Blogs

Automated parking saves space, fuel, and time

Peg Fong — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:04:17 PDT

This video explains the whole process, but I sugest you turn off your speakers unless you want to have the most awkward dance party ever.

Driving aimlessly is bad enough, so the only thing that could be worse is driving in circles looking for a parking spot. Then there are those drivers who deserve a special reserve space in hell for idling their cars waiting for a spot closer to the mall entrance because they can't be bothered walking a few extra feet.

A South Korean company may have a partial solution to this parking problem. There are more than enough cars on the road, but even so, there are even fewer parking spaces, especially in cities.

Automatic parking systems, which have been used for years in Europe and Asia because of space constraints, are beginning to be considered in theUnited States.

MP Systems designed the software and technology that makes parking simpler and easier by letting computers do the work. The system can fit twice as many cars in the same amount of space and eliminate hours of combined engine use every day so drivers don't have to drive around searching for that elusive space.

Drivers pull into a platform, and technology does the rest. When drivers want to retrieve their cars, each one enters a code and the car is delivered back via the platform.

There's also another bonus. With automated parking, the physical footprint of parking lots are smaller and there are cost savings in the maintenance of these facilites.

When people are out of the equation, it also eliminates the need for climate control, walkways, elevators, and lighting.

UPS makes world's largest order for hybrid trucks

Hank Green — Wed, 14 May 2008 11:35:36 PDT

UPS just announced it has ordered 200 hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) -- the largest commercial order of such trucks by any company -- in addition to another 300 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles for its U.S. delivery fleet.

The purchase of the 500 additional vehicles means the UPS alternative-fuel fleet -- already the largest such private fleet in the United States -- will grow 30 percent from 1,718 to 2,218 low-carbon vehicles.

Obviously, UPS has other reasons besides the environment to get more efficient. We expect that rising fuel prices are already cutting into their profits. Already it has been taking measures to decrease gasoline use through more quotidian measures, like favoring right turns over left turns in delivery routes.

Nonetheless, the focus on hybrid and CNG propulsion is definitely a good thing for the environment. The trucks are expected to save 176,000 gallons of fuel annually and reduce CO2 emissions by 1,786 metric tons each year.

Delivery trucks are particularly useful for both of these applications because they spend so much time driving in cities. Hybrid technology is most useful when there are lots of stops and starts, while the ultra-low emissions of CNG does a great job of reducing pollution in areas where it generally collects.

The trucks' chassis is being supplied by Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. while the hybrid drive-train was created by Eaton. They'll look just like regular UPS trucks, but don't worry, you'll be able to tell the difference due to UPS's big blazing yellow labels on the side of each one.

Full press release

Bike trees are a safe space to park

Hank Green — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:42:32 PDT

We spend an awful lot of time talking about cars here at EcoGeek. And that's not necessarily something that we're proud of. We think that cars, in the end, can never be green -- only greener. Which is why we love these bike trees.

In general, bike racks suck. They're used improperly, often there aren't enough around, and they can even be downright insecure. Parking and walking away from your thousand-dollar investment is never fun, especially when we all know that any lock, with enough persistence, can be cut.

Enter the bike tree, a marvelous bit of technology which will keep your bike safe in any situation (save a meteorite). Abhinav Dapke of Bahrain and India designed the trees to deal with theft and to address congested bike parking. The trees actually use significantly less space than traditional bike parking.

Just hook your bike into the device, push the thumbprint scanner, and the bike gets lifted to safety. When you return, scan your thumb again, and your bike comes down to meet you. A simple system, and one that could also be performed with RFID or a swipe card to lower the costs of thumb-scanning.

In any case, this is another way to make biking more convenient. Now if they just put a roof over the whole thing we wouldn't have to worry about soggy butts after a rainstorm.

Via TreeHugger

Saturn Aura + HCCI

Benjamin Jones — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:59:17 PDT

Itâs not often that a blogger has the opportunity to meet with GM engineers and test-drive a prototype, but thatâs exactly the opportunity I was given the other day.

GM first presented a run-down of the interesting tech (which we've written about) and then handed over the keys so I could see what I thought. The HCCI-equipped Saturn Aura I drove was hot off the proving grounds and the only one of its kind in the United States (there are two HCCI Opelâs in Europe, like the one pictured), and it evolved out of an idea hatched way back in the '70s.

My first impression (and the first negative) came before even stepping into the car, and that was when I learned I would be driving an automatic. Evidently, Americans donât drive stick anymore, but I was still jealous when I learned the two HCCI Opels in Europe were stick-shift. Iâll try to put that aside since Iâm supposed to be considering the engine, not the whole car.

The Saturn Aura is a fairly large, family-size sedan and is not uncomfortable by any means. I was given the impression by Paul Najt that this was the type of car currently targeted for HCCI, so I would wager it was a fairly representative of what we as consumers might actually be seeing.

GM did hint at the possibility of a V6 HCCI in such a vehicle, but that is just speculation right now, as to the best of my knowledge, there is no such engine in existence.

Those disclaimers made, my first driving impression was âwow, this thing really is like a diesel.â It sounded and drove the part when in HCCI-mode, and then in switching back to standard ignition (SI) mode showed that side as a typical gasoline-powered car.

The transitions were definitely a little rough around the edges, but I was assured (and believe) that these things will be cleared up long before the car is sent to consumers.

Given the size of the car, the 2.2-liter 4-cylinder had a little less oomph than you would expect from your typical Detroit-built family sedan, but it definitely wasnât unbearable and I didnât find myself digging into the gas to keep up with traffic.

Monitoring the HCCI display screen while cruising you could see (and feel) the engine performing its unique compression ignition. Such a screen wonât be available in production cars, but even in the unusually aggressive driving cycle that I put the car through in the downtown, live-traffic course, I was in fuel-saving HCCI mode over 50% of the time.

That was, in fact, the most impressive part of the test drive. While I understand that an HCCI-mode monitor is unlikely to come with a production model (due to marketing reasons), even without being particularly conscious of my driving, this new technology was in use over half the time.

Even though HCCI-mode cannot carry the car to highway speeds (it only reaches up to 55 mph right now), the fact that is in operation the majority of the time bodes well for GMâs quoted 15% increase in fuel economy.

The car was a pleasure to drive, and it will be interesting to see how (and if and when) it is introduced to the public. If the car does maintain a slight transition between HCCI- and SI-modes or the sound difference is profound (which really gives the impression of driving a diesel while in HCCI-mode), driving an equipped engine will definitely take a shift in the mind of the consumer. However, I wonât fault GM for that now, as it seems that consumers are finally ready to make that switch.

Letâs just hope that those fears donât keep GM from putting the kibosh on this technology. It gets a definite thumbs up from me.

What is HCCI?

Benjamin Jones — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:50:59 PDT

Has GM struck gold, 30 years later?

HCCI, which stands for Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition, is currently under development at General Motors. Under the watch of Paul Najt, who worked on the technology during his days as a PhD researcher, HCCI is coming to the forefront of GMâs work on eco-friendly gasoline technology.

The technology was put on the shelf years ago, but has made a comeback with several important improvements and a promise from GM to make it viable for use in passenger vehicles in the near future.

I recently had a chance to try out this new technology in a working Saturn Aura. You can check out my post-ride review of the technology. But right now we're going to dive in and talk about exactly what HICCI is and how it works.

What is HCCI?
At its most basic level, HCCI combines the best properties of diesel and gasoline engines into one.

Gasoline engines use spark ignition, whereas diesels are compression ignition, meaning that instead of using spark plugs to ignite the air-fuel mixture within the cylinder they use the pressure of the piston to compress the mixture, creating heat and ignition.

Because compression ignition is inherently more efficient, diesel engines are predisposed to good fuel economy, but at the cost of high NOx emissions. Gasoline engines, on the other hand, are less fuel efficient, but are also much cleaner in terms of NOx emissions.

