Green Daily

According to the New York Times and the president of the American Public Transportation Association (a job which I imagine must be somewhat lonely and frustrating), high gas prices have caused more and more Americans to climb onto busses, trains, and trolleys.

The number of riders has increased somewhat in cities like New York and Boston, where people are used to the concept of taking the T to work or the subway to the bar. But what's more interesting is that bean-counters have also seen an increase in public transport patrons in places like Denver or Dallas, where the car is an intrinsic part of the culture.

Here in Austin, Texas, I haven't noticed any particular increase in fellow bus patrons, but I would definitely be enthused about it. Maybe someday we can even get a light rail built, like they keep threatening. More importantly, maybe "taking the bus" will one day not be seen as a shameful admission that you lack a giant SUV and therefore are not a productive member of society...

Sometimes everyone wants to talk about the Yankees, and sometimes everyone wants to talk about gas prices. Personally, I'd rather not talk about either. But gas is on everyone's lips, from Hillary Clinton to Chris Matthews, the price of crude is just crude.

But gas prices are only one factor in how much consumers are spending for fuel. Congestion, vehicle size and distance also play major roles. According to Forbes cities like Houston have the cheapest gas, but drivers there are spending the most on gas.

You see, while drivers in Houston are paying a mere $3.44 a gallon for gas, they're also driving huge vehicles. According to a U.S. Department of Transportation study 20-percent of drivers in the south drive trucks and another 16-percent drive SUVs.

The jury may still be out on whether Ethanol and biodiesel are the solution to the world's oil addiction. There's some evidence that diverting food crops to fuel production is raising the prices of food, and it's questionable whether you could grow enough fuel crops to power all the vehicles currently relying on gasoline. But what if you could fill up your car with Ethanol produced in your backyard, not in a field in Iowa?

The EFuel100 Micro Fueler is a contraption that will let you do just that. Basically, you add some water, sugar, and yeast, let it sit for a few days and you've got ethanol that you can use to power your car. The Micro Fueler can also take alcohol, and co-founder Thomas Quinn says he sometimes makes ethanol from discarded alcohol picked up from bars and restaurants.

Between supplies and electricity, it costs about $1 to produce a gallon of ethanol. But the up front costs are a bit higher than that. A Micro Fueler will set you back about $10,000, although with government subsidies, you can probably chop a few thousand dollars off that price.

[via Gizmodo]

The mile-high club just got dirtier. A report by leading aviation experts says that CO2 emissions from air travel are some 20% higher than previously thought, and could reach 1.5 billion tonnes a year by 2025. That's roughly equivalent to the CO2 emissions for the entire country of Russia, with about 141 million people. The percentage of global greenhouse gases produced by planes is also expected to rise from the current 2% to 5% or higher.

The increase comes in spite of cleaner jet engine technologies and flying tactics designed to reduce fuel use and pollution.

The report, entitled Trends in Global Noise and Emissions From Commercial Aviation, was presented at an FAA organized conference in Barcelona last year, but never published.

Also, the number of people seriously affected by aircraft noise will jump from from 24 million in 2000 to 30.3 million by 2025. Good thing we'll all be deaf from iPod use by then anyway.

via [The Independent]

They should be pulling in to Puerto Rico sometime this weekend, so they can do some repairs and clean out their stinky boat. According to reports, they lost the comfort of their $10,000 toilet somewhere near the Azores and their sleeping quarters have been flooded with 2 inches of biodiesel for weeks. For the crew's sake, let's just hope that they're not using 'biodiesel' as a pseudonym for 'sewage.'

Last year, the US Congress signed a bill preventing federal agencies from investing money into alternative fuel projects that produce more polluting effects than oil and gas. This was certainly a step in the right direction, but could it possibly be true that Congress is considering a repeal of that bill, in order to explore investments in Canada's tar sands and oil shale projects? Yes, it is true, but environmental groups across North America are fighting to do something about it by petitioning the government through their senators.

In case you're wondering what tar sand is, it's basically a heavy crude oil mixed with sand, clay and rock. The process of extracting and refining it into a usable crude for vehicle and industrial consumption is not only much more expensive to process, but its effect on our environment is much larger than convention oil well drilling. Tar sand extracting does currently occur in North America, and the US does currently invest in it, but with last year's Section 526 bill, we had hoped this practice would have slowed to a halt.

When it comes to boosting your car's fuel efficiency, you can find all sorts of miracle products that claim to boost your mileage by as much as 50% -- but don't waste your time, they're pipe dreams. When comes down to it, there are no shortcuts -- but there are plenty of small steps automakers can take. One of those is more efficient transmissions, like the one that Ford is introducing into its fleet in 2009.

Ford's new 6-speed high-efficiency transmissions increases mileage by 4% to 6%. It may not sound like much, but every little bit helps. Most automatic transmissions these days have only 4 gears. Adding 2 gears not only allows your car to accelerate more efficiently -- which saves gas -- but it also keeps your RPMs lower at highway speeds. Basically, it's like having a second overdrive.

You really can't beat $350 for an electric commuter bike. You could hardly even build yourself an electric kit-bike for that cheap. This is certainly a positive step in the right direction for pollution-free commuting. Or is it?

