and if it is possible also call related company.

In any liquid leak from tube you must be careful and know that there may become huge amount gas and it will be heavier than air. You must avoid from any action could cause spark which would start fire.
Existed gas, since it would collected near the surface it would be taken away distant regions with air, and if suitable conditions may happened it could cause a fire and/or explosion. If there is a suitable system, try to distribute LPG vapor with water spray. Since LPG vapor could be collected in closed areas, close over washbasin, waste water installation, and sewerage system. If leak is occurred closed areas like room or kitchen, open the doors and windows, and provide air ventilation and ventilate the area for a long time. You must not enter areas consist high ratio LPG vapor, except the aims of rescue or stop the leak. In necessary situations, educated persons must do the rescue operation with special clothes and equipment.

Suggestions about using tube gas:

For home and office use-LPG in our country is presented for consumption with tubes which obtain with welding two or three part. 2kg (camp type), 12 kg (home type), 24kg (commercial), 45kg (industrial) tubes are produced according to TS 55 rules.
The produced tubes according to TS 55 rules must have min. 80 bar explosion pressure (normally full tube has 4-5 bar pressure). For explosion of tube's steel body, it must be in contact with high degree heat for a long time.
In general speaking language, "tube exploding" is occurred as explosion of leaking gas from tube in closed area by park or fire.
The "Tube gas poisoned" term has 2 different means: 1) Haven't got any oxygen by the accumulating of heavier gas in closed area. 2) Haven't got any oxygen in closed areas during fire which consume almost all oxygen, and breathing exhaust gas (for example carbon dioxide) causing death. The best example for this is geyser-based poisons.
Buying LPG tube especially be careful to the TS 55 sign. There must be TSE brand on all tubes produced after 1981.
The place where you put LPG tube is very important. Tubes mustn't be placed under direct sun light. Tubes mustn't be placed near warm producer device like stove and radiator. Do not put any easily ignited-materials near the devices using LPG. Tubes must be placed vertically and mustn't be placed horizontal during the usage. Tubes must be placed lower than devices like oven or geyser.
If tubes will be stored in closed areas, there must be ventilation halls at the base. Tube mustn't be placed which can't be ventilated like basement.
If there is a LPG usage in rooms or closed areas (LPG stove, oven etc.), continuously fresh air ventilation must be provided.
Pipe connection between LPG tube and device must be done with clamp. Pipe must be massive, less than 125 cm, and undamaged. Connection pipe must be check regularly. Soft, damaged, old, chink, or hard pipes must be changed with the new ones immediately. Pipe production date is written on the connection pipe. This date must be checked, if it is older than 3 years, it must be changed with the new one.
Regulators, which are decreasing the tube pressure to the usage pressure, are important devices for the usage safety. In order to avoid the high ratio leak, there must be used the regulators which can automatically stop the gas flow in necessity.
During the tube change and usage, gas leak check must be done with soap suds, not with direct flame materials like match, or lighter.
Geysers must be absolutely connected to the chimney. The used areas must have good ventilation conditions and have at least 6 m3 volumes.
Areas must be ventilated regularly if warming with LPG stove. Do not use LPG stoves while sleeping and in the areas less than 30 m3.
Do not put wide base dishes over camp tube. Check the gasket base of the armature assembled to tube regularly which obtaining leak proof, if necessary change with the new one.
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

As a result of known or unknown CO poisoning, is the most frequent death-cause in developed/developing countries. In our country every year especially in the winter months, poisoning from CO increases and reaching the top level. EPA and WHO is suggested the value for CO at 8 hour 9 ppm, at 1 hour maximum dosage as 25 ppm indicated.

Air pollution is a serious problem of all people and especially of big towns, as we can define it mixture of harmful gas for live. The big part of the air pollution is caused by "combustion reactions". When the materials, consist of hydrogen and carbon molecules, fired, water and CO2 are occurred. However, if the incomplete combustion occurred, gases which are harmful and some times lethal are produced. For example cars' engines produce CO. Air pollution occurred with at that ratio: CO 52%, SO2 18%, Hydrocarbons 12%, NO 6% and other particles 12%.

If there is not enough oxygen for carbon, carbon monoxide is the product gas.

C(k) + 1/2 O2(g) ---- CO(g)

If there is enough oxygen for combustion, CO2 is occurred instead of CO.

C(k) + O2(g) ---- CO2(g)

Carbon monoxide is very lethal gas. If an adult person stays half an hour in a room consist of %1 CO, he will die in short time. CO is colorless, scentless and tasteless gas, and also occurred with the combustion of fossil fuel including carbon. As a stable gas CO stays in atmosphere more than 2 months. If we think that, the world CO emission is 232 million ton in total/per year, we can clearly see that what a dangerous for world atmosphere. More than %70 of this emission comes from transportation sector. In addition, it is calculated that if CO stays down under atmosphere, it may increase 0.03 ppm every year. Existing CO in the town weather effects people's health importantly. The most important of these is the CO decreases oxygen carrying ability of hemoglobin cells at the blood. CO is lethal because of special interest to hemoglobin. CO connects to hemoglobin more than 250 times than oxygen, and occurred carbon monoxide hemoglobin. It can be found low level of carbon monoxide hemoglobin in every people. CO's toxic effects are sly. Because of the red color of carbon monoxide hemoglobin, it could be seen red color on the skin. Lips are red look like painted with lipstick. Chest ache, head ache, vomiting, tachycardia, irritability, weak respiration, consciousness seem an important signs. Poisoned person must be taken away from the area, if there is a fresh air than pure oxygen must be given, and must be carried immediately to nearest the hospital.

Carbon Monoxide Sources

Carbon monoxide is a combustion product/emission, resulted from incomplete hydrocarbons' combustion. In atmosphere CO concentration is generally less than 0.001. The levels are higher in towns than villages.

1. Automobile exhaust gas: Carbon monoxide is both inner air and outer air polluter. Automobile exhausts are the most important air pollution sources. When the carbon monoxide is breathed especially in crowded crossroads, park areas, and closed areas like automobile repair shops, bad ventilation may cause harmful effects to employees. Outer CO comes from automobile exhausts, bad working warming systems, and breathing smoke. Headache of warehouse- and storehouse-employees comes from winches working with propane. CO-based, caused from automobiles, death ratio in cold regions are higher and makes the top level in the winter months. Some of the deaths depend on the bad ventilation of generators working with petrol. "Clearer fuels" like methane and propane, combusted even fully may cause CO poisoning.

Abstain suggestions from CO poisoning:

Decreasing transportation and induce the collective transportation. Not breathing exhaust gases. Using exhausts with catalytic converter. There are inside of these aluminum oxide, platinum and radium. These catalyst materials convert carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons to water vapor and CO2. Good ventilation of storehouses and generator places.

