EPA looking to improve new vehicle fuel labels

If you’re in the market for a new car or truck, chances are you’re paying close attention to the manufacturer’s fuel economy claim that appears on each vehicle’s window label.
The number of miles you can expect (or at least hope) to get under normal driving conditions will be an important factor in your purchase decision. But would even more information help you, as environmentally conscious shopper, to decide? 
The federal Environmental Protection Agency thinks so and is working with the Department of Transportation on new label requirements that would provide consumers with simple energy and environmental comparisons across all types of vehicles, including electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and your conventional gas guzzler.
The agencies announced today that they’d also like consumers to receive information on a vehicle’s potential air pollutants, such as smog, that impact public health.
And they are asking you to help them decide which way to proceed by providing your comments on two potential label designs.

According to the agencies,

One label design prominently features a letter grade to communicate the vehicle’s overall fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions performance. The new design will also provide consumers with an estimate of the expected fuel cost savings over five years compared to an average gasoline-powered vehicle of the same model year.

“The second proposed label retains the current label’s focus on miles per gallon (MPG) and annual fuel costs, while updating the overall design and adding the required new comparison information on fuel economy and emissions.

“Both proposed label designs expand on the content of the current label by including new information on fuel consumption, tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and smog-related emissions. The new labels would provide information on a new web-based interactive tool that can also be accessed by smart phone. This tool would allow consumers to personalize the information about a vehicle’s performance.”

You can view the proposed rule and labels at: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/ and submit comments as part of the rulemaking process via email to: newlabels@epa.gov.

Related: New York Times editorial: Cleaner cars, A to D

NJ budget switch spared forests, chopped trees 
Drought restrictions in New Jersey’s future? 
Why climate-change legislation went nowhere   
Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller’s conference? 

—————————————————————————-
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
—————————————————————————-

EPA looking to improve new vehicle fuel labels Read More »

How to get NJ's governor to throw you a green party

prize

Want to win the applause of  New Jersey’s
environmental community and get
Governor Chris Christie to throw you
a party at his mansion? 

1.  Read about the Governor’s Environmental Excellence Awards 

2.  Decide whether your business, town, or educator qualifies.
      Not sure? Check out the profiles of the 2008 winners    

3.  Download an application form (your choice of pdf or MS Word)
4.  Submit your application by September 16, 2010
5.  Learn in November that you are a winner
6.  Start planning what to wear to the Governor’s Mansion.
If you are not declared a winner:

1.
  Give yourself an entire day to sulk

2.
  Suck it up and start planning a better program for next year.
Our most recent posts: 
NJ budget switch spared forests, chopped trees 
Drought restrictions in New Jersey’s future? 
Why climate-change legislation went nowhere 
Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller’s conference? 
EPA to hold coal ash hearing in Pittsburgh 

————————————————————————–
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
————————————————————————–

How to get NJ's governor to throw you a green party Read More »

NJ budget switch spared forests, chopped trees

plant a tree

It’s been portrayed in the media as a parochial tiff over trees between three towns in Mercer County and the administration of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  But the mayors say it’s much more than that.

In agreeing to permit the state to widen the New Jersey Turnpike through their municipalities, the mayors say they expected the state to expend certain sums on the planting of trees for a buffer between the superhighway and residential neighborhoods.
Facing an enormous state budget shortfall, however, the Christie Administration pulled a switcheroo and used the funds instead to help keep state parks and forests open this summer, serving, as one spokesperson said, “the greater good.”   
In a scathingly delightful Op-Ed piece in today’s PolitickerNJ, the mayor of one of the Mercer towns says the ensuing fracas (which, not surprisingly, has wound up in court) it’s not just about trees.  It’s about trust.  
Here’s a bit of what Robbinsville Mayor Dave Fried’s has to say :