HCCI partially bridges this gap by creating a gasoline engine where compression ignition is possible. This gives the engine both the operation and feel of a diesel, but without many of the associated pollution problems.

GM was careful to say, however, that it is not planning on a convergence between diesel and gasoline engines, but rather that it is working to make each as efficient as possible, since both are already well-suited for particular modes of operation (i.e., diesels make better large trucks, but gasoline engines are a better fit for sedans).

There are several new tech advances that have come together to produce the modern, 4-cylinder, 2.2-liter, 180 HP engine that I test drove. This includes direction injection, a dual electrical cam phaser (as opposed to hydraulic), 2-step valve lift, and combustion pressure sensors. The combustion pressure sensors are extremely important because they allow the engine to make minute adjustments on the fly, which is necessary because HCCI is extremely sensitive to operating conditions. These combustion pressure sensors have fallen in price rapidly, part of what makes an HCCI engine more commercially viable now compared to even a dozen years ago.

Another important advance is the ability to run in HCCI-mode in low-load and idle conditions. The biggest thing making diesel and HCCI-equipped gasoline technologies different is that HCCI engines are not always using compression ignition. Because of noise, vibration, and technical issues, engines can only operate in HCCI-mode in low-load situations.

This range has recently been improved, allowing HCCI operation in idle as well, but the Aura I test drove could only maintain HCCI up to about 55 mph, at which point it would switch back to standard ignition (SI) mode. Similarly, the Aura would enter SI mode during brisk and usually stayed in HCCI-mode when cruising.

Why HCCI?
Part of the excitement over HCCI technology is that it offers very little negatives for all the positives that are promised. Of course, not all promises and expectations are likely to be met, but for now the technology seems like one of the best things GM has to offer.

As I already mentioned, the HCCI-equipped engine that I test drove was able to cram 180 HP into a (relatively) small, 4-cylinder, 2.2-liter form factor. Because HCCI is inherently more efficient, it not only results in improved fuel economy, but also increased power output.

As far as fuel economy is concerned, there likely have not been any real-world or EPA-like tests done, but GM is quoting a modest 15% increase in gas mileage. I say modest not because Iâm unimpressed with the number, but because new technologies often come with wild claims about how quickly they will solve the worldâs problems, and this does not seem to be the case here.

On top of the improved efficiency, HCCI-mode operates at a lower temperature than diesel, below the range where harmful NOx pollutants are created, making the engine extremely low-emission. Emissions are reduced across the board when in HCCI-mode compared to other diesel and gasoline engines. HCCI-mode is also possible with ethanol blends up to E85, making the engine fit in well with GMâs near-term plan for increased E85 use.

Perhaps the most salient upside of HCCI technology is the cost / benefit ratio it offers. Though GM isnât talking specifics yet, I was told that it would be cheaper than current hybrid and diesel technology, putting it within range of the average consumer and positioning it to make the largest impact on fuel consumption and air pollution.

Definitely exciting technology to watch. Hop on over to my test-drive review to learn more on how it performs in the real world.

Audi to build EVs within a decade

Andrew Williams — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:05:23 PDT

Audi, the luxury car unit of the Volkswagen Audi Group (VAG), has announced plans to make electric cars within the next 10 years.

In a recent interview, Chairman Rupert Stadler said that he saw great opportunities for electric cars, and expects diesel and battery technology to dominate in the next five to ten years, saying, âBy then we will offer cars without exhaust emissions.â

When challenged with the idea that Audi was lagging behind rival German car giants Mercedes and BMW in the development of li-ion battery technology, Stadler stated that Audi's research capacities were larger than those of domestic rivals. Without elaborating, he also said, âelectric cars offer great opportunities, which we have already seized on.â

This mention of a superior research budget may indicate that Audi intends to throw money at developing a more lightweight, longer range battery than is currently available. Perhaps the most likely showcase for an all-electric vehicle might be a variant of the Audi A1 Metroproject Quattro concept showcased at the Tokyo Motor Show last October. This gas-electric hybrid boasted acceleration of 0-60 mph in 7.8 seconds and a top speed of 124 mph.

Itâs hard to know exactly what to make of Audiâs strategy. Perhaps it's planning some big alternative power-train project that it's reluctant to talk about, or else the announcement was calculated to be deliberately vague in an effort to confuse competitors or dupe the press (us) into talking about them without actually committing to anything.

Either way, 10 years is a long time in the auto industry, and itâs possible that the relentless rise in oil prices may force Audi to show its hand sooner than that.

Via Reuters

Carectomy week in review

Joshua Liberles — Mon, 12 May 2008 00:09:35 PDT

Completing the circle: Gas at the pump, war in Iraq, and global warming

The war in Iraq, originally known as O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation, that is) recently passed its fifth anniversary. Oil Change International recently published a study that quantifies the greenhouse gas emissions from the Iraq War as well as some of the environmental opportunity costs.

Bicing takes Barcelona by storm

In its first two months, Bicing, a bike-sharing program in Barcelona, Spain, garnered over 30,000 subscribers. The programâs popularity has only grown, which is good news for new bike-sharing programs in Washington D.C. and San Francisco.

All aboard for National Train Day

May 10th marks the first edition of National Train Day, a celebration of trains, tracks, mass transit, and efficient travel. The date is significant as the anniversary of the joining of the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railways in Utah 1869 -- which created the U.S.' first transcontinental railroad.

Valley Girl decries car culture

The Los Angeles' Times "Emerald City" blog recently ran a great post illustrating how Southern California turned from sunny citrus paradise to car-choked hell. Cassandra Davis mixes an historical account of the evolution of car culture in SoCal with her own firsthand experiences growing up as a Valley Girl.

X Prize contenders debut online

Don Willmott , Forecast Earth Correspondent — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:14:12 PDT

A few weeks ago I reported on the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE competition, a $10 million contest that is designed to inspire dozens of new super-efficient vehicles that can make it in the marketplace.

More than 60 teams have taken up the challenge to design a vehicle that can exceed 100 miles per gallon, and starting in September, they will square off in real-world race stages all around the country. After the qualifying rounds are over, the big finals will take place in 2010.

So what do these cars look like? Now we can take a peek.

Popular Mechanics has pulled out all the stops, analyzing each of 64 entrants to see how well they meet the X PRIZE specs and compiling a list of what they believe to be the top 10 contenders.

Flip through the excellent slide show to enjoy some serious auto porn. These cars look cool. I recognized the name Tesla, but other than that, all the top contenders are newbies, including one model designed by a bunch of Philadelphia teenagers. Impressive.

This contest is going to be fun to watch, and I'll be bookmarking Popular Mechanics to stay on top of it.

Don Willmott's blog posts are provided by LifeWire, a part of The New York Times Company.

Getting better gas mileage by reducing air drag

Aaron Westgate — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:50:22 PDT

A lot of us at Rocky Mountain Institute lead active lifestyles. Whether it's riding single track in summer or heading for the ski lifts in winter, we spend a lot of time hauling around outdoor gear.

We also spend a lot of time thinking about the efficiency of our vehicles.

Which got me thinking: Just how much extra fuel am I burning by keeping my roof rack on year-round, adding extra drag to my car?

And, more importantly, can I save money and reduce my carbon footprint?

The basic science
It turns out that air drag is the single largest factor affecting fuel consumption while driving on level ground at normal highway speeds.Â

The faster you go, the worse it gets, because drag increases exponentially with speed.Â Driving twice as fast quadruples your drag, and the amount of power required to overcome that resistance increases by a factor of eight (cube law: 2³=8).Â

Don't believe me? Think about what it feels like to stick your hand out the window at 80 mph vs. 40 mph. At the higher speed, you're paying to overcome the added resistance by burning more gas.