Gas leaking from stove: In our country many people are poisoning and die because of the leaking gas from stove and brazier which are using for warming. As the CO is colorless and scentless gas, the poisoning becomes without perceiving. CO poisoning has serious results, starting with headache and lasts with death. For this reason, it mustn't make a fire in the no ventilation places, it must be careful in the pipe and chimney cleanness while using stove. The most important precaution is not to open the stove while sleeping. Carbon monoxide poisoning signs are; daze, dizziness, headache, nausea, throw up, breath gloom, seeing as apparent. The person who has these signs must be carried to outside. If necessary the artificial respiration should be done, if there is than oxygen should be given. It is known that, stove firing from down side, bad warm stoves, or electrical warmers increase fire and carbon monoxide poisoning risk.

Abstain suggestions from CO poisoning: Firing stove from the upper side, not closing stove's air/smoke covers, chimney cleaning, not putting coal to the stove firing in the night, not firing stove during the southwester.

3. Poisoning from Geyser/Combi boiler working with Natural gas/Tube gas (LPG):
The cause of poisoning from gas or geyser is not providing fresh air entry to bathroom during combustion or the consumption of all present oxygen caused from unconnection of geyser to chimney. Decreasing oxygen at bathroom and continuing firing is occurred lethal CO gas throughout the bathroom. If there is no/not good chimney connection, CO would get around the area and may cause poisoning.

Abstain suggestions from CO poisoning: There must be pilot safety system. Must be used chimney connected geysers. Geysers/Combi Boilers must be placed the areas which have good ventilation. From ventilation culvert or door down side (there must be at least 1.5) space, enough fresh air entry should be provided. The most correct action is not to placed geyser in the bathroom. Geyser mustn't be placed the areas smaller than 8 m3. Geysers which has chimney smoke sensor must be preferred.

4-Cigarette smoke: There are some placatory/dazed materials at the cigarette smoke. These chemical materials at the short time press stress, anger and other strong senses. Cigarette smoke is an important CO source. While at smokers' carbon dioxide hemoglobin rate reach 10% level, even it may over 15%, this ratio at non-smokers is 1-3%.

Abstain suggestions from CO poisoning: Not smoking, abstaining from smoky areas.

5.A type heaters (haven't got chimney): Fuels, especially like kerosene, LPG (propane) and natural gas, are used in the A type heaters. Japan stoves working with gas, assembled camp tube heaters are like these stoves. As a result of fully firing of these fuels, carbon dioxide and water vapor is occurred. At A type heater usage areas, fresh air change ratio must be 0.35/hr, if area is fully isolated these devices mustn't be used. There must be a sensor measuring oxygen ratio in the area and when it decreased burning must be stopped. Heaters warm efficiency must be %99. Flame's blue color must be checked. Orange color flame means incomplete combustion and sign of CO constitution. Yellow color means that the device must not be used and be repaired.

Abstain suggestions from CO poisoning: A type heaters must be used places where high ratio air flow and have many people traffic. It must not be used in the bathrooms/bedrooms. Heater must be shut down before sleeping. Fuel storage mustn't exactly be filled because of expansion. Higher than 1350 m, flame might be deflated because of the low pressure; therefore these devices mustn't be used. Auto gas cutting sensor and less than 25 ppm/1hr CO emission A type devices must be used.

Clean’ car exhausts that emit toxic gases.

Catalytic converters, which are fitted to all cars to reduce harmful emissions, are increasing levels of other toxic gases that can be hazardous to human health, according to scientists.

They say that the benefits of the devices, which clean poisonous gases such as carbon monoxide from exhaust fumes, are being offset by the production of two other potentially dangerous compounds, hydrogen sulphide and carbon disulphide.

Since 1993 EU legislation has made it compulsory for all new vehicles to be fitted with three-way catalytic converters in an attempt to reduce carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.

While the converters have achieved this goal, they have also changed the forms in which sulphur in petrol is released into the atmosphere: hydrogen sulphide and carbon disulphide are being generated instead of sulphur dioxide.

Levels of hydrogen sulphide measured in British cities are now up to 100 times higher than they were in preindustrial times, according to research by Simon Watts and Stephen Samuel, of Oxford Brookes University, who believe that catalytic converters are partly responsible.

“The amount of sulphur coming out of individual exhausts is lower than previously. However, it is no longer coming out as sulphur dioxide but these other sulphur compounds,” Dr Watts said. “Add to this the fact that there are now so many more exhaust pipes out there, and you see the problem.”

Hydrogen sulphide, a colourless gas that is responsible for the characteristic foul odour of rotten eggs and stink bombs can shut down several critical systems in the body. Carbon disulphide is a neurotoxin and a carcinogen. It can be dangerous to human health at high doses.

“The increasing levels of hydrogen sulphide in the air potentially pose a serious health concern,” Dr Watts said. According to his research, a typical reading in the 1500s would have been 70-100 parts-per-trillion. Recent measurements in Elephant & Castle, South London, found up to 7,000 parts-per-trillion.

Professor Ken Reid, head of the immunochemistry unit at the University of Oxford, said that long-term exposure to hydrogen sulphide could raise the risk of respiratory diseases and lung cancer.

“Hydrogen sulphide can modify antibodies in the lung, which compromises immunity and increases the likelihood of infection,” he said. “It’s now well recognised that this kind of repeated insult can set up a cancerous state.”

The gas may also be responsible for increases in asthma among city-dwellers as it can disrupt the way the lungs regulate the respiratory cycle.

Dr Watts added that lean-burn engines might have been a better solution to the problem. “Our alternative in the early Nineties was lean-burn engines, which produce much less hydrogen sulphide,” he said. “But catalytic converters were the easier option for car manufacturers. I think the EU was swayed by economic considerations.”

HAVE YOUR SAY
I purchased a new vehicle in jan 2008. I have been sick since february. By process of elimination I have concluded that the cause must be the emissions from the vehicle which has a catalyic converter. The smell of rotten eggs is overwhelming. I have been twice on antibiotics my son had pneumonia
Shaheed Mahomed, Cape Town, South Africa
I say we should tax volcanoes. After all, each year they emit 1000 (yes 1000) times more CO2 than the entire human race.
JAmes, Ewell, Surrey
7000 parts per trillion of hydrogne sulphide is already above the detection threshold and therefore likely to have some chronic effects, yet still some way away from acute effects.

While nobody is going to be poisoned soon, it's good that someone keeps an eye on the downside of new technologies.
Niel Malan, Bronkhorstspruit, South Africa

How to Spend Like a Frugal Millionaire

I find this article worth sharing... you may ask - What in the world is this type of article have to do with saving the planet. Well, most Millionaires are actually practicing being Green in the process of working hard to be rich. Please read on up to the last word below.

This comes from Jeff Lehman, author of The Frugal Millionaires.

Saving thousands while still spending.

