When it comes to the question about energy priorities for America there is a strong consensus. A majority wants the US to invest in renewable energy sources such as wind, hydrogen and solar instead of expanding the oil, natural gas and coal sector.

“Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) say developing alternative sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen technology should be the more important priority for addressing America’s energy supply; 29% say expanding exploration and production of oil, coal and natural gas should be the more important priority.”

Some findings that didn’t really surprise anyone was the result that right-wing libertarians and conservatives doesn’t like environmental regulations while being more supportive of corporations. While 39% of the general public agree with the statement that “stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy” as many as 79% of libertarians agree on that.

“Staunch Conservatives and Libertarians are the only groups in which majorities say the U.S. has gone too far in its efforts to protect the environment. In all other groups – including Main Street Republicans and the GOP-leaning Disaffecteds – most say that this country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment.”

The only ones who rather want to see more investments in the fossil fuel industry than the development of renewable energy sources are “staunch conservatives”. Libertarians also misses a majority agreement on this issue.

“Staunch Conservatives are the only group in which a majority says expanding oil, coal and natural gas should be the priority; fully 72% say this should be the focus, while just 15% would emphasize alternative energy sources.”

When it comes to the question of global warming you can still, unfortunately, see that it “remains a deeply partisan issue”. A majority of the public says there is evidence that the global temperature is rising and that the climate is changing.

“Overall, 58% of the public says there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades while 34% say there is no solid evidence of warming. Just over a third (36%) say this warming is mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, while 18% say it is mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment.”

But what is more interesting, and satisfying to read, is that 71% of Americans believe the USA “should do whatever it takes to protect the environment”. And 59% believe strongly in that.

The rich countries in the “North”, i.e. the West, have a “rapidly decreasing” population which is “expected to decline over the next forty years.” Developing countries such as India, China and most of Africa on the other hand is where we will see future population numbers increasing.

And yes. It seems so easy to blame countries with an overwhelming rising population for being responsible for wrecking our planet, climate and environment. Because surely more people must mean more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Right?

Not really. The West is responsible for about 80% of the worlds CO2 increase. An average person living in Great Britain will in only 11 days emit as much CO2 as an average person in Bangladesh will during a whole year. And just a single power plant in West Yorkshire in Great Britain will produce more CO2 every year than all the 139 million people combined living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique.

As Fred Pearce from the Yale Environment 360 blog notes, only a small portion of the world’s people are using most of the planets resources as well as producing the most of the greenhouse gases. And those are living in the West:

“The world’s population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don’t translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

[…]By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.”

According to Pearce overpopulation in the developing countries is not the problem. Instead the increasing overconsumption among the planets 7% richest people and countries is to be blamed. And he is not alone in claiming this. George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, also agrees with this viewpoint. As Monbiot notes in a recent published article on the Guardian:

“As one the graphs King displayed demonstrated, and as the UN and independent scientists predict, the world’s population is expected to peak at around 9 billion by 2060 and then to decline to around 8.5 billion by 2100.

Of course the bisophere can ill-afford to carry these numbers, and they will load an extra 40 or 50% of pressure onto every environmental constraint. It’s an issue, in other words. But the issue?

Until the recession struck, the global rate of economic growth was 3.8%. The world’s governments hope and pray that we’ll be back on this track as soon as possible. Population, of course, is one of the components of economic growth, but the global population growth rate is currently 1.2%.

It’s responsible, in other words, for one-third of normal economic growth. The rest is supplied by rising consumption. Consumption, on this measure, bears twice as much responsibility for pressure on resources and ecosystems as population growth.”

Let’s take a look at the ecological footprint between developing countries and developed countries in the West. An ecological footprint is the estimate on how much land is required to provide you and me with food and other resources as well as cleaning up our pollution. The global average ecological footprint is 2.7 hectares per person.

Sweden, my own country, has an ecological footprint of 5.1 hectares. The UK is on 5.3. Australia has 7.8 and Canada has an average of 7.1 hectares. The United Arab Emirates and the United States of America are on the top spot with an ecological footprint of 9.5 and 9.4. Developing countries such as China only has an ecological footprint of 2.1 hectares while India is on 0.9. And most countries in Africa are around or below 1.0 hectares.

Pearce gives even more examples of unfair consumption between the rich and poor countries:

“Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.”

“Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world’s population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.”

“A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.”

Just like Monbiot and Pearce claims overpopulation is not the problem. Even if we were to get a zero population growth around the world it wouldn’t help us against the climate crisis. Instead the overconsumption among the rich few in the world is the main problem which we must deal with.