As many of you know, last week Robbinsville, Hamilton and East Windsor took the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection to court to block a classic bait-and-switch: Enticing us to turn over land to widen the New Jersey Turnpike with promises of $15 million in reforestation funds, then shipping the money elsewhere after the bulldozing had begun. We sued not because we wanted to; we sued because we had to. From the start, our willingness to cooperate with the Turnpike widening had everything to do with the trees. No reforestation, no deal. The fact that I now have to explain this to the Department of Environmental Protection is mind-boggling. Had we not gone to court, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority would have transferred our funds to DEP under the No Net Loss Reforestation Act, but the monies promised to our three towns would have been used to run state parks. While Judge Linda Feinberg technically didn’t grant a request for an injunction, the effect is the same: According to the Turnpike, the money is staying put for 60 days. Absent a deal, we head to court Oct. 1. DEP officials have tried to defend themselves by saying the Turnpike will replant some trees along the expanded highway, although the amount budgeted for the entire 35 miles appears to be less than would have gone just to our three communities. Not only is the Turnpike planting clearly inadequate, it’s not even the point. Our lawsuit isn’t just about the trees and the buffer, although our first concern is the quality of life of those living closest to the expansion project. Our action is about ensuring that state government learns once and for all that when it deals with towns, promises must be kept. If we mayors are to represent our residents with any credibility, we must hold the State to its word. After this episode, what mayor in his right mind would ever sign an agreement with the State or the Turnpike?
Mayor Fried got in some good licks (see his entire piece here),  but we suspect there may be decent arguments to  be made on the flip side of the debate.  

What do you think?  Use the comment box below to let us know.  If you don’t see one, click on the headline at the top of this post and one should appear. 
Our most recent posts: 
Drought restrictions in New Jersey’s future? 
Why climate-change legislation went nowhere 
Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller’s conference? 
EPA to hold coal ash hearing in Pittsburgh 
Battling for the Bays–Barnegat and Rehoboth 

————————————————————————
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
————————————————————————

NJ budget switch spared forests, chopped trees Read More »

Drought restrictions in New Jersey’s future?

drought

In light of continuing drought conditions in northern New Jersey, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will hold a public hearing tomorrow at the Millburn Free Library to review current water supply conditions in the State.

A Drought Watch is in effect for all or parts of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris and Passaic counties. In the event water supply conditions worsen, the DEP could declare a Drought Warning, allowing the Department to exercise non-emergency powers to lessen the impact of a potential water emergency.

Public Hearing 
Wednesday, Aug. 25
10:30 a.m.
Millburn Free Library
200 Glen Avenue
Millburn, NJ

Our most recent posts: 
Why climate-change legislation went nowhere 
Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller’s conference? 
EPA to hold coal ash hearing in Pittsburgh 
Battling for the Bays–Barnegat and Rehoboth 
That relocated EPA fracking hearing, scratch it!

————————————————————————
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter
EnviroPolitics Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
————————————————————————

Drought restrictions in New Jersey’s future? Read More »

Why climate-change legislation went nowhere

The years 2009 and 2010 were when Congress would finally do something about climate change and the environment. 

Or so we thought. If you were among the optimists, you needn’t feel bad that you were so wrong.  After all, the signs were all there. The time for action finally had come. America had elected a president whose campaign stressed the need to change our national energy policy–to transition from our near total dependence on fossil fuels to a future that took serious steps to encourage energy conservation and to finance scientific breakthroughs in generating power from alternative sources like wind, solar, waves and geothermal. Voters said they had watched too many billions going to pay for faraway wars that were as much about protecting oil sources and transportation routes as they were about spreading democracy. The media was full of stories about rising global temperatures due to the burning of oil and coal to make electricity.  Maps showed shrinking ice caps. Photos showed polar bears adrift on melting ice floes. Then came the worst environmental disaster in modern times –the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. There was no way that Congress could not act.  Right?
Wrong.  

What the heck happened?  Why didn’t they act?
If a new series that began today in OpenSecrets  is accurate, the answer is simple.  Congress got bought.  Again.