Improving performance
To improve your vehicle's aerodynamics, the primary solutions are to decrease speed, frontal area, and turbulent airflow.Â

Some people go the distance to customize their vehicles for improved drag performance. Check out this rather extreme example of "boat-tailing."

Fortunately for the rest of us, there are far simpler (and more socially acceptable) ways to boost your mileage by paying attention to the air flowing around your car.

Here are some simple things to keep in mind next time you get behind the steering wheel:

Your speed
First, slow down!Â Fifty-five mph may be too slow for your taste, but staying in the 60-mph range could save you quite a bit of money.

According to the Department of Energy's fuel economy Web site, driving at 80 mph is equivalent to adding roughly $0.80/gallon to the price of your fuel versus driving at 60.

Roof racks
Racks are great for getting weekend gear to the trailhead, but costly on the daily commute. It's best to use them when you need them and take them off when you don't. I've got my swap-time to less than 5 minutes.

Most sources claim a roughly 5 percent drop in fuel economy from roof racks; from personal experience, Iâve measured about a 10 percent drop. If you take the racks off of the car for half of your driving, you'll save an average of 15-30 gallons of gas per year. If you swap them 12 times per year, that can work out to over $100/hour for your efforts. Who knew aerodynamics could be so lucrative?

If that sounds like too much of a hassle, a wind-deflecting fairing for the front rack costs about $50 and will do a good bit to reduce drag and noise. The wider the better: try to find one that smoothly bridges the gap between the windshield and the front bar.Â

A model that improves efficiency by even 3 percent will pay off the investment in around a year of average driving (assuming 15,000 miles/year, 27.5 mpg, $3.50/gallon).

Other options
Any time you have the option of carrying gear behind rather than on top of your vehicle, do it.Â

Trunk-mounted bicycle racks are typically much cheaper, and offer substantial savings compared to carrying your bike on the roof.

On a recent 440-mile road trip to Moab, I found that having one bike on top of my car cut my mileage by 25 percent. That meant I burned almost 4 gallons of fuel just to move the bike!

On vehicles equipped with hitches, using a rear-mounted cargo box in place of a rooftop box will save lots of gas -- and be easier to access.Â

If you have a rooftop box, for the sake of your wallet and the planet, take it off in between uses.

Most importantly, though, enjoy the time outdoors!

Aaron Westgate is Special Aide to Rocky Mountain Institute co-founder and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins.

Chrysler promises SUV buyers $2.99 gas, world rolls its eyes

Hank Green — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:50:07 PDT

Chrysler promises that it is working on green cars and advanced technology vehicles, but I don't see it.

GM is promising a gas-electric car with a 40-mile EV range. Toyota is planning on launching an even-more-efficient Prius. And VW seems to have a 200 MPG two-seater in the works.

But Chrysler is addressing its customers' fuel-cost concerns by trying to help them ignore the problem.

Chrysler has just announced that, instead of making its vehicles more efficient (thus saving customers money) it's simply going to charge more for large trucks, and use the money to artificially deflate customers' gas prices to $2.99 per gallon for three years after purchase.

And then the well suddenly runs dry and vehicle owners are stuck with a car that neither they, nor anyone else, wants, in a world where gas costs, at best, more than $4 per gallon.

Of course, Chrysler should be worried. A great deal of its business in its Dodge and Jeep brands are SUVs and large trucks, and SUV sales are not doing well. SUV sales for the month of April are down 33% from last year. That's a HUGE drop, especially when so much of Chrysler's profit comes from these high-markup vehicles.

Not only is this a bad deal for the environment, it turns out its a bad deal for consumers too. The $2.99 offer comes at the expense of giving up other incentives. While the program will only ever save consumers about $1,200, straight-cash incentives on the RAM and Durango are currently worth about $5,000.

Of course, this is all ignoring how extremely short-sighted this policy is. A measly 3 MPG gain would save consumers far more money than the $2.99 deal, while also decreasing demand for oil and emissions of CO2.

But Chrysler, apparently, would rather remain technologically stagnant. Should we let people pretend oil prices will never rise again? Or should we actually do something about the increased demand for gasoline and skyrocketing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. You know where my vote lies.

The good news is that a similar program from GM a few years back (promising everlasting $1.99 gas) was a complete flop. Not only did GM catch a nationwide PR backlash, as Chrysler now seems to be experiencing, but it also saw no increase in sales of large trucks and SUVs.

Via AutoBlogGreen and AutoObserver

6 stupidly simple steps to save billions of gallons of gas

Hank Green — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:58:05 PDT

OK, gas prices are getting out of hand, and carbon emissions have been out of hand for a long time. So let's kill two birds with, well, five stones.

We generally focus on high technology here at EcoGeek, and how we can save energy with smart designs. But sometimes, there are simpler ways.

An absolutely tremendous amount of gasoline could be saved in America with some very simple measures. Such as:

1. Lose some weight = 900 million gallons of gas
Americans weigh about 24 more pounds per person than we did in the 1970s. That weight, when we're driving, has to be moved around with our cars. Multiplied over the three trillion miles driven in America each year, suddenly we need a lot of gas to move around our extra chub. If we could (preferably through walking and biking) lose those 24 lbs. and reach 1970s sizes, America would used nearly one billion gallons of gas less than we currently do.

2. Intelligent traffic lights = 1,000 million gallons of gas
Studies have shown that altering traffic lights to ensure maximum flow can reduce gasoline consumption in cities by between 10% and 20%. Already, lots of places have traffic light systems that use sensors to detect when and how often to change lights.

But a great deal of traffic infrastructure is still extremely primitive, and most of it is programmed by hand. Researchers have begun to attempt to create traffic lights that can make decisions for themselves. Stoplights might soon communicate with other nearby lights about when they plan on changing, how much traffic they've seen, and what's working for them recently to keep traffic flowing. They will even be able to remember what worked in the past, and use those same techniques in the future.

3. More expensive gas = 450 million gallons of gas (so far)
OK, this isn't necessarily the best solution to our problems, especially since most people who really need to drive can't afford to pay much more for gas. But 2007 showed the first decrease in the number of miles traveled since the gas crisis of the '70s. As gas prices sored to upward of $3 per gallon, people actually drove less. The amount driven dropped by about 10 billion miles. At an average fleet efficiency of 22 mpg, that's 450 million gallons of gas saved.

4. Drive a little slower = 600 million gallons of gas (just for semi trucks)
Recently, with diesel prices topping $4, Con-Way Freight, owner of one of the largest truck fleets in America, decided that it would decrease the maximum speed its drivers could drive from 65 mph to 62 mph. This will save the company 3.2 million gallons of fuel per year. And that's just ONE trucking company going 3 mph slower! If this were expanded to all 1.5 million semis on American roads, it would save 617 million gallons of fuel!

If it the national speed limit were lowered to 65 mph, the savings would be extreme. Already, the U.S. trucking industry is calling for a decrease in the national speed limit, first because the difference in speed between trucks and cars creates possible safety issues. And because it would ultimately decrease the price of fuel.

5. More people per car = 1,500 million gallons of gas
If every car in America that transported one person instead transported two people, we'd save about 8 billion gallons of gas per year. But we'll aim lower. If just 20% of these solo-driver trips became two-passenger carpools, we'd use 1.5 billion fewer gallons of gas per year.

6. Increase mileage to 35 mpg = 55,000 million gallons of gas by 2015
This needs to be said. The current average fuel economy of an American car is 22 mpg. It would be lower if there were no law in place requiring that efficiency. The auto industry has been fighting any increase for decades. We finally have a law on the books that will increase the average to 35 mpg by 2020.

But if we, in America, had 35-mpg cars today, like they currently do in Europe, we would use 55 BILLION less gallons of gas. Looking back through the rest of the list, this trivializes the rest of the options.