Climate Progress writes: “To avoid catastrophic global warming impacts, the rich countries need to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% to 90% by mid-century. The developing countries (not including China) mostly must slow emissions growth, peak by mid-century, then decline — while ending the vast majority of deforestation by 2020. China must peak its emissions by 2020 and then reduce after that, first slowly, then quickly by mid-century.”

Overpopulation is only seen as a major problem because it’s the only thing we in the West can blame the developing countries for.

Photo credit: jurvetson

This past Friday the House of Representatives in USA voted yes to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a cap-and-trade energy bill, by a vote of 219 to 212. This historic climate change bill will require limits on pollution responsible for man-made climate change and it will help USA create a green economy, if it also gets thumbs up in the Senate.

“After a tense debate, in which the margin of success or failure never moved beyond a handful of votes, the House of Representatives passed the most sweeping climate change policy ever considered by Congress early Friday evening, the Huffington Post reports.

The outcome had remained up in the air up until the actual vote, with the White House and the president himself engaging in a heavy lobbying campaign aimed at restoring Democratic Party unity that seemed to be fracturing.”

President Barack Obama said in his weekly address that this new bill will help “create green jobs, ensure clean air for our children, move towards energy independence and combat climate change.”

Steve Bouchard, Campaign Manager for Repower America, said in a statement after the vote that the House of Representatives had just passed a “landmark bill that will propel our nation toward a clean energy future.” But Bouchard also warned that the fight wasn’t over yet:

“It’s not over though. The debate moves on to the Senate where our opponents will redouble their efforts. There will be more distortions and foot dragging, but the momentum is on our side.

Today, we have something to celebrate. For the first time in decades, we have taken bold action to help solve the climate crisis.”

But not everyone is happy about the bill. Republicans have complained that the energy bill is just a new “energy tax” and falsely claims it will cost households in USA $3,100 every year. The Daily Green reports:

“This debate has sprung largely from a Republican misreading (why not be generous?) of an MIT study that led pundits and politicians to cry about the perils of a new “energy tax” that might cost American households $3,100 every year. (Though that claim has been thoroughly debunked, I seem to hear it every other Saturday in the Republican response to President Obama’s weekly address.) The author of the MIT study puts the cost at $800, while the conservative Heritage Foundation estimated the annual cost at $1,500 and the Environmental Protection Agency estimated the cost at just $140 or lower.”

Thomas Friedman, author of the book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded – Why We Need a Green Revolution – And How it Can Renew America”, writes on the New York Times that he thinks the energy bill is a “mess” and that it “stinks”. Friedman blames the Republicans, President Barack Obama and “We the People” for being responsible for such a weak bill. But he still calls for the Senate to pass the bill:

“Why? Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as Americavoting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere.

More important, my gut tells me that if the U.S. government puts a price on carbon, even a weak one, it will usher in a new mind-set among consumers, investors, farmers, innovators and entrepreneurs that in time will make a big difference — much like the first warnings that cigarettes could cause cancer. The morning after that warning no one ever looked at smoking the same again.”

In advance of the vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House of Representatives, Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett said that the bill “chooses politics over science” and that it “elevates industry interests over national interest.” She even called for the Congress to reject the bill and instead begin “immediate and urgent work on legislation that treats seriously the dire threat of climate change”.

“As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.

[…]This legislation sends a strong and unmistakable signal to the world that the United States is not yet ready to show the leadership necessary to reach a strong agreement at Copenhagen in December. Already, we are seeing the impact of this signal as one country after another retreats from the aggressive targets needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.”

In a response to the thumbs up for the energy bill in the House of Representatives Muffett called the bill “a victory” for coal, oil and other dirty industry lobbyists. She also said that “it is a tremendous loss for the American people and for the world in our common fight to avert climate catastrophe.”

“To avoid the worst effects of global warming, we must reduce emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and the short term target of this bill is a paltry 4%. The massive offsets in this bill means that we can continue at our current emissions level for years, and huge giveaways mean a new generation of nuclear and coal plants.

Unless the bill is substantially strengthened in the Senate, we have a lot more work ahead of us. We are calling upon President Obama to use every tool at his disposal, both within and outside Congress, to get us back to the science-based targets he promised.”

The energy and climate bill has a long way to go before becoming law as it has to pass voting in the Senate were more right-wingers, lobbyists paid by the coal and oil industry and even some environmentalists will try to fight the bill.

