A draft report of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008 indicates that transportation emissions fell by 5.7 per cent – the largest annual fall since 1990.

The report outlines that overall greenhouse has emissions have decreased by 2.9 per cent with CO2 emissions in the transportation sector dropping from 1,893.8Tg CO2 in 2007 to 1,785.3Tg CO2 in 2008. This is the largest annual change in absolute or percentage terms since records began in 1990.  

The transportation end-use sector accounted for 1,818.1Tg CO2 in 2008 with 32 per cent of CO2 emissions, 24 per cent of CH4 emissions and 65 per cent of N2O emissions coming from fossil fuel combustion. Light duty vehicles represented 62 per cent of CO2 emissions, with medium and heavy trucks accounting for 22 per cent and commercial aircraft seven per cent.

Overall, from 1990 to 2008 transportation emissions have increased by 22 per cent – largely due to increased demand for travel as well as the stagnation of fuel efficiency across the US vehicle fleet. Vehicle miles travelled have also increased by 37 per cent over the 18year period and there has been a significant increase in air travel and freight transportation.

According to the EPA, the decrease in 2008 is largely due to a decline in economic activity and the increased price of transportation fuels.

The issue over the truth behind global warming, climate change and the impact of greenhouse gases just won’t subside in America where US House Members have issued a joint resolution to nullify the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding in December 2009 that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health and could be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Congressman Ike Skelton (D-Mo), Congressman Collin Peterson (D-Minn) and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo) introduced the joint resolution after US Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) earlier introduced an identical resolution in the US Senate.

Under the terms of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, Congress now has 60 legislative days to review a major rule under expedited legislative procedures and consider a resolution. Should the disapproval resolution be enacted the rule may not take effect and the agency is not allowed to issue a similar rule without statutory authorisation.

According to Congressman Skelton, when Congress passed the Clean Air Act it never gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of stopping climate change – but, he says, that is exactly what it is proposing to do. Congressman Skelton outlined that the resolution of disapproval will not stop Congress working on energy legislation but stated that he hopes it will opt for a more scaled back bipartisan bill rather than cap and trade.

Under the terms of President Obama’s national fuel policy, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had been developing a harmonised national policy with the intent of reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions that would cover model years 2012-2016 and require an average fuel economy standard of 35.5mpg in 2016.

We’d love to hear your comments on the objections to the EPA’s ruling. Do you agree with the logic or are these politicians showing a lack of foresight? Leave a comment below with your thoughts.

How much faith do you have that climate change is a reality? According to a new poll by Ipsos Mori, belief in global warming is falling in the UK.

The proportion of adults describing climate change as “definitely” a reality fell from 44 per cent to 31 per cent over the last 12 months. Even though around nine out of 10 people still appear to accept global warming to some degree, it seems that doubts are creeping in which could make it more difficult to garner support for actions to curb the problem, particularly with higher prices for energy and other goods.

According to Edward Landley, Ipsos Mori’s head of environment research, the true level of doubt may also be underestimated because the poll was only conducted among those aged 16-64, while it is those over the age of 65 that are typically more sceptical.

He adds that that the poll suggests there is a growing lack of public confidence in those who believe climate change has been caused by human activities – a year ago this was around one in three, compared to just one in five this year.

One of the biggest reasons behind the changing opinions appears to be the cold winter, according to a BBC poll which found that 25 per cent of people thought climate change was not happening compared to 15 per cent last year.

The California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) faces strong opposition after the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) filed a legal challenge to the US District Court.

The NPRA was joined by the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the Centre for North American Energy Security, and the Consumer Energy Alliance in the suit.

Under the terms of the complaint, the groups state that the LCFS violates the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the US constitution. These charges echo similar complaints filed by two ethanol trade groups – the Renewable Fuels Association and Growth Energy, in December 2009.

The California LCFS calls for a 10 per cent reduction from 2006 levels in the carbon intensity of California’s transport fuels by 2020 and levies the calculation of Indirect Land Use Change effects against biofuels.

Now the NPRA claims that the standard directly regulates interstate and foreign commerce and extraterritorial conduct; imposes substantial burdens on interstate commerce; and discriminates both on its face, and as applied, against transportation fuels and fuel feedstocks imported from outside California. According to the complaint, it violates the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard.

NPRA President Charles T Drevna stated the low carbon fuel standard will have “little or no impact on greenhouse gas emissions nationwide and would harm our nation’s energy security by discouraging the use of Canadian crude oil”. He believes that discouraging the use of North American transportation fuel sources would only create unneeded burdens on California’s consumers and its economy.

Meanwhile, ATA vice president Rich Moskowitz stated that the LCFS would essentially ban imports to California of fuels derived from unconventional sources and discouraging these fuels will only increase costs while failing to prevent their export and consumption by other nations.

In response, Mary Nichols, the California Air Resources Board chairman described the groups’ actions as “shameful” stating that the LCFS is a “critical tool to help us break our dependence on fossil fuels”.

It’s not quite war – but it is a battle.

UK climate secretary Ed Miliband declared a “battle” against the “siren voices” that denied global warming was real or caused by humans and those who think there is no need to cut carbon emissions to tackle the problem.

In an interview with the Guardian’s Observer, Miliband stated that there is rigour applied to all the reports about climate change but that it would be “wrong” that when a mistake is made it is used to undermine the overwhelming picture.

He said that we know there’s a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures and we know CO2 concentrations are at their highest levels for 6,000 years with observed increases in temperatures and observed effects that point to the existence of human made climate change.

Miliband believes that climate scepticism is potentially dangerous as it could undermine public support for unpopular decisions that are necessary to curb emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines. 