Each of these measures would, without a doubt, help us deal with the supply shortages and environmental implications of our massive oil addiction.

VW will sell a 200-mpg car in 2010

Hank Green — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:01:09 PDT

So you're excited about the 2010 Prius with its modest mileage gains. Or maybe you really want a Chevy Volt with a 40-mile all-electric range.

2010, as we've noted, is going to be a good year for green cars.

But this is ridiculous.

VW has been talking for a long time about its L1 concept, so called because it uses a measly 1 liter of gasoline to go 100 km. For us Americans, that translates to about 230 miles per gallon.

Of course, the amazing mileage comes at a price. The car is tiny, more of a toboggan than a car. The single passenger actually sits behind the driver, like in a small airplane.

The tiny engine will only get the car up to about 75 mph and, as such, VW doesn't expect to sell a lot of these vehicles. Safety concerns might also keep the car from being a best seller. But, since it does have four wheels, it will have to meet all of the normal safety regulations for cars.

VW will continue to release details on the car, but it is firm that this vehicle will be produced by 2010. And, in terms of pure efficiency, its only real competitor will be the 300-mpg Aptera.

Via MotorAuthority and Gas2

The asthma and car connection

Mel Peffers — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:23:22 PDT

This post is by Mel Peffers, a project manager in the Living Cities program at Environmental Defense Fund.

May 6th was World Asthma Day. Since car exhaust can lead to asthma as well as global warming, we thought it would be a good time to highlight the importance of not idling your car or truck engine.

What makes idling especially bad for health is that drivers tend to idle in gathering places -- by sidewalks, schools, playgrounds, homes, and offices. Breathing in pollution close to the source is more dangerous than farther away.

Take a look at the evidence.

Tailpipe exhaust may cause asthma

Tailpipe exhaust from both gasoline- and diesel-burning vehicles contains the pollutants that produce ozone when combined with sunlight and heat. Ozone occurs mostlyÂ during the summer months. A warming planet means more hot days and thus more ozone.

Breathing in ozone irritates and inflames your lungs, and repeated exposure can reduce lung function. Thereâs a lot of evidence that ozone makes asthma worse.

But the Childrenâs Health Study in California found evidence that ozone causes asthma. The study also found that children can suffer irreversible lung damage as adults from breathing smog.

On top of that, diesel exhaust contains particulate matter (soot). This has long been known to cause a variety of health problems, including aggravated asthma (see CARB report on health effects [PDF]).

As with ozone, there is evidence that diesel exhaust particles may cause asthma and not just worsen it.

California kids arenât the only ones to suffer from tailpipe-induced asthma. A 2005 NYU Medical Center study showed that asthma symptoms among children in the South Bronx doubled on high-traffic days.

Conversely, reducing ozone can improve asthma rates. During the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, the city closed downtown to private cars for 17 days. During this time, daily peak ozone levels dropped more than a quarter and hospitalizations for asthma fell by almost one-fifth.

Fight global warming, save money

Thereâs no reason to idle your vehicle engine. As I explained in a previous post:

Todayâs engines donât need a warm-up period.
If youâre stopped for more than 10 seconds, your car uses more gasoline to idle than to restart.

Many cities, including New York, have laws against idling, but theyâre rarely enforced. We need better enforcement, but we can make a difference with our own actions and behavior.

So in honor of World Asthma Day, switch off that idling engine. Youâll curb global warming pollution, save money on gasoline, and help everyone to breathe better.

Strategies for the green-conscious air traveler

By Michael Brylawski — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:51:29 PDT

I have a few flights planned for this summer, and I'm not looking forward to them. It's not just the long security lines, crammed seats, and lack of pillows on board.

It's my eco-conscience.

The fact is that flying is a significant and growing source of climate change. Globally, aviation contributes roughly 2-3 percent of all carbon emissions.Â

High impact
That may not sound like a significant number -- cement manufacturing, after all, contributes at least 5 percent of all emissions.

But carbon from airplanes is emitted high in the atmosphere, which means it has a disproportionate effect on climate change. In fact, scientists attribute a "forcing factor" of two to two-and-a-half times to airplanes' base emissions. Thus, the contribution to climate change may be more like 6-8 percent. In industrialized nations like the UK, where affluence enables more air travel, estimates are as high as 12 percent.Â

And it's predicted to climb. Airbus and Boeing project a doubling of aircraft in the fleet over the next few decades. Some scientists say that by 2050, aviation will be one of the largest contributors to global warming.Â

Thus the guilt. Sites like www.flyingsthenewsmoking.com, www.planestupid.com, and the satirical www.spurt-aviation.com add to this feeling.Â

What's in the numbers
Numerous airports, from Seattle to Manchester (UK) to Vancouver, have undertaken "carbon accounting" to understand the impact of flying. The results are pretty consistent.Â

Take what Seattle's comprehensive 2006 greenhouse gas inventory found: When you fly, 90 percent of the total is generated by the plane; the airport itself generates about 2 percent; and getting to and from the airport contributes the rest (about 8 percent).Â

It's tempting to go after that 90 percent by flying on more fuel-efficient planes, avoiding older jets like first-generation 737s and MD-80s and opting for a newer 777 or A320, or maybe even a Q400 turboprop. But as a passenger, in the near term, choosing what you fly is nearly impossible.

There is longer-term hope on tackling that 90 percent, and we at RMI are planning to work with the industry on increasing the fuel efficiency of planes with some of our ideas in Winning the Oil Endgame.

The "negaflight"
In the near-term, however, your best option for tackling that 90 percent is not to fly. As our Chief Scientist Amory Lovins puts it, "sometimes it's advantageous to transmit electrons instead of the heavy nucleii."Â

To translate: Use your Macbook Air instead of US Air. Three months ago, I was able to keynote a conference from my living room on my video-equipped laptop.

This "virtual presentation" was not perfect, but the client was pleased, it beat the long flights, and I definitely saved carbon.

Sure, I miss the free mini-pretzels. But I also didn't absorb an excess-fuel surcharge-the commute to and from my laptop was pretty short. As technology gets better, virtual meetings will only become a more attractive option.Â

Other options
Avoiding the trip, or taking a "negaflight," is often not practical. Your client needs to see you in person, or the family is having a reunion. You need to fly.

In which case, to minimize your impact, you have to go after that 8 percent: How you get to and from the airport.Â

Fortunately, there is a lot you can do to green your trip to and from the airport, and several airports are working hard to help -- the subject of my next article.

Michael Brylawski is Vice President of the Mobility / Vehicle Efficiency Practice at Rocky Mountain Institute.

Climate change's cost to U.S. transit

Sheryl Canter — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:59:40 PDT

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

A new fact sheet on costs to U.S. transportation and infrastructure surveys the many ways that global warming will cause disruption and damage if we donât act to stop it.

Published by the Democratic Policy Committee, the fact sheet gives examples of known costs in different areas to give a sense of what the total might be -- and itâs big. Here are just a few examples from the transportation sector:

Flooding, droughts, and shipping on rivers.
In 1998, severe droughts stranded more than 4,000 barges, each capable of carrying 52,000 bushels of grain. Climate change increases the risk of similar droughts. At todayâs prices, the cost to the agriculture sector would be more than $1.2 billion.

Rail transportation.
Climate change increases the intensity of hurricanes, so we can expect more storms like Hurricane Katrina or worse. Reconstruction costs for the damage caused to rail transportation by Hurricane Katrina totaled about $300 million.

Muddy dirt roads and logging.
The frozen dirt roads that logging companies use will be muddy and difficult to traverse for more of the time. In Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, almost 100,000 people are employed in forest-based manufacturing jobs that generate annual payrolls of $3 billion.

These are just a few examples from the transportation section. The infrastructure section examines potential damage to pipelines and costs of highway deterioration. All the numbers are documented with reference links.