Millionaires make up just 2 percent of the population. They get a bad rap during recessions for being wasteful with their money and are frequently used as examples of excess. It's the millionaires that you don't see that you can learn from in times like these. I call them the frugal millionaires and interviewed 70 of them to uncover ways we can all be smarter with money.

Nearly 70 percent of the economy is based on consumer spending. To keep the economy going we need to keep spending but not waste money in the process. This is where the frugal millionaires come in. They've been smart with their money all along and haven't lost it all and had to remake it. These are the kind of people you want to learn from when it comes to spending your money.

Spending philosophy.

Frugal millionaires are unique thinkers when it comes to spending money: 1) they can easily delay their need for gratification when purchasing; 2) they are resourceful in getting what they want by carefully timing their consumer purchases; 3) they make living below their means painless; 4) they don't like wasting anything (especially money); 5) their sense of "self-entitlement" is highly minimized: and 6) spending is OK with them...depending on what they are buying (think: appreciating vs. depreciating assets).

[For more, see, "10 Secrets of Millionaires' Money Management."]

Buying tips.

These millionaires keep more money than they spend, that's why they are rich. Their tactics work for them so they'll work even better for you. Key Point: They don't view shopping as a sport. They shop efficiently and spend their time doing more important things with their lives. Here are their tips that will help you save while spending:

Cars: Buy used (or off lease) fuel-efficient cars, often with "certified pre-owned" warranties. This warranty can be better than a new car, plus the initial depreciation hit is avoided. Drive the car for a long time and never lease it.

Eating Out: Bring half of a meal home to eat later (this also saves the waistline). Eat at happy hours. Bring wine from home and skip dessert. Value food quality over expensive ambience.

Eating In: Eat better and less expensively by cooking at home. Make it a friends and family event. Get your kids involved. Bonus: You can have that extra drink without worrying about getting busted for driving under the influence. Also: buy day-old bread at the best bakery in town and freeze it. Eat oatmeal, because it's the most cost-effective breakfast food. Get a supermarket "club card" and buy food on special. Play the game of trying to see how much of a discount can be saved off the total food bill.

Clothes: When you buy something new donate something used to charity. Buy traditional clothes, but wait for the off-season to acquire them. Go for high quality - not high price. Buy vintage clothing and avoid logo clothing and keep people guessing who the designer might be. Hint: There shouldn't be one!

[For more, read: "Juggling Your Money in the Recession."]

Consumer Electronics: Buy low-end gear that has the basic functionality of the more expensive stuff. Don't be the first to buy new technology. Wait at least one lifecycle so the bugs are worked out. Buy refurbished electronics whenever possible.

Computers: Buy more mainstream computers with proven technology. Select higher capacity hard drives, a decent amount of RAM (the memory that the program runs in) and a cost effective processor. Super fast doesn't always equal super good...unless you are building airplanes or bridges. Laptops are a good compromise between desktops and netbooks. Don't go through the pain of upgrading operating systems on existing computers, it's not time efficient and you will probably go insane trying.

Going green: Being green and frugal go hand-in-hand. Yet frugal millionaires don't readily fall for the trendy green hype machine. They typically buy green if it helps the environment and lowers their costs. They look at the timeframe when a product can pay for itself. They do use compact fluorescent lighting, turn off lights and equipment that isn't being used, monitor AC and heat usage (with programmable thermostats), drive efficiently, live in "right-sized" homes and turn off the water when they aren't brushing their teeth or washing dishes. Because they have trained themselves to not waste money they won't waste anything else either. They get into good habits and keep them going. You can, too.

Greenland ice could fuel severe U.S. sea level rise

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent – Wed May 27, 3:01 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – New York, Boston and other cities on North America's northeast coast could face a rise in sea level this century that would exceed forecasts for the rest of the planet if Greenland's ice sheet keeps melting as fast as it is now, researchers said on Wednesday.
Sea levels off the northeast coast of North America could rise by 12 to 20 inches more than other coastal areas if the Greenland glacier-melt continues to accelerate at its present pace, the researchers reported.
This is because the current rate of ice-melting in Greenland could send so much fresh water into the salty north Atlantic Ocean that it could change the vast ocean circulation pattern sometimes called the conveyor belt. Scientists call this pattern the meridional overturning circulation.
"If the Greenland melt continues to accelerate, we could see significant impacts this century on the northeast U.S. coast from the resulting sea level rise," said Aixie Hu, lead author of an article on the subject in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
"Major northeastern cities are directly in the path of the greatest rise," said Hu, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
This is an even bleaker assessment than an earlier study indicated. A March article in the journal Nature Geoscience said warmer water temperatures could shift ocean currents so as to raise sea levels off the U.S. northeast coast by about 8 inches more than the average global sea level rise.
NOT LIKELY BUT POSSIBLE
However, this earlier research did not include the impact of melting Greenland ice, which would speed changes in ocean circulation and send 4 to 12 more inches of water toward northeastern North America, on top of the average global sea level rise.
That could put residents of New York, Boston and Halifax, Nova Scotia, at risk since these cities and others lie close to sea level now, Hu said in answer to e-mailed questions.
Not only would coastal residents be at direct risk from flooding but drainage systems would suffer as salty ocean water would move back into river deltas, changing the biological environment, Hu wrote in an e-mail.
"In a flooding zone, because the higher sea level may impede the function of the drainage system, the future flood may become more severe," he wrote. If cities are prone to subsidence -- where the ground sinks -- higher sea levels would also make that problem worse, according to Hu.
The ice that covers much of Greenland is melting faster now due to global climate change, raising world sea levels. But sea level does not rise evenly around the globe. Sea level in the North Atlantic is now 28 inches lower than in the North Pacific, because the Atlantic has a dense, compact layer of deep, cold water that the Pacific lacks.
Greenland's ice-melt rate has increased by 7 percent a year since 1996 but Hu said it is unlikely to continue. Still, he and his co-authors ran computer simulations that included this fast-paced melting, along with more moderate scenarios with ice-melt increasing by 3 percent or 1 percent annually.
Hu said it was hard to say whether the 7 percent annual increase could go on for the next 50 years but said it was possible since the current rate of increase in climate-warming carbon dioxide is higher than the high end of projections by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(Editing by Bill Trott)

Ontario moving ahead with cap-and-trade because Ottawa, Obama too slow: McGuinty

TORONTO - Impatience for a North American cap-and-trade system to curb greenhouse gas emissions has driven Ontario and Quebec to move ahead with their own plan to fight climate change, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday.

His Liberal government is introducing legislation that will pave the way for a cap-and-trade regime in the province, which aims to lower greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on carbon.

"The reason that we are going to move ahead together with Quebec is because we can't wait for Washington or Ottawa to move ahead," McGuinty said.

"And we want to make sure we have in place a framework at least - before we can talk about putting a price on carbon ... that allows Ontario businesses to know where the future is going to be."

The two provinces reached their own agreement on cap and trade last June, which was scheduled to be in place by 2010.