When deciding on a daily commuting vehicle, there are many factors besides its impact on the environment. You want something that will last, have fairly low maintenance and not cost an arm and a leg. Well, this bike lets you keep your limbs, but how reliable is something that inexpensive? More importantly, wouldn't actually riding a pedal-bike be better for your health anyway? And speaking of impact on the environment, this bike's motor uses lead-acid batteries that are said to only last a year. I think I may just stick with my trusty, rusty (literally) Schwinn.

Keeping up with the Joneses may soon mean recycling the Hummer and putting a 4 banger econobox in the driveway. The New York Times reports that soaring gas prices are making compact cars popular again, with1 in 5 vehicles purchased in April falling into the compact or subcompact category. That's an increase from 1 in 8 only a decade ago.

Experts predict that with gas prices unlikely to drop soon - well, ever - the era of the massive SUV may be over. This is bad news for US automakers, who in spite of years of warning from economists, environmentalists, and peak oil conspiracy theorists, have failed to develop a strong line of small cars to match overseas manufacturers like Toyota and Honda.

The trend proves again what we already knew - that people respond to events that hit their wallet, not their conscience. If gas prices hit 10 bucks a gallon, look for strong growth in sales of bicycles, in-line skates, and walking shoes.

According to an article in Forbes, the record oil prices that we're seeing now are resulting in a lot of weird, counter-intuitive responses from drivers. For the most part, our driving habits have remained astonishingly unchanged in the face of $3.50 a gallon gas -- some of us are even driving more. According to David Littman, an economist from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy:

"There's no doubt that hybrid owners end up spending just as much on gasoline as before because the added efficiency allows them to rationalize driving more miles."

I admit, I've often thought of just giving it all up and living in my car or a small RV. Just think of all the things you wouldn't have to deal with anymore. You could have a different backyard every day, anywhere in the country you'd like to visit. Your expenses would be minimal and the basic necessities of life are mostly all achievable through public means. You'd have the complete freedom to do whatever you like whenever you want, without being tied down to a crushing mortgage payment or rising utility bills.

This is the occasional life of Jassen Bowman who tells us an incredible story of his voluntary adventures in living the mobile life. While I admire his simplistic outlook on life and the way he distances himself from a dependancy on materialism, he also makes quite a point to relay the positive impact that a downsized life has on the environment. You may think living in a car or RV would be harmful with the gas usage, but consider the comparison to the energy used in an average American home.

I guess the argument could go either way, if you take long-term environmental impact into consideration. What are some of your opinions?

It all comes full-circle eventually. The true definition of self-sustainability is supporting yourself with what you have available. The ideal situation for this has recently been announced: garbage trucks fueled by the trash they gather and dump. How perfect is that?

North America's largest waste management company, Waste Management is joining together with Linde, a leading gases and engineering company to produce a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility neat Livermore, California next year. This facility could produce up to 13,000 gallons of LNG a day!

So why stop there? If this project works effectively, the potential application for this type of natural gas project could not only halt the release of methane gas into the air (which is much more harmful to the air than CO2), but also help curb the ongoing gas crisis.

Tesla Motors celebrated the opening of its first retail outlet last week in Santa Monica. The high-profile happening -- attended by stars like Jenny McCarthy, Quincy Jones, and the director of Who Killed the Electric Car, Chris Paine -- marked a new milestone for the electric car startup, but it begs one serious question: where are the cars? It's hard to have a dealership without them.

As always, I'm excited to hear that Tesla is making headway in its quest to start selling its all-electric Roadster. Still, opening a store doesn't seem very necessary when the company is only just rolling its 4th production car off the line. Maybe I'm being impatient, but doesn't it seem like Tesla has the cart before the horse a little here? Based on their own projections, it's going to take them almost a year of production just to catch up with the 1,000 pre-orders they have on the books. Yet, they plan to open up 5 stores across the US over the next year. Seems pretty aggressive.

[via AutoBlogGreen]

Although we've been hearing electric car news from GM for over a decade now, they've already missed the opportunity to get out in front of the pack. A rash of electric car startups are bringing their eco-friendly vehicles to the market these days. Myers Motors and Aptera are already selling roadworthy electric 3-wheelers, while Tesla's already staked out the all-electric performance car market.

You'd think with all the competition, GM might be concerned about finding their place in the alternative vehicles market. If they are concerned, they're not showing it. General Motors' CEO Rick Wagoner insists that today's startups are just blips on the larger electric car time line -- a time line that GM will dominate. Is he talking smack, or is he just telling it like it is?

In recent months, many of California's vigilant environmentalists have been pointing out that -- when it comes to the environment -- the Govenator talks the talk, but he doesn't necessarily walk the walk. In fact, he doesn't walk much at all, he prefers to take his private jet. Not exactly the most carbon-conscious decision.

Here's the controversy: the Schwarzeneggers live in posh neighborhood in Brentwood, and Arnold works each day in Sacramento -- 380 miles away. Usually flies his Gulfstream IV from his mansion to work, but a new ban might close the town's small airport to all jets. The 300 runway was designed for propeller-driven planes and many are concerned about the potential for a disastrous overrun by a jet into the nearby houses. A federal judge will rule on whether to ban the jets. So far, Arnold doesn't seem moved by the criticism of his carbon spewing commute.