Photo credit: Brave New Films

The well-known Oscar and Emmy-winning director Michael Moore says goodbye to GM today as the failed auto company files for bankruptcy. Moore says the “big three” auto companies in the USA are responsible for their own demise and that they have created “some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming”.

“We are now in a different kind of war — a war that we have conducted against the ecosystem and has been conducted by our very own corporate leaders. This current war has two fronts. One is headquartered in Detroit. The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps. The things we call “cars” may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature. To continue to build them would only lead to the ruin of our species and much of the planet.”

But Moore says he feel “joy” about the fact that the American people now owns 60% of GM and that he is confident “we can do a better job”. He is also calling for a swift transformation of GM into a modern and environmentally-friendly company that produces cars for the future, and that the old GM factories start to produce windmills and solar panels. In short Moore is suggesting the following:

1. Convert the auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices.
2. Don’t lay off more workers. Instead use them to help build the new modes of the 21st century transportation.
3. Invest in high-speed railway across the nation.
4. Put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities, and build those trains in the GM factories.
5. Make GM produce clean and energy efficient buses for the rural areas of USA.
6. Have some factories build hybrid or all-electric cars (and batteries), it will only take a month to re-tool the factories.
7. Transform some of the empty GM factories to facilities that build windmills, solar panels and other means of alternate forms of energy.
8. Provide tax incentives for those who travel by hybrid car or bus or train.
9. Help people switch to a more energy efficient car or use the public transportation system more by imposing a two-dollar tax on every gallon of gasoline.

Moore has loads of good ideas but somehow I doubt we will start seeing common sense in the US auto industry some day soon.

Also read:
- Let GM and the other failed auto giants go under
- “There is no need to spend a penny of public money on greening the motor industry”
- Uneven Development and Northern Imperialism in the making of Today’s Ecological Crisis
- Al Gore: The whole auto industry needs to be transformed
- Obama on 60 Minutes: “We go from shock to trance and that has to be broken”

Watch the whole testimony below:

You can also watch it on YouTube.

Yesterday Al Gore testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about repowering America and the need for USA to resume global leadership on the climate crisis. You can read his opening statement below.

Al Gore is also calling for you to support his energy and climate plan which will create 100% electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years while creating millions of green high-tech jobs:

“In Congress, our leaders are debating an economic recovery package. It includes unprecedented support for putting Americans back to work building a clean energy economy.

But entrenched interests in Washington will be working hard to weaken the legislation — opposing funding for clean energy programs that support things like wind, solar, energy efficiency and a new national electric grid.

As members of Congress work out the details of a bill that can pass both the House and the Senate, it’s important that you let each of your elected representatives know that you want the recovery to be about repowering America.

You and I know that continuing with the status quo will not revitalize the U.S. economy. Please make sure your elected officials know, too.“

Read Al Gore’s opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

“We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the United States of America as part of the global community should address the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.

We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home – Earth – is in grave danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Moreover, we must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and political struggle in Afghanistan.

As we search for solutions to all three of these challenges, it is becoming clearer that they are linked by a common thread – our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels. As long as we continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil – year after year – to the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world, our national security will continue to be at risk.

As long as we continue to allow our economy to remain shackled to the OPEC rollercoaster of rising and falling oil prices, our jobs and our way of life will remain at risk.

Moreover, as the demand for oil worldwide grows rapidly over the longer term, even as the rate of new discoveries is falling, it is increasingly obvious that the roller coaster is headed for a crash. And we’re in the front car.

Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned – again just yesterday – will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.

We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.

For years our efforts to address the growing climate crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must choose between our planet and our way of life; between our moral duty and our economic well being. These are false choices. In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well.

In order to repower our economy, restore American economic and moral leadership in the world and regain control of our destiny, we must take bold action now.

The first step is already before us. I urge this Congress to quickly pass the entirety of President Obama’s Recovery package. The plan’s unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas – energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid and the move to clean cars – represent an important down payment and are long overdue. These crucial investments will create millions of new jobs and hasten our economic recovery – while strengthening our national security and beginning to solve the climate crisis.

Quickly building our capacity to generate clean electricity will lay the groundwork for the next major step needed: placing a price on carbon. If Congress acts right away to pass President Obama’s Recovery package and then takes decisive action this year to institute a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions – as many of our states and many other countries have already done – the United States will regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty. And this treaty must be negotiated this year.
Not next year. This year.