Quebec introduced legislation May 12 that would allow the government to institute a cap-and-trade system with co-operating states and provinces as early as 2012.

While Ontario's legislation was to be introduced Wednesday, it was still unclear what its system could look like.

McGuinty couldn't provide specifics about how the system will work, such as whether the province will set hard caps on emissions levels or penalize polluters who don't comply with the rules.

He also dodged questions about whether the province's worst polluters - its coal-fired generation plants - will be forced to bear additional costs under the system, which could be passed on to taxpayers.

Details of the plan are expected to be laid out in regulations that have yet to be drafted, but could be addressed in a discussion paper that will be released for public consultation.

A cap-and-trade system places a ceiling on greenhouse gases and lets participants buy and sell emissions permits within that cap. Those who don't meet the emissions targets can buy credits from others with a surplus instead of lowering their emissions.

Ontario is the third province to move towards a cap-and-trade system after British Columbia and Quebec. Manitoba is expected to soon follow suit.

All four provinces, along with seven American states, are part of the Western Climate Initiative, which is trying to set up a regional cap-and-trade system by 2012.

Meanwhile, Ontario's coal-fired plants are not expected to be shut down until 2014.

The federal Conservative government has expressed interest in working with U.S. President Barack Obama to create a North American cap-and-trade system, but hasn't yet put a regulatory framework to reduce emissions into legislation which is expected in the coming year.

MAY 27, 2009 | MARIA BABBAGE, THE CANADIAN PRESS

CEOs Across Globe Back Carbon Cuts

Global business leaders added momentum to prospects for a new U.N. climate treaty by agreeing Tuesday that the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by mid-century by setting specific limits on carbon.

Government officials reported little progress in setting such limits, however, showing how distant a new treaty remains.

Some 500 CEOs and other top business experts said at the conclusion of the three-day World Business Summit on Climate Change in Denmark that "immediate and substantial" emissions cuts were needed by 2020, followed by cuts of at least 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. They said governments should use the marketplace to set a global price on carbon instead of taxing it, according to a statement from conference organizers.

Under cap-and-trade, the government establishes a market for carbon dioxide by distributing credits to companies that emit greenhouse gases. The companies can then invest in technologies to reduce emissions to reach a certain target or buy credits from other companies that already have met their emission reduction goals.

But there is widespread dispute over the details of how cap-and-trade would work, with critics saying it would lead to higher costs for some consumers and could hurt bruised economies.

The business leaders said governments' overriding aim at a December U.N. meeting in Copenhagen on replacing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol should be limiting the global average rise in temperature to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius.

Global temperatures have risen 0.22 degrees (0.12 degrees Celsius) since 1990, according to one U.S. government estimate. The U.N.'s chief panel on climate change estimates that the risk of increased severe weather will rise if the global average temperature increases between 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) and 3.6 degrees (2 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels.

"There is nothing to be gained through delay," the statement said, and the richest countries should be the first to make the biggest emissions cuts.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen told participants "your words are sweet music in my ears," and called for developed countries to lead the way and enact emissions cuts of 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.

But doing that will be difficult. At a separate meeting in Paris, French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, playing host to talks among the world's biggest polluters, said the United States had backpedaled on promises to slash carbon emissions but China appeared "absolutely determined" to make deep cuts.

Borloo suggested President Barack Obama wasn't following through on an earlier call for requiring deep cuts in U.S. carbon emissions.

"We want to tell them, 'Yes, you can,' you can do a lot more," Borloo told Europe-1 radio in a report card on the Major Economies Forum, which brought together the 17 countries that produce four-fifths of global carbon emissions.

The top U.S. negotiator on climate change, Todd Stern, defended the Obama administration's commitment to what he called a "seismic change" in the country's carbon emissions and attitude toward fighting global warming.

Stern said the overall U.S. targets were on a par with what Europe is proposing though are calculated differently.

"I don't think they are going to match. I don't think they need to match," he said. "We advanced the ball, though we have a long way to go to get to Copenhagen."

Obama has called for an 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by the year 2050 using cap-and-trade. His budget plan had banked on raising $646 billion in revenues from 2012 to 2019 from auctioning emission credits to companies, but it appears unlikely to gain Congress' approval.

If governments agree in Copenhagen in December to set new limits to make carbon dioxide a scarcer commodity, CEOs said, their companies can lead the way to a greener economy.

"We're going to have to fundamentally redefine our business models in a low-carbon world," said James Rogers, chairman of U.S.-based electricity provider Duke Energy Corp.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol's mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases, which have produced mixed results, expire in 2012.

The United States never signed on to Kyoto, citing the costs to the economy and lack of participation by China, India and other fast-developing countries. But some of those countries have said rich countries are not aggressive enough in cutting their own emissions.

The hosts of the Paris meeting said they made progress on finding $100 billion a year to help poor countries limit pollution and adapt to climate change.

The next major round of U.N. climate talks toward a new treaty will begin in days in Bonn, Germany.

Obama accelerates car efficiency and emission standards

President Obama has performed a bit of miracle work: Getting California and the nation's automakers to agree on a set of fairly aggressive new pollution and fuel efficiency rules that ratchet up the U.S. commitment to addressing global warming.

The new rules will boost fuel economy standards ahead of the schedule set by Congress in 2007, resulting in the average car in 2016 getting 35.5 mpg. The new rules also adopt California's carbon dioxide emission limits, which had been disputed by the auto industry and the Bush Administration.

The only difference is that automakers will be given more time to adopt the standards, which will apply nationwide instead of just in California and the dozen states that would have followed its lead had the Environmental Protection Agency granted it the permission it needed to adopt the rules, first set in 2004.

The move by the Obama Administration follows the EPA finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and the environment, and so can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. (See how carbon regulation may affect your next car.) But today's rulemaking does not use the Clean Air Act to achieve an estimated 40% reduction in pollution.

It does, however, represent another example of the Obama Administration's strong hand on the wheel of the U.S. auto industry. It would not be surprising to find that car makers had little choice but to accept this deal, given that both General Motors and Chrysler have relied on taxpayer loans to stay afloat.

In any case, it shows that Obama is being much more progressive than Congress when looking at the future of the auto industry. The cash for clunkers bill Congress is working on rewards people for buying trucks that get as little as 15 mpg.

In 2009, there were only 14 cars and SUVs that get 30 mpg or better. By 2016, the options on car lots will be much different.

More from The Daily Green

Four Ways to Use Old Car Dealerships
22 Cars That Could Get 100 mpg
The Eight Clean Car Technologies Likely to Replace Gas
Five New Fuel-Efficient Cars That Dazzle the Critics
How to Pay 50 Cents or Less for Gas

Reprinted without the permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

Kyoto Protocol

On 16 February 2005, in the culmination of ten years of sometimes exhausting and often frustrating negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol became law. Thirty-five industrialised countries along with the European Union are now legally bound to reduce or limit their greenhouse gas emissions.