The following is a taste from the first installment in the five-part series, Fueling Washington: How Money Drives Politics

fuelingwashington.jpgClients in the oil and gas industry unleashed a fury of lobbying expenditures in 2009, spending $175 million — easily an industry record — and outpacing the pro-environmental groups by nearly eight-fold, according to a Center for Responsive Politics analysis. Some of the largest petroleum companies in the world together spent hundreds of millions of dollars in various attempts to influence politics during the past 18 months ExxonMobil, the industry leader in 2009, spent $27.4 million in lobbying expenditures that year — more than the entire pro-environment lobby. And in July, congressional debate on global warming stopped cold. In other words, Goliath whipped David.

*******************************************************

We recommend that you read the entire story. Then, bookmark the link to the series and read the upcoming installments. It won’t be a fun read.  It’s not encouraging. In fact, it’s downright depressing. But it’s important that intelligent people, like you, get more involved in the discussion about energy and the environment. Don’t leave it to Congress.  We know what they’ll do. As always, let us know what you think. Use the comment box below to get the conversation started.
Our most recent posts:
Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller’s conference? 
EPA to hold coal ash hearing in Pittsburgh 
Battling for the Bays–Barnegat and Rehoboth 
That relocated EPA fracking hearing, scratch it!
Suppose EPA held a hearing and everybody came

————————————————————————
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter 
EnviroPolitics
Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click
————————————————————————

Why climate-change legislation went nowhere Read More »

Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller’s conference?

Photo: Dick Blume/The Post-Standard

The gas-drilling industry was planning a big conference in Pittsburgh on Oct. 1. to showcase the Marcellus Shale’s “economic and energy production potential.”

The Marcellus Coalition promised appearances not only by former governor Tom Ridge (now an industry lobbyist), and energy industry biggies like Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon and Range Resources CEO John Pinkerton, but also Pennsylvania’s two primary gubernatorial candidates –Dan Onorato and Tom Corbett.

The conference was designed to win positive attention from the financial community, state political leaders, the media and voters for natural gas drilling in general and particularly for the controversial hydrofracturing technique which has made natural gas so accessible and its extraction so lucrative.

But the announcement of the upcoming event also appeared as a giant blip on the radar screen of environmentalists who oppose gas drilling–and especially the “fracking” technique which they fear will contaminate groundwater and pollute surface streams and other water bodies. (For a summary of  their concerns, see: Gasland)

The activists immediately began organizing protests to be held outside the event at the convention center.

Now, without the fanfare with which it was announced, the conference has been canceled.

Chris Potter wrote yesterday in the Pittsburgh City Paper that:

“for all appearances, it’s as if the summit was never scheduled at all. The coalition Web page that once touted the summit now produces a 404 error. (Though a cached version of it can be found here.) No other mention of it appears on the site.”

Potter asked what role the planned protests had in the decision to cancel.

“None whatsoever,” said Travis Windle, a coalition spokesman, who said the decision was based on “a host of logistical issues” including several competing events.”

That could be the case.  But we suspect that coalition leaders had at least three larger concerns in mind, namely, that:

     –   A planned public hearing on ‘fracking’ was canceled last week in New York by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after rumors of thousands of protestors arriving by bus scared the pants off officials of a university where the event was to be held.

    –  Environmental activists in Pennsylvania made no secret of the fact that the convention center event provided a big, juicy, symbolic target of what they see as corporate interests all too willing to overlook public and environemtnal health for large profits.

   –  With public concern over fracking on the rise, Pennsylvania legislators (who until now have generally played the role of industry cheerleaders) are being asked to consider bills that would impose a moratorium on gas drilling until the EPA completes a study whether it needs to be regulated.

Logistical issues aside, we imagine that coalition leaders did a quick PR risk assessment and concluded that this was neither the time or the place for a feel good conference on drilling for dollars.

Our most recent posts:
 

Battling for the Bays–Barnegat and Rehoboth 
That relocated EPA fracking hearing, scratch it!
Suppose EPA held a hearing and everybody came
Coal residue from NJ could help reclaim old PA mine site 

————————————————————————
Like this post? You’ll love our daily newsletter 
EnviroPolitics
Try it free for 30 days!
No obligation. Cancel anytime with a single click ————————————————————————

Did fear of protests cancel shale gas driller’s conference? Read More »

Verified by MonsterInsights