For more, read the Guardian interview in full.

A reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions of 28 per cent by 2020 – that’s the goal outlined by President Barack Obama for the Federal Government.

In October 2009, the President signed Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability that sets measurable environmental performance goals for Federal agencies. Each agency was required to submit a 2020 greenhouse gas pollution reduction target from its 2008 baseline to the White House Council on Environmental Quality and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget on January 4, 2010. Now a target has been established from the aggregate of 35 Federal Agency self-reported targets.

Currently, the Federal Government is the single largest energy consumer in the US economy having spent more than $24.5billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone. To achieve its goal it will need to reduce energy use by the equivalent of 646trillion BTUs – around 205million barrels of oil, and the equivalent of taking 17million cars off the road in one year.

Targets will be achieved by measuring current energy and fuel use and becoming more energy efficient, including switching to clean energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal power.

In other news, the Obama administration has also officially announced its desire to associate with the Copenhagen Accord and has submitted an emissions reduction target of 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

How important is the issue of global warming? Well, if a new survey released by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities is any indication, then it’s not as big a concern as it used to be.

The survey found that 50 per cent of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming – down 13 points. Indeed the percentage of Americans that even think global warming is happening is also down 14 points to 57 per cent. Similarly those who think global warming is caused mostly by human activities dropped 10 points to 47 per cent.

Keeping with the trend of these beliefs, there is an increase in the number of people who think global warming will never harm the Unites States, or elsewhere, or other species; and Americans who believe that most scientists think global warming is happening has dropped by 13 points to 34 per cent.

Given the growing scientific evidence of global warming and its serious impacts, some may be perplexed by these results. However, Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change believes public opinion is affected by rising unemployment, frustration with Washington and a divisive health care debate which have pushed climate change out of the news.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a new national air quality standard for nitrogen oxide in an effort to reduce the respiratory infections that are linked to the emissions.

Under the new terms, the one-hour standard for NO2 is set at 100 parts per billion – this is the maximum allowable concentration anywhere in an area – while the EPA is also retaining the annual average standard of 53ppb.

Short term exposures to NO2 have been linked to respiratory infections, particularly among people with asthma; and it is said to contribute to the formation of fine particle pollution and smog. It is formed from vehicle, power plant and other emissions.

New monitoring requirements will be introduced in urban areas that will measure NO2 levels around major roads and across the community – they must be located near roadways in cities with at least 500,000 residents; while larger cities and areas will have additional monitors.

It is expected that the EPA will establish at least 40 monitors to help protect communities and it is expected to identify areas that don’t meet the standard by January 2012.

A new international study suggests that springtime ozone levels above western North America are rising mainly because of air flowing eastward from the Pacific Ocean – a trend at its largest when the air originates in Asia. This could even make it difficult for the US to meet Clean Air Act standards for ozone pollution.

Published in the January 21 edition of Nature, the study outlines that tropospheric ozone is an important source of the hydroxyl radical that breaks down pollutants and some greenhouse gases. High concentrations however are toxic and can even act effectively as a greenhouse gas.

Much of the present burden comes from ozone concentrations since the late 1800s – but at present, East Asia has the fastest growing ozone precursor emissions and much of the springtime east pollution is exported towards western North America. Despite evidence that the pollution produces ozone the authors note that there has been no significant increase in free tropospheric concentrations since measurements began in the late 1970s.

With the dominant airflow from South and East Asia, the scientists saw large increases in ozone measurements. However, when the airflow patterns were not directly from Asia ozone still increased but at a lower rate, indicating that emissions from other areas could also be contributing to ozone increases above North America. 

According to Owen Cooper, the lead author of the study, influence of ozone from Asia and other sources is a question for further study with scientists needing to routinely check ozone levels close to the surface to see if there are similar trends impacting ground level air quality.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 15 Conference of Parties (COP 15) came to its conclusion after an all-night session that sent two weeks of climate talks into overtime.

The result was the tentative approval of a non-biding, three-page political statement hashed out between the leaders of Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, South Africa, the UK and the USA. Known as the Copenhagen Accord, it calls for action to hold mean warming of the Earth’s surface to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels although it does not define the actions needed to achieve that goal.

It was hoped that the 113 attending world leaders would submit a draft text with no more than two or three issues outstanding – but 200 remained by Friday prompting heads of state to rush through an abbreviated document to minimise the sticking points. With President Barack Obama needing to fly back to the USA ahead of a heavy snowstorm, key statements were rapidly deleted from the document including an agreement among developed countries to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent compared to 1990 levels, by the year 2050. According to The Observer, China was they key objector to the numbers and may have been looking to future negotiations when it is likely to be categorised as a developed country rather than a developing country. Another key point lost was a stipulation that the principles of the accord be turned into a treaty at some point in the future.

Going into the negotiations there were five key goals: that developed countries agree on short-term emission targets; an agreement for emerging economies and whether they should set emission targets; finance structures to be created and funded by developed countries encouraging developing countries to minimise future emissions; the value of potential emission offsets; and that all agreements be legally binding pending independent verification.

However, the talks were shaped by two additional issues – the emergence of a draft cancelling the commitments of the last two years of the Kyoto Protocol; and the initial rejection of the 2°C maximal warming limit.

The Copenhagen Accord has failed to deliver progress on many of the major issues but it has at least committed agreeing parties to a January 31, 2010, deadline by which they must submit national emission reduction goals. For developed countries, reduction targets and reference years must be provided; while for developing countries, actions to reduce emissions must be outlined although they do have to be quantified. The Accord also outlines the financing of climate mitigation – expected to approach $30billion in the 2010-2012 period and scaling up to $100billion a year by 2020.