What is the Kyoto Protocol?

The Kyoto Protocol is the world's only international agreement with binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As such, it is the primary tool governments of the world have to address climate change. Specifically, the Protocol requires a nominal 5 percent reduction in emissions by developed countries world-wide relative to 1990 levels, by 2008-2012. To meet this world-wide target, each country is obligated to its individual target - the European Union (EU[15]) 8 percent, Japan 6 percent, etc. These individual targets are derived from past greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to legally binding national emissions targets, the Kyoto Protocol includes various trading mechanisms. Now that the Protocol is law, formal preparations will begin to create a ‘global’ carbon market for emissions trading by 2008, and the so-called ‘flexible mechanisms’ - the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) - will become operational.

The Kyoto Protocol was originally agreed on in 1997 - although many crucial details were left to later talks. In order to enter into force (become law) the Protocol required ratification by at least 55 countries accounting for at least 55 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions from Annex B (industrialised) nations. So far, 129 countries have ratified or acceded to the Protocol. It passed the number of countries test in 2002, and finally passed the second hurdle with ratification by the Russian Federation in late 2004.

Notably absent from the Protocol is the US; which shows no signs of ratifying the treaty, at least not as long as the Bush administration is in power - even though the US is the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter. Australia, Liechtenstein, Croatia and Monaco also have yet to complete the ratification process.


The Clean Development Mechanism (Article 12)

The Clean Development Mechanism is designed to generate emissions reduction credits for Annex I countries that finance projects in non-Annex I countries who are part of the treaty. For example, Canada financing an energy efficiency project in China, or Japan financing a renewable energy project in Morocco. These projects must have the approval of the CDM Executive Board, and in addition to generating measurable emissions reductions against a business-as-usual baseline, they should contribute to sustainable development in the developing country partners.

Joint Implementation (Article 3)

Joint Implementation allows industrialised countries with emissions reduction targets to cooperate in meeting them. For example, German-financed energy efficiency projects in Russia, or Norwegian-financed renewable energy projects in Hungary, which generate emissions reductions, under specific circumstances can be credited to the country that finances them. In theory, this is a more economically efficient means of generating the same overall emissions reductions for industrialised countries.

See also 'Sinks' and other possible pitfalls.


Will the Kyoto Protocol "save the climate"?

The Kyoto Protocol is an important first step - as it was intended to be. It has always been recognized that the Kyoto Protocol will not be enough on its own. To avoid dangerous climate change the world needs at least 30 percent cuts by industrialized countries by 2020, increasing to 70-80 percent cuts by mid-century. Anything less than this will consign our children and theirs to a very unpleasant and very unstable world.

The decisions that governments, industry and civil society make over the next decade or two will be decisive. You have a say in those decision, and your help is needed. See our Take Action page for what you can do.

More information:

Kyoto pitfalls

International negotiations – Greenpeace position statements and first hand reports from international meetings.

Text of the Kyoto Protocol

Kyoto Protocol becomes law - Greenpeace marks the event and calls for action around the world.

Automakers deal a win for Califronia

The state is the model for a compromise with U.S. carmakers and the federal government to curb greenhouse gases.
By Jim Tankersley and Richard Simon

May 19, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The agreement that the Obama administration will announce today forcing dramatic reductions in vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in auto mileage marks a potentially pivotal shift in the battle over global warming -- and a vindication of California's long battle to toughen standards.

After decades of political sparring, legal challenges and scientific arguments over climate change, three of the central players -- the federal government, major U.S. automakers and California -- have found that the time has come to suspend hostilities and make a deal.

For cars and trucks, the agreement would establish a single nationwide standard that would require a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide and other emissions from vehicles sold in the United States by 2016.

The new limits are projected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by about 5% a year. The nation currently uses about 7.1 billion barrels a year.

For its part, California will essentially accept the national standard as a substitute for the state's own tough emission requirements. The Obama standard is designed to achieve the same level of emission cutbacks as the California rule, but automakers will be given more time to adapt.

Completing the three-way deal, automakers will pledge to drop their effort to block the California rules through legal challenges.

"Everybody wins," said David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. "It's going to cut carbon pollution. The drivers of these cars are going to save money at the pump. It's going to cut our national oil dependence."

During the Bush administration, California unsuccessfully sought federal permission to tighten its vehicle emission standards. The Obama administration had ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reexamine the issue.

Not everyone hailed the agreement Monday. "We think these new mandatory fuel standards are most unfortunate," said Myron Ebell, an energy expert with the pro-market Competitive Enterprise Institute. "They will price people out of larger vehicles and force them into smaller vehicles."

But in embracing a deal, the major parties appear to have concluded that some kind of action on greenhouses gases was inevitable and that their separate interests were better served by compromising now than by further delay. President Obama will announce the deal in Washington, joined by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and others.

A White House official, briefing reporters Monday on condition of anonymity, said the agreement would push new vehicles sold in the U.S. to average 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016, up from 25 mpg today. The agreement, coupled with increased fuel-efficiency requirements that Congress approved in 2007, would add $1,300 to the price of a new car in 2016, the administration estimated.

Neither the Obama plan nor the rules California has sought to impose include explicit mileage requirements. But capping the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists blame for global warming would effectively require better mileage.

In 2002, California passed a law to reduce vehicle emissions, but auto industry lawsuits held up its enforcement. The state also needed a waiver from the EPA, which refused -- even after a series of court rulings in the state's favor.

Bush administration officials said they wanted a single nationwide standard that would unite the greenhouse gas regulations and tougher fuel economy standards that Congress approved in 2007.

Officials cast such standards as a key to encouraging the design and sale of the fuel-sipping cars that Obama calls vital to the Detroit automakers' recovery -- and crucial to the international fight against global warming.

Detroit has never liked the idea of government telling it what kind of cars to build, but its power to head off tougher emission standards was undercut by a series of events that decreased its political influence -- including the financial troubles of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler, which made the companies more open to government demands for fuel-efficient vehicles, especially after they needed federal money to stay afloat.

In addition, Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a powerful ally of the auto industry, was ousted as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and replaced by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), an advocate of tougher standards. And during last year's presidential campaign, both Obama and Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona backed California's efforts.

Obama's EPA also issued a draft ruling last month declaring greenhouse gases a danger to public health, subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The proposal singles out cars and trucks, which comprise about one quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The EPA began public hearings on the proposal Monday.

Assuming the reductions come to pass, a trip to a dealership in 2016 might prove remarkably different than one today. Rows of SUVs and full-sized luxury cars could be replaced by highly efficient compact sedans powered by hybrid drive trains, small SUVs running on clean diesel motors and possibly electric cars that emit no greenhouse gases.

