Category Archives: Energy

EU may tax US goods for carbon-carelessness

Interesting to read that the EU has started to describe products from the US as cheap and dangerous due to the lack of environmental concern in American leadership. The global impact of the US pollution is something that deserves attention, but will higher tariffs or even an outright ban on American goods drive the changes necessary?

…products imported from the US being taxed to compensate for resulting differences in production costs. Thus EU firms would be protected against unfair, carbon-careless competition from outside.

This seems connected with another report that the EU is successfully alerting consumers to the risks of harmful products:

The European Commission has released figures showing a rapid rise in the number of dangerous goods withdrawn from sale across the European Union.

The increase is seen in Brussels as proof that an EU-wide alert system is working better to protect consumers.

[…]

Ms Heemskerk said that the high proportion of Chinese goods among those withdrawn said more about the volume of imports from China, than Chinese safety standards.

A European Commission source also said that China was co-operating with the EU by revoking export licences for some hazardous goods.

Will the US co-operate with the EU by revoking export licenses for carbon-careless goods? Or is the demand sufficient that the prices will just have to be increased in order to compel the European’s to seek more sensible alternatives.

Henry David Thoreau once wrote:

Live in each season
as it passes;
breathe the air,
drink the drink
taste the fruit,
and resign yourself
to the influences
of each.

Little did he realize how much risk would be introduced to those simple concepts by unscrupulous folks trying to make more money at the cost of everyone else. The influences are therefore not so much the air, drink and fruit, but the chemical treatment plant, the industrial rancher, the land developer….

Four miles per gallon worse than the model T

Funny how things move around on the net. Early last year I was talking about the model T fuel efficiency compared with today’s cars. Now I see the same comparison showing up in the mainstream news:

The average price of a gallon of gas is higher than at any time since the early 1980s. The Middle East seems more volatile than ever. And even climate skeptics are starting to admit that the carbon we’re pumping into the atmosphere might have disastrous consequences. To these circumstances, automakers have responded with a fleet of cars that averages 21 miles per gallon, about four miles per gallon worse than the Model T.

Actually that is four to nine mpg worse than the Model T, or let’s just round it to ten, shall we? 107 years have passed and what exactly has improved? Let me guess, someone will say security of the passengers. Well, that turns out to be bogus logic.

Now I’m starting to think I should just dig up a model T, or take the core principles, and modify it for electric engines for getting around town.

Memo to NJ State Police: Lose the SUV

I thought these executive protection recommendations by Bruce Alexander were interesting:

Despite what Capt. Al Della Fave of the NJSP said regarding SUVs “operate in all terrains. They won’t get bogged down.� “They are heavier and can withstand a crash better,� get rid of the SUV.

Bogged down? Where are you taking him, to a tar pit? When it comes to Executive Protection there are a variety of considerations when it comes to selecting a vehicle but getting “bogged down� is rarely one of them.

There are times when an SUV is appropriate but based on the publicly available information in this situation, this isn’t one of them. An SUV simply can not maneuver as well as a sedan particularly at higher rates of speed or under an emergency driving condition requiring braking, skid or traction control. Another consideration is the increased vehicle profile that an SUV presents as opposed to a sedan.

Finally when it comes to weight as a means of protection in an accident, like they say back home “that dog don’t hunt.� Weight in this case simply means you have a heavier object in motion, not greater protection. Memo to Capt. Fave, an armored sedan is pretty darn heavy

Nice analysis. Wonder what times require an SUV. Ground clearance? Photo shoot at the New Jersey car dealers association meetings? Maybe it’s the least different model of transportation for the state and therefore a form of camouflage — spinners might soon be required too.

Update (23 Apr 2007): Bruce has posted more commentary with even stronger language regarding the misleading characteristics of giant SUVs.

An SUV should not be used as a regular means of transportation for Executive Protection. SUVs are difficult to control and simply do not perform as well in emergency situations typically encountered in Executive Protection which includes accident avoidance in addition to vehicle ambushes etc… Compounding this problem is that most Executive Protection driver’s training programs do not spend the same amount of training time in an SUV practicing evasive driving techniques as they do in a sedan. Consequently when it comes time to drive an SUV in an Executive Protection mission, driver skill isn’t usually as proficient.

It time to put to rest the notion that “bigger is better� when it comes to vehicle size and safety and Executive Protection.

Mobile phones suspected in bee colony collapse

I’ve been curious about the bee news for a while, but today’s Independent has the first story that suggests a possible cause for the sudden death of bee colonies across America:

The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London’s biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England, but the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insisted: “There is absolutely no evidence of CCD in the UK.”

The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world’s crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, “man would have only four years of life left”.

Nice Einstein quote, but apparently he actually said something more like “No bees, no food for mankind. The bee is the basis of life on this earth.”

Doesn’t that sound more like something he would say?

Another quote I found (related to an insecticide ban due to sudden death of bees) suggests Einstein said “if bees were to disappear, man would only have a few years to live.” That’s even closer to the Independent but the important thing is that the great relativist is unlikely to have suggested a specific timeline like four years. Surely it depends.

German research has long shown that bees’ behaviour changes near power lines.

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a “hint” to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: “I am convinced the possibility is real.”

I think we are seriously underestimating the environmental impact of radical increases in power and wireless radiation. The question will be how quickly people can move past a state of denial, or a state of shock and anger, in order to reach a period of scientific inquiry and then enlightenment. I suspect some people will focus entirely on what Einstein really said and demand detailed proof and evidence of his exact words, but miss the point of the news and fail to seek any proof and evidence of the exact cause of bee death. Kudos to Landau University for bringing the discussion forward, and to the Independent for covering it, but I am now curious whether companies in the US will move to support the research and find a happy solution or will they take the tobacco/utility approach…