Airliner showers: A very guilty pleasure

Don Willmott , Forecast Earth Correspondent — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:49:42 PDT

Conspicuous consumption will reach new heights — literally — when Emirates Airlines begins offering in-flight hot showers to its first-class customers. The service will be part of the deluxe accommodations provided when the airline starts operating its A380 superjumbo flights between New York and Dubai this fall. Eventually Emirates will have 50 A380s in the air with hot showers in abundance. LuxuryLaunches has all the details.

What's the problem? According to the fascinating environmental watchdog group Plane Stupid, the plane will have to carry a ton of water to provide first-class showers for all, and the carbon cost is 48,544 pounds for a round-trip flight. (Tickets cost $18,000.)

Plane Stupid's Robbie Gillett was quoted as saying, "The richest 18 percent in this country (Britain) take 54 percent of all flights. The government is telling us to take fewer flights, but the huge increase in air traffic is not due to ordinary people going on family holidays, but because of excessive flying by the moneyed classes. Is this the type of development the aviation industry really needs?"

I'm not sure a class war is needed over this issue. Common sense should suffice. Shouldn't you be clean enough when you board a long-haul flight to last 10 hours without getting funky?

Electric car too quiet? Just add noise!

Don Willmott , Forecast Earth Correspondent — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:43:23 PDT

Auto show season always brings a few surprises. One of the more impressive head-turners at the recent Geneva auto show was the Fisker Karma, and upcoming hybrid sports car out of California designed to compete with the equally compelling Tesla Roadster.Â

In an Associated Press article, company founder Henrik Fisker said, "For me it's important to create a vehicle that's so sexy you've just got to have it, and later you find out that you can go 80 kilometers (50 miles) without using any gas." In Europe, he said, few people drive farther than that on a daily basis anyway.

The Aston Martin-like Karma will sell for $80,000 in the U.S., and Fisker claims the orders are pouring in. The car's battery can be recharged in three and a half hours, and the car even features solar panels.

But here's the catch: The car is silent in full electric mode, and who wants a silent sports car?

Fisker has decided to build in internal and external speakers so the driver can turn on the sound of a cool sports car to impress the ladies. "It's been enhanced and manipulated to make sure it sounds good," Fisker told the AP. "Part of any experience is the acoustic experience."

6 numbers that show we could try harder

Sheryl Canter — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:28:08 PDT

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

Oil is over $100 a barrel now -- an all-time high. Even if burning gasoline weren't a major cause of global warming, a price that high is motivation to conserve.

But we don't seem to be trying very hard.

Here are some numbers that make the point from Earth: The Sequel, the new book by EDF President Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn. (All profits from book sales support our global warming work.)

Efficiency
Last December, Congress passed an Energy Bill that raised CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards for the first time in 32 years. It took significant negotiation to push this through, and yet we are still far behind Europe and Asia.

44.2 miles per gallon - Average fuel economy of the European vehicle fleet, page 226.
45 miles per gallon - Average fuel economy of the Japanese vehicle fleet, page 226.
35 miles per gallon - Average fuel economy of the American vehicle fleet when the newly passed CAFE standards are fully implemented in 2020 (up from less than 30 mpg currently), page 226.

Gasoline burned
It's hard to wrap your mind around how much oil we actually burn. A post from earlier this year might help: Picturing 21 Million Barrels of Oil (the amount we burned last August).

$820 million - Amount the U.S. exports every day to pay for the oil needed to supply our vehicle fleet, page 73.
180 billion gallons - Amount of gasoline and diesel fuel Americans consume every year in their vehicles, page 76.
2 billion gallons - Amount of gasoline that could be saved in the U.S. with a 10% reduction in the rolling resistance of tires (with no compromise on safety), page 224.

Clearly we need to do more to reduce our use of gasoline. Better fuel standards are important, but there are many things we can do on our own. Check out some of our previous posts for tips:

When is a flight too empty to fly?

Don Willmott , Forecast Earth Correspondent — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:58:05 PDT

A few years ago I was scheduled to fly from New York to London on the first of American Airlines' three nightly departures. As the departure time came and went it became clear something was wrong. Soon enough, my flight was cancelled, and all of the passengers were jammed onto the second flight, which left two hours later. Many of us missed connecting flights at Heathrow, and my Swiss vacation got off to a rocky start.

The airline never gave a clear reason why my flight was cancelled, but I suspected they just didn't feel like flying two half-empty planes when they could fly one full one. Obviously I felt at the time that both flights should fly, but in retrospect, isn't that a rather un-green way of thinking?

The issue boiled up recently when it was reported that American flew a huge Boeing 777 from Chicago to London in February with only five passengers aboard. According to reports, the five people were leftover from a flight that had been cancelled earlier in the day, and the airline felt obligated to get them to London and to get the plane where it needed to be to bring another load of people back from Europe on time.

That all makes a certain sense, but still, what about the 22,000 gallons of jet fuel burned in the process (creating 43 tons of C02 per person)?

Could it be that I actually feel a little sorry for American Airlines? Thrust into a no-win situation, it erred on the side of customer service and scheduling at the expense of the environment. From the comfort of my home I feel it was a mistake, but if I had been one of those five passengers stuck at O'Hare, you can be sure I would have been eager for that plane to fly.

Getting to know your Prius

Kastle Waserman — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:16:56 PST

As the proud owner of a new Prius, I love driving my car knowing I'm doing a little bit every mile to lower my carbon footprint.

But I have to say, getting acquainted with the Prius has been unlike any of my previous cars. It took a little time to get used to the start button in place of a key ignition, that funny little gear shift knob located on the dashboard, and the fact that it's so quiet you can hardly tell it's running.

My first few spins felt a bit like being in an episode of a Jetsons cartoon, zooming around in my space-age mobile.

I can't say the experience hasn't come with some annoyances, like when I put the car in reverse and get an incessant beeping sound from the inside.

Shouldn't I already know I'm in reverse, especially since the TV-sized monitor shows the backup camera view? (This, by the way, is a funky new feature I do like, especially when parallel parking in tight spaces.)

All I can say is thank goodness for PriusChat.com, a website devoted to the growing contingent of Prius owners who want to get to know their new wheels, share how to troubleshoot problems, and, yes, how to override default settings such as those annoying beeps, which some sharp hacker figured out (thank you!).

You can also shop for custom-fitted accessories and find out how to pimp your ride with accessories such as replacing the whip antennae with a groovy shark fin.

Folks on this unique site also love swapping numbers about the mileage they're getting and how to increase mpg even further. (I'll share: 41 most days, which you can find out from the car's handy "consumption" screen.)

And unlike other social networking sites, most people don't post photos of themselves -- they post pictures of their beloved cars or an avatar of the model they have.

For those considering their next car, it's a great way to find out if the Prius is right for you. I've certainly been pleased with my purchase so far and with gas prices going nowhere but up -- beep or no beep -- you can't beat the mileage.

This car is certainly worth chatting about!