Jeff Holmstead, a senior EPA official under President Bush, said he saw the deal as a vindication of the Bush administration's approach.

"It looks like the Obama administration is agreeing with the Bush administration that there needs to be a national standard and that it doesn't make any sense to have multiple state standards," Holmstead said.

But Capitol Hill Democrats welcomed the deal. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), an author of the House energy bill who also co-wrote the 2007 bill increasing fuel economy standards, said, "President Obama has solved the energy and economic policy equivalent of a Rubik's Cube."

jtankersley@latimes.com

richard.simon@latimes.com

Times staff writers Ken Bensinger and Margot Roosevelt in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Under the deal
New rules may affect what car you buy. NATION, A17

BIO Is Confident That Biofuels Can Meet Goals of Renewable Fuel Standard

ATLANTA, GA. (May 18, 09) – Biotech companies are poised to rapidly commercialize advanced biofuel technology, which has been shown to reduce both U.S. reliance on petroleum and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Brent Erickson, executive vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s (BIO) Industrial and Environmental Section, today released the following statement at a media briefing held at the 2009 BIO International Convention being held at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta.

“Advanced biofuel companies are ready to deploy their technology and begin meeting the requirements of the National Renewable Fuel Standard. Now that the rules of the program are finally moving forward and the Obama administration has demonstrated a firm commitment to the industry, companies are prepared to build the next generation of biorefineries.

“The recent analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency shows that biofuels produced with biotech tools will dramatically reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from transportation – more than 100 percent compared to gasoline, in some cases. In addition to enabling production of cellulosic biofuels, biotechnology can continue to help biofuel producers reduce carbon emissions by increasing yields of fuel per ton of raw material and decreasing energy use in production of biofuels.

Biotechnology can also help farmers increase yields per acre and reduce petroleum inputs in agriculture. “The Obama administration’s leadership, through the recently announced Biofuels Interagency Working Group, is vital to stimulating the investment needed to bring advanced biofuels to market. There are many federal and state programs designed to support the industry during its infancy that require coordination and funding. These important incentive programs include loan guarantees for biorefineries, a reverse auction for the first billion gallons of advanced biofuels, and funding and fast-tracking of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program.”

To access a replay of the briefing, please dial 800-642-1687 and use conference code 99502661. For additional information, please contact Paul Winters, Communications Director, BIO at 202-962-9237 or pwinters@bio.org.

BIO supports the production of biofuels from all feedstocks. Agricultural biotechnology is helping to increase crop yields, while industrial biotechnology is helping to convert crops, crop residues and other feedstocks into ethanol more efficiently. With ongoing advances in biotechnology, biofuels can help America meet nearly half its transportation fuel needs by the middle of this century.

Upcoming BIO Events

BIO Human Resources Conference
May 17-19, 2009
Atlanta, GA

2009 BIO International Convention
May 18-21, 2009
Atlanta, Ga.

BioEquity Europe
June 9-10, 2009
Munich, Germany

World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology & Bioprocessing
July 19-22, 2009
Montreal, Quebec, Canada



About BIO

BIO represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the BIO International Convention, the world’s largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world.

Gloria Arroyo's Speech on CLimate Change

I am not a fan of President Gloria Arroyo, but this among many of her speeches caught my attention in my favorite radio station some night ago. While listening to Kalikasan Vigilante, I heard this after the talk show. I wonder if this speech was ever broadcasted to the masses. At any rate, I feel the urge to share this with all of you. Please read on, it will be worth your time.


Tuesday, 12 May 2009
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s speech during the Regional Development Committee’s One Visayas Initiative on Climate Change Summit and signing of R.A. 9593 or the Tourism Act OF 2009


Dubhe Ballroom, Imperial Palace Waterpark Resort & Spa
Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu
May 12, 2009

Maraming salamat Secretary Atienza sa iyong pagpakilala sa akin.

To our members of the Senate, Senator Zubiri the majority leader and Dick Gordon the sponsor and author of the Tourism Law, the Tourism Act; to our several members of Congress who are here today either because they are from Cebu or because they are authors and sponsors of the Tourism Act -- but of course all the congressmen of Cebu are authors of the Tourism Act -- members of the Cabinet; chairpersons of the Regional Development Councils and the other members of the councils; the governors; city mayors; municipal mayors; other officials of the whole Visayas who are here today. To all of you, this is a wonderful day.

First to the authors, sponsors and co-authors of the Tourism Law, and the members of the tourism industry who are here today with us, congratulations! (applause)

To the local government officials in Regions VI, VII and VIII, for putting up this One Visayas Initiative, and to our NGO leaders Bebet, Tony and Father Jet and the other leaders who are here today, congratulations! (applause) for getting this very important summit together to act on an issue that threatens the well-being of our nation and our people, and an issue that if we address it properly will enhance the attractiveness of Central Philippines as a tourism destination. Congratulations also to you! (applause) That’s why I thought of putting the two events together because they are so closely link to each other. And it’s timely to have this event today not only because the tourism industry has been waiting for this law for so many years now but also because climate change is here. Human activity has caused it. Fossil fuels. Land use. Solid waste.

Although we can tell ourselves and be proud that with our total gas emissions constituting less than one percent of the total emissions from the whole world, the Philippines is not a climate maker, but we are a climate taker. Even if we say we contribute less than one percent to climate change, yet we suffer as much or maybe even more than climate makers because we are an archipelago. If climate change were to reach its tipping point Florida may lose some coastline, but we may lose entire islands. Weather patterns are changing. You in the Visayas only know too well how super typhoons like Frank killed hundreds of our countrymen and wrought damage worth hundreds of millions of pesos on public and private property. Because of climate change and the many things that happen that are not as predictable as they use to be.

Planning and implementation will be increasingly difficult. That is why this summit is so important because you have come up with your output on what you should do because of climate change and that becomes a blueprint moving forward even as planning and implementation become more difficult. I think we need not overstress, it must have been said yesterday over and over again, that climate change is bad for the Philippine economy. And it will be especially bad for the Visayan economy whose future is eco-tourism. So, we do not have much time. But we should find comfort in the thought that solutions exist today.

Humanity started climate change. It is humanity that can stop climate change. And the sooner we fix it the cheaper it will be. So, we have to work together. The framework to drive climate change effectively is largely present in the architecture of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol of 1997. That framework, the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Plan of Action of 2007 have pointed out two strategies that must be simultaneously activated by all countries in response to climate change. The first is adaptation, where we apply strategies to cope with the effects of climate change as they hit us; or even before they do and the second is mitigation to significantly reduce greenhouse gases that we release.

Here in our country our reforestation efforts to have more trees absorb more carbon dioxide; our early warning systems, including coordinated action for rescue and rehabilitation in times of floods and other climate change-related activities; and even our training in alternative livelihood activities for people who use to earn their living from now degraded forests and mangrove areas -- all these are examples of adaptation.