A fair, effective and balanced treaty will put in place the global architecture that will place the world – at long last and in the nick of time – on a path toward solving the climate crisis and securing the future of human civilization.

I am hopeful that this can be achieved. Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism that I feel.

The Obama administration has already signaled a strong willingness to regain U.S.leadership on the global stage in the treaty talks, reversing years of inaction. This is critical to success in Copenhagen and is clearly a top priority of the administration.

Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own initiatives. Brazil has proposed an impressive new plan to halt the destructive deforestation in that nation. Indonesia has emerged as a new constructive force in the talks. And China’s leaders have gained a strong understanding of the need for action and have already begun important new initiatives.

Heads of state from around the world have begun to personally engage on this issue and forward-thinking corporate leaders have made this a top priority.

More and more Americans are paying attention to the new evidence and fresh warnings from scientists. There is a much broader consensus on the need for action than there was when President George H.W. Bush negotiated – and the Senate ratified – the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and much stronger support for action than when we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

The elements that I believe are key to a successful agreement in Copenhagen include:

- Strong targets and timetables from industrialized countries and differentiated butbinding commitments from developing countries that put the entire world under a system with one commitment: to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and otherglobal warming pollutants that cause the climate crisis;

- The inclusion of deforestation, which alone accounts for twenty percent of the emissions that cause global warming;

- The addition of sinks including those from soils, principally from farmlands and grazing lands with appropriate methodologies and accounting. Farmers and ranchers in the U.S. and around the world need to know that they can be part of the solution;

- The assurance that developing countries will have access to mechanisms and resources that will help them adapt to the worst impacts of the climate crisis and technologies to solve the problem; and,

- A strong compliance and verification regime.

The road to Copenhagen is not easy, but we have traversed this ground before. We have negotiated the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we have banned most of the major substances that create the ozone hole over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill joined hands to lead the way.”

The people have spoken. And they have clearly chosen Barack Obama as the next President of the United States of America. Hopefully the election outcome will result in USA moving away from its current destructive climate and environmental politics and policies. Hopefully well-needed change will come to USA, and the world.

People, leaders and organisations from around the world hurry to congratulate Obama and his running mate Biden while hoping that this will be a new “fresh” chapter in U.S. relations and politics.

The current French Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Union said in a statement that “the European Union is ready to work closely with Mr Barack Obama and his administration” to together combat “the challenges of the 21st century” in “a spirit of mutual trust and dialogue”:

“Because the world aspires to peace and stability, the European Union sees in this election the promise of a reinforced transatlantic partnership, a partnership that serves the universally shared values that inspire the people of Europe and the United States, a partnership that will enable us to face together the challenges of the 21st century.

The European Union is ready to work closely with Mr Barack Obama and his administration and to make concrete proposals at the appropriate time, in a spirit of mutual trust and dialogue.”

The President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, said that “we need to change the current crisis into a new opportunity. We need a new deal for a new world.”

“This is a time for a renewed commitment between Europe and the United States of America.

I want to assure US President elect Obama of the support of the European Commission and of my personal support in forging this renewed commitment to face together the many challenges ahead of us.

We need to change the current crisis into a new opportunity. We need a new deal for a new world. I sincerely hope that with the leadership of President Obama, the United States of America will join forces with Europe to drive this new deal. For the benefit of our societies, for the benefit of the world.”

In a statement John Passacantando, Greenpeace USA Executive Director, congratulated not just Obama but also “the American people for backing a candidate who stood up for real change in a time of deep economic trouble”:

“We also congratulate the American people for backing a candidate who stood up for real change in a time of deep economic trouble. Among the most daunting issues America faces today is the crisis of global warming, and the American people backed the candidate who ran on a clear platform of taking the bold, science-based action needed to solve that crisis.”

The Greenpeace’s Making Waves blog congratulates Obama, but also wants to remind him about the promises he made during the election campaign:

“We’re non-partisan here at Greenpeace. We don’t have any permanent allies or enemies. We support policies, not politicians. We endorse deeds, not words. So even while a lot of us (in our personal capacity as human beings and not Greenpeace employees) are jumping up and down this morning with glee, we want to take a moment to remind you of the promises you made in your election campaign.”

[…]

“When the oil company sharks and the coal industry crooks and the nuclear energy shisters begin to gather at your door, please remember what you promised us in this election. Please remember the reasons you gave us to hope.”

Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth Action, said that energy was a key issue in the election and that “Barack Obama and the new Congress can help the United States fulfill its potential to again be a world leader in the provision of clean energy”:

“Our country is in a tough spot. Our outdated energy infrastructure and reliance on fossil fuels are damaging the economy, endangering our national security, and threatening the planet with an unprecedented environmental and human catastrophe in the form of climate disruption. But these challenges also provide an opportunity to move forward, as wind, solar, and efficiency projects can happen quickly. Barack Obama and the new Congress can help the United States fulfill its potential to again be a world leader in the provision of clean energy. It’s our job to hold their feet to the fire and ensure they do so.”

Henrik Hasselknippe, the global head of carbon analysis for Point Carbon, a research company based in Norway, said that Obama will be a blessing for the clean energy businesses and that the international climate talks have “been on hold” and just waited “for a new U.S. administration to take office”:

“You could say that international climate talks have been on hold for the past few years with everyone in reality just waiting for a new U.S. administration to take office,” said Henrik Hasselknippe, the global head of carbon analysis for Point Carbon, a research company based in Oslo, Norway.

Mr. Hasselknippe said the victory for Mr. Obama was a boon for clean energy businesses because of an expectation that “it would be easier to get international negotiations going with a Democrat in the White House.” He noted that Mr. Obama had proposed more ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions for U.S. industry than John McCain, the Republican candidate who conceded defeat.”

Kate Hampton, head of policy at Climate Change Capital, a British investment company with $1.6bn under management, welcomed the election outcome while saying that Bush “had held back the growth of green business”:

“We cannot overstate how divisive the Bush administration was, how far behind the United States now is in the transition to the local carbon economy and how high expectations are now,” said Ms. Hampton. Mr. Obama “is a supporter of cap and trade and will push for more auctioning of carbon allowances, which is a good thing as it gives the US income to spend on other low carbon economy measures.”

Ms. Hampton also said she hoped that Obama would recognize that a “transition to the new economy will create jobs and profit” and build an “approach which is consistent with what the governments of the UK and France have been saying.”

Ricken Patel, from Avaaz.org, said in an email that “after 8 long years of Bush” there would finally be “a fresh start”:

“Obama’s victory brings a chance for the US to finally join with the world community to take on pressing challenges on climate change, human rights, and peace.

After years, even decades of distrust, let’s seize this moment of unity, reconciliation and hope to send a message of warm congratulations and invitation to work together to the new President and the American people.”

Green Blog recently endorsed Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Because when it comes to environmental, energy and climate issues, only Obama stood out as the strong and aggressive candidate with a detailed and comprehensive plan to tackle these problems. Now we need to put pressure on Obama and his administration so that the promises he have made will not be forgotten.

The new Ford Transit Connect is smaller and more compact than the older yellow cabs. They are designed with less horizontal space and with more vertical space. But it will actually have more space for passengers and their cargo than the older cabs. It also features dual sliding doors which help cause less pain in an over-crowded city like New York.

The Ford Transit Connect uses a standard 2.0-liter, four-cylinder engine which uses 30% less fuel and releases 90% less exhaust fumes than the older cabs. The new cab will get an estimated 19 mpg in the city.

The driver of the cab will get an in-dash computer, running Microsoft Auto software, which is linked to Internet and offers traffic, weather, and navigation information and help.

Having spent the last week in the United States and having watched all the presidential candidates debate, I’m struck by how little talk there is of climate change and what the United States intends to do about it!

The climate threat that faces us today is the important issue that should be among the top things discussed between the different presidential candidates. Cause the climate threat will affect everything from healthcare to immigration and Iraq to education and welfare.

Libby Rosenthal acknowledges this and put weight on America’s most foolish decision to attempt to disrupt the climate actions that needs to be done around the world by not signing the Kyoto Protocol.

But from the world’s perspective, the issue of whether America will join with other countries in controlling global warming is a key issue, and one that should be discussed in front of the American public: The United States is, after all, the major developed nation that has not signed the Kyoto Protocol.

After the Australian federal election last year were decided on the climate change inaction by John Howard, Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol and left USA alone.

Libby Rosenthal continues by adding that “the most disturbing thing in some ways is not what the candidates think, but how little this important issue is being discussed, despite 24/7 television coverage. That means the candidates have not had to explain how they will handle tough questions like how to get U.S. car makers to participate in emission reductions; how to discourage Americans from driving gas guzzlers; and whether the United States will step up to the plate to control its emissions, even if China does not.”

Unfortunately, at the moment, it doesn’t seem like the USA elections will be decided upon the different candidates “green” credentials and ideas any day soon.

Image credit: Alexdecarvalho. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution license.