Better gas mileage for all

Jeff Ronning — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:34:02 PST

Jeff Ronning is a senior consultant at the Rocky Mountain Institute.Â

With near-historic prices at the pump, a lot of us probably wish our cars could get better gas mileage. What few people realize, however, is that just changing our driving technique can help us squeeze a few extra miles out of every tank.Â

One hurdle to learning how to drive more efficiently has been that our cars don't give us feedback on how our specific driving methods affect fuel economy.Â

But times are changing. Many newer models are equipped with fuel-economy computers that give critical information that can help us do a better job. Chevrolet, Toyota, Nissan, and others are planning to add fuel-economy features to all new models in the next few years. If your car doesn't have one, there's at least one add-on device that offers the same information and more, LinearLogic's ScanGauge II. (Similar devices that cater to drag racers give many other data but leave fuel economy off the list.)Â

Here's the lowdown on what these devices will tell you.Â

Built-in devices
The built-in computers on many new vehicles normally include a button that lets you scroll through trip miles, average speed, average mpg, and instant mpg.Â

Instant mpg
You'll notice the instant mpg is mercurial, zipping up to 99 mpg at some times and down below 10 mpg at others. This figure gives you direct feedback to inform your driving. The value can be quite high when you're coasting and low during both low-speed driving and acceleration.Â

Unfortunately, we can't coast everywhere, and driving uphill is especially troublesome. However, by observing the magnitude of the benefit of coasting, you can begin to appreciate it more and find ways to integrate more coasting into your driving. For instance, you might find more opportunities to coast into traffic signals rather than traveling full speed and slamming on the brake at the last minute.Â

Average mpg
The average mpg is much more stable than the instant number. It tracks the average fuel economy since the last time the device was set.Â

Typically, you can reset these devices as often as you like. You can observe your car's average mpg over a period of time to spot rising or falling trends. Doing so can help you figure out if your most recent driving activity is improving fuel economy.Â

Once you're confident with fuel-saving techniques-like more coasting, not using excessive braking, and avoiding high-revving the engine-you may want to switch from instant to average mpg display. It's easier to read and can feel almost like a video game, where your goal is to keep pushing the number higher.Â

Aftermarket devices
Like other feedback units, the ScanGauge II can also display a lot of other data, including fuel-burn rate in gallons per hour.

This stat can be useful in observing engine efficiency. For example, a cold engine generally idles faster and draws more fuel. Unfortunately, there is not much you can do to combat this condition except to drive your car and let it warm up.

Another nice feature of these devices is that they can scan a car's databank for trouble codes-the numbers mechanics use to diagnose problems with your car. This information can alert you to mechanical issues. It can also potentially save you some money, if you're inclined to do a little home auto repair.

Real-world results
Improving your fuel economy can be as easy as paying attention to how you drive and closing the "feedback loop."

I have been able to get about a 15 percent improvement, averaging 45 mpg in the summertime in a car that normally averages 39 mpg. I also use a driving technique called "Pulse-and-Glide" that works best in combination with feedback.

So check out these devices, or maybe you've got one on your new car. But don't forget to watch the road!

Diesels still aren't very green

Sheryl Canter — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:02:53 PST

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense.

John DeCicco, Ph.D. is Senior Fellow, Automotive Strategies at Environmental Defense.

The American Council for Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) just announced its eleventh annual ratings for the greenest and "meanest" vehicles. Natural gas and hybrid vehicles do best -- no surprise there.

But the meanest (dirtiest) list is dominated by diesels, despite their higher fuel efficiency, because they spew out high levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter.

I spoke about this with our resident car expert John DeCicco, who was the original creator of ACEEEâs Green Book when he worked for that organization.

"I do have my morbid moments", John said, "but no need to give up hope yet!"

How gas guzzlers could help pay for more efficient cars

Natalie Mims and Noah Buhayar — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:54:53 PST

Natalie Mims is a consultant with the Energy and Resources Team, and Noah Buhayar is a fellow at Rocky Mountain Institute.Â

Concern over energy security, rising oil prices, and global climate change has put automobile fuel efficiency on the agenda for many lawmakers in recent months.Â

In December, President Bush signed into law an energy bill that will increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That means U.S. automakers will have to increase the average fuel economy of the cars and light trucks they produce in the next 12 years. Â

While the new CAFE standard is a landmark event -- U.S. fleet efficiency has been relatively flat since 1985 -- this command-and-control style of regulation oppresses market forces and requires automobile manufacturers to install fuel economy technology, regardless of the cost.Â

Fortunately, there is an alternative to this expensive and ineffective approach to regulating fuel economy. It's called a feebate.Â

What is a feebate?

A feebate is a policy that provides a one-time rebate on fuel-efficient vehicles and places a surcharge on vehicles that are inefficient.Â

New light vehicles that exceed a defined fuel economy benchmark, called the "pivot point," qualify for a rebate. The logic is that people who choose to drive more efficient vehicles deserve a rebate, because they are working to reduce social costs such as pollution and oil dependence, congestion, health problems, and climate change.Â

The amount of the rebate would depend on where the vehicle's fuel economy falls in relation to the pivot point for vehicles in the same class. A Honda Civic, for instance, would qualify for a rebate because it's more efficient and consumes less fuel than comparably sized vehicles.

Conversely, new vehicles that are less fuel efficient than others in the same class would be subject to a fee.

Why feebates work

A feebate is a better approach to regulating the automotive industry because it allows manufacturers to install as much fuel economy technology as is cost-effective, as opposed to requiring manufacturers to install technology regardless of the cost.

Feebates also help consumers to consider the long-term impacts of a vehicle's fuel economy when they purchase the car.

Better yet, a well-designed feebate can be self-financing. Fees could pay not only for the rebates, but also the administrative costs of running the program. Â

Feebates in action

There are a number of factors that affect both how the feebate works, as well as the success of the policy. These include where the pivot point is set, the number of vehicle classes, and the size of rebates and fees. RMI recently analyzed these factors in a white paper.Â

In principle, though, feebates are gaining acceptance. Canada has had a feebate law in effect since 2007. Last month, several European countries adopted feebates: Finland and Ireland changed their automobile tax structure to vary based on greenhouse gas emissions, and France just implemented what's being called the "bonus-malus" law last month.Â

California's State Assembly recently considered a feebate bill to reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions after the EPA denied the state a waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions.Â

Feebates and you

So how would a feebate affect the average American?Â

For starters, it would create an incentive program for manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles, offering more fuel-efficient vehicle choices to consumers.Â

By setting a pivot point for each size class, it would allow consumers to choose the type of automobile that fit their needs-be it a compact car, sedan, SUV, or light truck. There would be a financial incentive, however, to choose the more efficient cars within each class.Â

Best of all, people who opt for an efficient vehicle would know that their choice will contribute to a better environment for future generations.

Picking a safer car for you, your family, and the planet

Laura Schewel and Noah Buhayar — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:49:37 PST

Laura Schewel is an analyst with MOVE - The Transportation Innovation Group and Noah Buhayar is a fellow at Rocky Mountain Institute.

Many consumers believe that the goals of a "safer car" and a "more fuel-efficient car" are at loggerheads, and that any increase in gas mileage will lead directly to increased fatalities.

This misconception is based in large part on a common assumption: The heavier the car, the safer it must be. Collectively, Americans have bought into this idea. The mass of the average personal vehicle in the U.S. has gone up 29% since 1987.Â

While that idea that more steel equals more protection seems intuitive, it turns out to be false. In fact, the best scientific research shows that automotive safety has nothing to do with vehicle weight, but everything to do with vehicle size and design.

Safety for you and your family
Heavier cars are not safer in a collision. Why? Cars are not simple, solid objects that collide like billiard balls on a table; they have crush zones and structural features designed to absorb impact.

The more crush zone available (the longer or wider the car) and the better the structural design, the safer the occupants will be in a crash.

These examples from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an independent, nonprofit organization that compiles fatality statistics, illustrate the point:Â

Drivers in a Dodge Neon or Chevrolet Cavalier (2,400 and 2,700 pounds, respectively) are twice as likely to die in their vehicles as drivers of Volkswagen Jettas or Honda Civics (2,700 pounds and 2,300 pounds) due to the superior crash design and safety features of the Jetta and Civic.
Drivers of a Toyota 4Runner (the safest SUV) are 25 times less likely to die in their vehicles than those who drive Chevrolet Blazers -- the least-safe SUV and the least-safe personal vehicle -- again due to superior design. (Statistics cover model years 1995-1999.)