We have likewise been involved in mitigation, and they are reflected in our laws: the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Management Act -- which I was honored to have signed as my very first law when I became President in 2001-- and the Clean Water Act. The Tourism Act today will likewise contribute to our efforts to reduce the effects of climate change by giving more teeth to our tourism jobs creation policy, which has a very strong environmental protection component. I was asking the various authors what they considered so important in the law and their contribution to it.

We have here two Deputy Speakers, Girlie Villarosa and Raul de Mar of Cebu. While riding in the plane with Raul Del Mar I asked Raul, “what do you think was your most important contribution?” -- because Raul authored one of the three bills in the House that eventually became the Tourism Act. I asked Raul, “what do you feel was your most important contribution?” And he said that it was strengthening the Department of Tourism in implementing the strategies -- that was his most important contribution. And then I asked Dick Gordon, who was my Secretary of Tourism and therefore that… and I remember when I told him why I wanted him to be Secretary of Tourism, I told him I want you to make a Subic out of the whole country. So he continued with that work. I asked him now, as we were signing, “so, Dick, what is the most important part of the law as far as you are concerned?” And he said it is the strengthening of the policy, the incentives in the tourism zones which will be administered by the Department of Tourism for the contribution of Raul del Mar and the strengthening of the infrastructure component.

And so, indeed, we will be having all kinds of tourism areas all over the country, but I am sure that as 55 percent of our tourists come to visit Central Philippines, I figure 55 percent of those tourism zones will also be in Central Philippines especially the Visayas and here in Cebu. (applause)

As mentioned by Mel Sarmiento -- who welcomed us and who was the one who called me to come and attend this conference -- in late December last year, I reorganized the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change with the use of a draft submitted to me by Tony Oposa. In that draft as per his recommendation… in that Executive Order, I made myself the chairperson. But the Task Force has 14 task groups for various concerns, and every task group is headed by a Cabinet member to draw up action plans and set targets for a specific area related to climate change. For instance, Secretary Atienza is the head of the Task Force on Solid Waste Management, also on protected areas, and that is why he goes around with me every Friday in order to communicate to all our local governments that the Solid Waste Management Law mandates every single barangay in the country to have a Materials Recovery Facility. Now, that’s not such a tall order really because depending on how simple or how elaborate you want your MRF to be it can be as cheap as less that 200,000 pesos or it can be as sophisticated as two million pesos.

And so, therefore, this is something we want every barangay to do. In fact, I will also like to take advantage of this occasion to thank the League of Municipalities because even as we speak they are now on a caravan all over the Philippines to communicate to all the mayors that they should help and assist their barangay in putting up Materials Recovery Facilities.

We have also task forces on fossil fuels, renewable energy and, of course, needless to say that Angie Reyes is in-charge of the energy-related task forces as well as DOTC Secretary Mendoza with regard to shifting from fossil fuels to other fuels. And part of the requirement of the task force is that we should really promote renewable energy which is a law that was sponsored by Migs Zubiri here, the two Juan Miguels, Juan Miguel Zubiri and my son Juan Miguel Arroyo. But when I said that the framework is largely in the U.N. Convention and the Kyoto Protocol there are still key remaining elements.

We still have to set new targets for the post 2010 period. We still have to establish suitable carbon markets. The carbon markets I have seen in the Philippines have been very well done. For instance, I have seen the Toyota reforest the Northern part of Sierra Madre using carbon credits. I have seen landfills being transformed into methane-driven power plants using carbon credits. Although may I add a caveat, this is not an excuse to put up new sanitary landfills. Let’s just clean up the old ones but instead of sanitary landfills, let us just concentrate on MRFs in every barangay. (applause)

We still have to formalize funding arrangements so that developing countries like us can meet the additional cost of low emission technology. We still have to reach agreements on administrative arrangements for the adaptation fund that the developed countries are supposed to help us with. And as far as the post Kyoto is concerned, the Philippines supports an 80 percent reduction of carbon emissions. (applause) In order for the world to agree to this, there is an urgent need to crop a new Climate Treaty that is viable in the long- term and binding under international law and we hope to do this in the forthcoming Copenhagen Conference. The decision to avoid dangerous climate change does not rest in the future but in today’s national and local governments and businesses including the tourism industry, the hotel industry including especially those in the Visayas.

We all have the opportunity to device replicable models to identify national vulnerability and build formulas for adaptation. Here in the Visayas, for instance, the world’s largest wet steam fields are right here in Leyte, in Negros Island, and tapping our geothermal sources has enabled us in fact not only in Negros Island but in several parts of the country, they have helped us to become 60 percent energy-sufficient. Likewise, biogases co-generation plants like in Negros Occidental can tap the waste product of sugarcane manufactured to produce energy instead of being left to rot and discharge more methane into the atmosphere. And since we’re talking about the Visayas and what the laws require there is an earlier law that also requires the municipalities, the coastal municipalities to set aside 15 percent of your waters for marine sanctuary. (applause)

The environment cannot take a back seat to economic development. There is no reason that job creation and a good, clean and sound environmental policy cannot exist. I think tourism, the kind of tourism that we have today shows that, because our tourism is very, very eco-friendly. So different from tourism in the days of old. I remember when I was a young activist we were all against tourism because of the sex tourism. But now I remember, on the other hand today, how times changed, there is a certain area in the country where the religious are against a casino. So they said… then the local officials say, but it creates jobs. So, the answer of the religious was, “why not create jobs through tourism?” See, because now the understanding of tourism is eco-tourism. So that is a best example of what we’re trying to say that caring for the environment is an important contribution to job creation.

That is why this One Visayas Initiative in the heart of our tourism region is significant and timely. It is led by local government executives through the Regional Development Councils. We have here Mel, our host Governor Gwen and Sally, and it has the support of the academe, private sector representatives, civil society as members and Father Jet comes from the church.

And as I see all of you coming here together to put this One Visayas Summit together on Climate Change, I am reminded that now is the time for pulling together and focusing on family and the community. Now is the time to initiate a new era of volunteerism and community spirit. Climate change adaptation and mitigation is not only a job of the government but also of religious and civic groups and nongovernmental organizations harnessing our people to engage in coordinated volunteer activities. Volunteer activities can focus on initiatives as cleaning up our environment; because trash is not only ugly it contributes to methane. Building parks because building parks build up greens, produce oxygen and reduces climate change, the same with planting trees. These are just as important as bringing comfort to the poor through food banks and bringing literacy to adults who cannot read.

So, I thank all of you for being here today. And I say to all of you, to our green legislators who love and promote eco-tourism, to our green LGUs, to our green NGOs and to our green industry in tourism, congratulations to all of you! (applause)

Automakers, Obama announce mileage, pollution plan

By: KEN THOMAS and PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writers Ken Thomas And Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writers – 47 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wants drivers to go farther on a gallon of gas and cause less damage to the environment — and be willing to pick up the tab.

Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for cars and trucks, as well as require a 35.5 miles per gallon standard. Consumers should expect to pay an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016, officials said.

The administration officials spoke on the condition of anonymity ahead of the formal announcement by Obama.

The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards — with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting the single national standard they've been seeking and more time to make the changes.

Obama's plan couples for the first time pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent to taking 177 million cars off the road, senior administration officials said Monday night.

New vehicles would be 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by the end of the program, according to officials familiar with the administration's discussions. The officials also spoke on condition of anonymity because the formal announcement had not been made.

The plan still must clear regulatory hurdles at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department. Automakers appear to be in support.

Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700 for mileage standards that had already been approved. The comprehensive Obama plan would add another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said.

The extra miles would come at roughly a 5 percent increase each year. By the time the plan takes full effect, at the end of 2016, new vehicles would cost an extra $1,300.

That official said the cost would be recovered through savings at the pump for consumers who choose a standard 60-month car loan and if gas prices follow government projections.

In a battle over emission standards, California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have urged the federal government to let them enact more stringent standards than the federal government's requirements. The states' regulations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and trucks by 2016 — the benchmark Obama planned to unveil for vehicles built in model years 2012 and beyond.

The Obama plan gives the states essentially what they sought and more, although the buildup is slower than the states sought. In exchange, though, cash-strapped states such as California would not have to develop their own standards and enforcement plan. Instead, they can rely on federal tax dollars to monitor the environment.

The auto industry will be required to ramp up production of more fuel-efficient vehicles on a much tighter timeline than originally envisioned. It will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion.

But industry officials — many of whom are running companies on emergency taxpayer dollars — said Obama's plan would help them because they would not face multiple emissions requirements and would have more certainty as they develop their vehicles for the next decade.

Auto executives, including General Motors Corp. CEO Fritz Henderson, and executives from Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Daimler AG and others planned to attend the White House event. United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger also planned to attend, as did Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

___

Associated Press writers Ben Feller and Dina Cappiello contributed to this report.

Tribute to our planet video

Be in love with your planet, watch this video and have a better appreciation of how beautiful this planet really is.

Credit goes to Secret Agent and Jo Blankenburg for the lovely music in the background.

Come, enjoy the ride as we take you hovering over our beautiful planet... hopefully, in effect, to make us care for it more afterwards.

A notable comment from an American in Malaysia

src="http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/5308/341313423781282/240/263620/gse_multipart58184.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
Steve S.

I feel Steve S. - comment is worth sharing... He is an engineer working in Malaysia as a Machinery Engineer in a Big Oil Company and his insights or inputs are valid in my opinion.

I find this coment he made from the previous post worth sharing.


"Here in Malaysia there is a radio spot encouraging everyone to use the internet less as two typical searches use as much energy as boiling a kettle of water.

My first reaction was "so?" And then my second reaction was "BALDERDASH!"

I fully believe in reducing wasted energy, that is a big part of my job-reducing wasted energy and preventing carbon emissions for no good reason, but stopping internet usage? What we get everyone to get in their car and go to the library to look up information? Or maybe they drive all over town searching for something when they could have found it on the internet in seconds. The commercial is stupid.

Here is Google's stand on the subject substantiating my balderdash assessment.

"Recently, though, others have used much higher estimates, claiming that a typical search uses "half the energy as boiling a kettle of water" and produces 7 grams of CO2. We thought it would be helpful to explain why this number is *many* times too high. Google is fast — a typical search returns results in less than 0.2 seconds. Queries vary in degree of difficulty, but for the average query, the servers it touches each work on it for just a few thousandths of a second. Together with other work performed before your search even starts (such as building the search index) this amounts to 0.0003 kWh of energy per search, or 1 kJ. For comparison, the average adult needs about 8000 kJ a day of energy from food, so a Google search uses just about the same amount of energy that your body burns in ten seconds.

In terms of greenhouse gases, one Google search is equivalent to about 0.2 grams of CO2. The current EU standard for tailpipe emissions calls for 140 grams of CO2 per kilometer driven, but most cars don't reach that level yet. Thus, the average car driven for one kilometer (0.6 miles for those in the U.S.) produces as many greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches."

__________________
Veritas vos liberabit....La vérité rend libre..... De waarheid is bevrijdend ..... La verdad te libera....The truth will set you free."


Nice signature too!

Google Going Green Goats

Here's a cool way to maintain your lawn... i got this from Yahoo news just this morning and Google is actually doing this in their perimeter.

I think this is a good idea, and I believe it is worth adopting.



We live in an increasingly green-conscious world. For some, "it's not easy being green"; however, many individuals and corporations have taken steps towards embracing green initiatives.

Recent news from Google suggests that the search engine doesn't just think outside the box when creating software. Creative thinking also characterizes the company's quest to be green. On May 1st, Google announced that it would no longer be using noisy, gasoline-fueled lawnmowers at its Mountain View headquarters. Rather, Google rented goats from California Grazing for a week-long visit to the complex. The animals ate grass and fertilized the land.

According to Google's official blog, "The goats are herded with the help of Jen, a border collie. It costs us about the same as mowing, and goats are a lot cuter to watch than lawn mowers."

Before the goats arrived to feast at the Googleplex, the brush in the area was reportedly 4-ft tall; however, the goats ate through most of it in just a few days. An on-site herder said the goats would do a field-clearing for Google once a year. The herder also reported that a couple of goats got sick because human were feeding them flowers, which are poisonous to goats.

Google Isn't Alone, or Even First to Use Goats

Google may be getting all of the press now, but Yahoo has been using goats to maintain its land for at least a couple years. Yahoo has even uploaded a photo showing goats grazing on its property with the caption:

Once or twice a year, a large herd of goats can be seen just past our parking garage in Sunnyvale, grazing happily on the tall grasses of the hill (cough - landfill - cough) beyond. We have a special fondness for the goats and are always sad to see them go (which, based on their voracity, happens much faster than you'd imagine).

Not to be outdone by Google and Yahoo, Chattanooga, Tennessee has been letting goats roam in a city-owned section of the Missionary Ridge since 2006. The city had been previously overrun by kudzu vines - known as "the vine that ate the south" – that grow up to a foot a day. Chattanooga's goats are now said to be the "official city mascots" and have even inspired songwriter Randy Mitchell to write "Ode to Billy Goats."

When I first heard about this story, I thought it was a joke. Goats? Really? But I think the idea is a good one – as long as you have the time, money and patience to deal with them.

What'sthe most creative or unique "green" idea you've ever heard of?

Resources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/bigMoney/idUS24458641020090504

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/us/05goats.html

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/05/01/google-and-yahoo-both-use-goats-for-lawn-mowing

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/mowing-with-goats.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/04/AR2009050400027.html

Earth Science Presentation

Please enjoy this short movie about Earth Science...