Studies have proven that increasing the length of a car (its crush zone) while maintaining the same weight leads to reduced fatalities. To find out how crashworthy a vehicle really is, check its government star ratings, or its ratings and driver death rates from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Crash avoidance is harder to measure, but any vehicle equipped with Electronic Stability Control (ESC) will be better able to avoid crashes than a vehicle without.

Safety for your planet
Buying a heavier (and often more expensive) car is no guarantee of safety, but it will definitely lower your gas mileage. That's because heavier cars use more fuel.

A reliance on hefty cars that aren't necessarily well designed not only compromises our safety on the road (43,000 people died in U.S. auto accidents last year), but also the safety of future generations by emitting an unnecessary amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

Luckily, in this instance there's no need to compromise between what's good for you and your family and what's better for the planet.

The more people realize that light, long, well-designed cars are safer than clunky, heavy cars, the closer we'll be to pushing the market toward smarter, lighter vehicles. And the closer we'll be toward reducing the greenhouse gases spewing from our tailpipes-some 10% of the human contribution to climate change.

Correction: The weights for the Civic and Jetta originally cited in this post were reversed. The 1995-1999 Civic weighs approximately 2,300 pounds, and the 1995-1999 Jetta weighs approximately 2,700 pounds.

NYC approves congestion pricing

Sheryl Canter — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:20:39 PST

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.

New York City suffers from some of the worst traffic congestion in the country, costing workers and businesses billions of dollars a year in lost time, and heavily contributing to New Yorkâs nearly worst-in-the-nation air quality. One in eight New Yorkers suffer from asthma.

And New York is expected to add one million residents by 2030.

New York State charged a commission of elected officials, environmental and planning experts with solving New York Cityâs traffic crisis. Andy Darrell, Regional Director for Living Cities at Environmental Defense, was one of the commissioners.

Today the commission voted to approve an historic plan to protect New Yorkersâ health.

A key element of the plan is congestion pricing, where an electronically-collected toll system charges drivers more for using the most congested roads at the most congested times. This encourages drivers to instead use mass transit or to reschedule their trip. Cities around the world are successfully using congestion pricing to reduce traffic and pollution from vehicle exhausts.

Todayâs approved plan included the following elements:

A congestion pricing system for New Yorkâs Central Business District (CBD) from 60th street to the southern tip of Manhattan, with a charge in effect only during the peak traffic times (6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday-Friday). The plan will cut traffic in the CBD and outside of the CBD by reducing through-traffic destined for the CBD from Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and northern Manhattan, areas with the cityâs highest asthma rates.
A guarantee that about $500 million in annual revenue will be invested in transit expansion. This will reduce the $30 billion backlog in capital investment needed for major projects - for example, a Second Avenue subway line, and bus service in neighborhoods that lack transit options now.
A simple and relatively inexpensive system with far fewer cameras and operational complexity than that used in London, saving about $100 million annually from earlier estimates.
Recommended solutions to key concerns such as:

A transit "lockbox" that guarantees revenue to new transit expansion.
Short-term transit improvements prior to the programâs start.
Residential parking permits and ongoing monitoring and mitigation efforts to reduce traffic and parking in surrounding neighborhoods.
A sound legal framework for environmental review.
Cutting cameras from 340 down to 25 (93% reduction) and putting strict limits on storing personal information to ensure privacy.
Increased enforcement of existing traffic laws and a crackdown on placards.
Tax relief for low income drivers with no transit alternative (who are fewer than 1 percent of all commuters to the CBD).

Investing now in the transit system of tomorrow will keep New York City accessible to people of all income levels, cut pollution, support healthy growth, and cut global warming pollution. Congestion pricing is the key to clean air and better transit.

Drive-thrus are a waste

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:18:32 PST

In our high-paced, go-go-go society, the drive-thru window at the old fast-food restaurant is a necessity to save time, right?

Nope!

TreeHugger reports that a Toronto evaluation found you can get breakfast in about the same time whether you drive up or walk into a restaurant. McDonalds and Starbucks were among the four places in this admittedly unscientific test.

The big difference between using the drive-thru and walking into the joint is environmental. Idling in your car at the drive-thru window burns between 100-244 grams of C02, which if this is a regular habit means you could be emitting up to 60 kg of C02 a year.

And don't forget, idling wears down your engine, in addition to being a major source of air pollution. Environmental Defense points out that when a car idles for more than 10 seconds, it actually uses more gas and creates more global warming pollution than simply restarting the engine.

So next time, park it when you need that McMuffin in the morning. The planet will thank you.

Getting smart about parking

Michelle Heimburger — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:54:58 PST

Dear Jerk Who Parked So Close We Couldn't Open Our Doors,

You've parked us in for the last time, Mr. (or Ms.) Bad Parker! For months, we've watched you take up multiple spaces, park in compact spots with your giant SUV, and generally disregard the lines.

We've wondered about who (if anyone) taught you to drive. We've questioned your eyesight, your sense of civic responsibility, and your sanity.

We've given you dirty looks and fake citations, and we've even posted unflattering images of your parking abilities on a variety of sites devoted to bad parkers like yourself. All to no avail -- it seems that you will never learn.

So today, we officially give up. You win. We cannot compete with your monstrous inconsideration, and we cannot show you the error of your ways.

Instead, we're getting smart -- a Smart Car, that is. This year they're finally available in the U.S. and we're prepared to suck in and squish ourselves into the teensy 8-foot auto.

Sure, we might not have room for our thimble collection. Granted, it might not feel like the mas macho car on the road, and maybe we'll never push all three cylinders to that elusive top speed of 85 mph.

But it'll all be worth it when we're able to park sideways.

Suggested sites:

Parkly.net - printable citations and an online database of bad parking images.
Flickr: Bad Parking - pictures of terrible parking jobs from around the world.
Bad Parking - blog documenting bad parkers in their natural habitat.
smart - three cylinders, 60 miles per gallon, 85 mph top speed, and only eight feet long. Available in the United States in 2008.
How the Smart Car Works - the history, features, and technical information about the dainty vehicles.

Directory categories: Smart Cars, Bad Parking, Bad Drivers, Driving, Microcars

Originally posted on The Spark, a daily blog where Yahoo! Directory editors highlight new and interesting content on the Web.

Automakers seek greener pastures in Detroit

Anna Moyles — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:03:26 PST

The typical U.S. automaker did not have a good year in '07. Many found themselves troubled by emissions requirements, rapidly falling sales numbers, and ample representation on lists of the year's worst cars.

These beleaguered American divisions are looking to the Detroit Auto Show to start '08 with a sunnier outlook.

While flashy mock-ups get plenty of attention (see Mazda's retro-futuristic Furai concept car, Mini's cutesy Clubman, and the super-hot Corvette ZR1), the growing focus at these shows is on green options. Though still in concept form, more American companies are presenting cars that rise to the technology challenge.

The Dodge Zeo and Chrysler ecoVoyager (both electric) and the Cadillac Provoq (hybrid), on display this week in Detroit, are evidence that shifting attitudes toward environmental impact may also pay off on showroom floors.

Consumers are paying attention, and certain tiny imports are raising the stakes.

Suggested Sites:

North American International Auto Show - in Detroit. Media and industry the first week, then the public gets in.
Yahoo! Autos - with a heavy emphasis on concept cars.
Edmunds - keep up on all the photos and specs coming out of the current show.
Jalopnik - slightly snarky auto site gets our stamp of approval.

Directory categories: Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Auto Shows, Buyer's Guides, Cars and Autos

Originally posted on The Spark, a daily blog where Yahoo! Directory editors highlight new and interesting content on the Web.

Buddy up in the car

Trystan L. Bass — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:07:51 PST

Green New Year's resolution: Carpool at least once a week.

Want to save money and reduce stress? Share your commute to work a few times each week. With gas prices rising and traffic congestion crazy all over America, carpooling is a smart way to make your life easier and also be kind to the planet.

According to the National Household Travel Survey by the U. S. Department of Transportation, 90.8% of us drive to work during the week, and the average vehicle occupancy is a mere 1.14. Our commute averages about 12.10 miles.

But adults age 35 to 44 spend over 80 minutes each day in a car! Thanks to more solo drivers on the road, it takes longer to get anywhere. Surely a few of us can drive together, especially during peak commute hours.

Check out the real costs of commuting by yourself. Pretty high, huh? What if you cut out one day a week?

Try starting with Fridays so you'll begin the weekend feeling refreshed. Alternate who drives, and track how much gas money you save. Once you and your carpool partner get in the habit, add another day. Edmunds.com has useful tips for setting up a carpool.

This directory has links to online rideshare databases where you can find people to carpool with. You can even use tools like ZimRide or GoLoco to find carpools on Facebook.

The University of South Florida has a summary of the tax benefits available to commuters and employers. Large companies may have carpool programs already. If not, show your HR department this info. and help set up a rideshare list.

Want to go a step further? Try public transportation, or see how walkable your town is. Encourage your kids to walk or bike to school. Use a bike for your commute and errands.

Try living without a car completely. Sound crazy? Well, you'll save money, and you'll eliminate tons of harmful CO2 from the atmosphere. And you don't have to live in a big city either. I live in suburban California (notorious for poor public transit), and I've never had a driver's license or owned a car. I take the bus, walk, and carpool everywhere.

It's not the simplest way to live, but neither is having four kids or being vegetarian, which plenty of people do. When you don't drive, you have to plan some things in advance. But you're also freed from car insurance and registration fees, and you don't care about gas prices.

Just start small with a weekly carpool. You'll be surprised at how much you don't need a car on hand.

Going home green

Kastle Waserman — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:27:00 PST

Folks are reconnecting with relatives or taking vacations during the holiday seasonâbut, oh, what all that flying does to our carbon footprints!

We found a few ways to offset our upcoming travels plans just by making smarter travel choices.

Many ground-transportation companies have gotten the message that people want to drive green, even for short trips. Businesses such as Eco Limo in California and Washington DC and Green Cab in San Francisco, CA, offer alternative-fuel rides to and from the airport.

If you're staying within a small area, try renting a bike, or better yet, bring your own: Bike Friday makes portable bicycles that fold into a suitcase.

If your relatives aren't hosting you for the holidays, consider booking a green hotel in the area. Environmentally-minded accommodations are popping up in hot spots such as Santa Monica, California, which is home to the Ambrose, whose operations include non-toxic housekeeping methods and wind-powered guest rooms.

Look on Orbitz for more eco-friendly hotels in the state you'll be visiting.

And of course, while you may go as green as possible, there's no getting around that airplane ride when your family lives across the country. This is where the idea of carbon offsets âpayback timeâcomes in.

CabonFund provides a way to relieve your guilt by calculating your carbon offset in a dollar amount and allowing you to donate to your choice of carbon-reducing projects such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, and reforestation projects.

When to turn off your engine

Mel Peffers — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:18:10 PST

This post is by Mel Peffers, Air Quality Project Manager at Environmental Defense.

In the winter, many people idle their car engine after starting it up because they think it needs time to warm up. Not true! Today's fuel-injected engines don't need a warm-up period, and idling for long periods can lead to excessive engine wear.

Worse, cars idling for more than 10 seconds use more gas and create more global warming pollution than simply restarting the engine. Surprised? It's true - the 10-second rule has been proven empirically.

The 10-second rule was originally published on the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency's Idle-Free Zone webpage. Their results were replicated by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, which found that restarting uses the same amount of fuel as idling with the air conditioner on for 6 seconds.

Diesel engines can use more fuel idling than moving a vehicle - as much as four times more (see this study on school buses in Los Angeles, and also this EPA study with similar findings). Besides contributing to global warming, diesel engine emissions can cause a host of health problems: asthma attacks, impaired lung function, heart problems, and even death.

Idling is a significant problem in large cities like New York and Los Angeles, where people are often stuck in traffic. A car in gridlock emits up to three times the pollution as one in free-flowing driving conditions.

Environmental Defense is working with the City of New York on reducing traffic congestion. We're also working with Mayor Bloomberg on tougher enforcement of the existing idling law, which has been in effect for five years. Plus, we're working on a no-idling policy for school buses in Texas, and on Truck Stop Electrification (TSE) expansion, so truckers won't need to idle overnight while sleeping. And our GreenFleet initiative helps fleet owners reduce emissions.

Avoiding pollution and engine wear aren't the only benefits of not idling. You also can save gas and money. Here are a couple of studies that demonstrate this:

Edmunds.com: "... you can drastically improve your gas mileage."

Homemade Hybrid: "I kicked the idling habit and saved a gallon of gas per tank ..."

With this cost-of-idling worksheet from Argonne National Laboratories, you can calculate the savings for your own vehicle. For more tips on clean driving, visit Car Talk's Driving Tips for Tree-Huggers.

Not idling is good for the environment, good for your wallet, good for engines, and good for health. Everyone wins by simply turning off an idling engine.

Cruising the green seas

Trystan L. Bass — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:12:32 PST

Winter doldrums making you crave an escape to sunny ports of call? G Living takes a look at ocean cruises.

The bigger ships often have spotty histories of environmental problems, but some are cleaning up their acts (and we don't mean what's playing in the Lido Lounge either).

Alternative engine technology and lower smokestack emissions are among the steps cruise lines are taking to reduce their carbon footprints. One even offers earth-friendly dry cleaning, so your tux for the formal dinner will look spiffy. Full steam ahead.

Carpooling casually

Anneliese Eisentraut — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:30:28 PST

Mom always said hitchhiking was a big no-no, but what if thumbing down a ride could make your commute less painful and help cut down on pollution?

In congested urban areas like Washington, D.C., and the San Francisco Bay Area, HOVs (high occupancy vehicles) are rewarded with designated express lanes. To benefit from the faster freeway lanes, commuters line up at the curb and hop into strangers' cars every weekday. Half ride-share, half plain old hitching, casual carpooling, or "slugging" as it's known in D.C., connects passengers and drivers at unofficial meeting places along common commute routes.

A three-passenger occupancy rule eases concerns about the weirdo factor, and a few etiquette guidelines help things run smoothly: the driver controls the radio volume and station, no food or drink, and no conversation unless the driver initiates.

Of course, there's an occasional crazy driver, but nothing's perfect, and it makes for a good story around the water cooler once you make it to work.

Suggested sites:

Slug-Lines.com - slugging HQ for Washington, D.C., features morning and afternoon pick-up locations, etiquette, and a poem or two.
511.org - find a carpool or vanpool in the San Francisco Bay Area.
eRideShare.com - find a carshare partner for your commute, cross-country drive, or local errands.
Carpool Crew - rally folks in your neighborhood to carpool with you.

Directory categories: Ridesharing, Commuting, Traffic Conditions, Mass Transit, Hitchhiking

Originally posted on The Spark, a daily blog where Yahoo! Directory editors highlight new and interesting content on the Web.

Earth-friendly chocolate road trip

Trystan L. Bass — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:19:57 PST

About My Planet reports on a uniquely fueled trip from the United Kingdom to Africa. Two Brits are driving a truck that's using 2,000 liters of biofuel produced from waste chocolate.

My first question was -- who would waste chocolate! I'd sooner eat it than burn it in a car. But these guys got 4,000 kilos of candy "mistakes" from a major confectionery company and turned it into biodiesel. And it cost less than oil too -- only $1.16 a gallon. I guess at that price, it's cheaper to gas up with chocolate than eat it.

The biotruck expedition will conclude with "the first ever carbon-negative driving expedition across the Sahara Desert." Go candy racers, go!