According to ARB Chairman Mary Nichols, the new rules “will clean our air, fight climate change and provide cars that save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump.” Specifically, by proposing tougher smog standards starting with MY 2015, cars built in 2025 will emit 75 percent less smog-forming pollution compared to 2014. In the past, similar legislation (known as Low Emission Vehicle I) reduced smog by 75 percent between 1994 and 2003. Greenhouse gas emissions, for which regulations go into effect in 2017, are predicted to be 34 percent lower for MY 2025 vehicles than those made in 2016. Over the course of the regulations, it is estimated that greenhouse gases will be reduced by roughly 52 million tons, or the equivalent of taking 10 million cars off the road for one year.

The vital source of these emission reductions is the 1.4 million plug-in hybrid and zero-emission vehicles that will be on the road by 2025—if all goes according to plan. Essentially, manufacturers will be required “to offer for sale specific numbers of the very cleanest cars available.” ARB estimates that while the cost of new vehicles with high-efficiency technology would increase by an average of $1,900, the payback period would be between one and 3½ years. Over the course of a typical consumer’s ownership of such a vehicle (eight years), the owner would save an average of $4,000, which translates to about $6,000 over the lifetime of the car. Even if these estimates are correct, however, consumer demand will ultimately decide when (or if) the electric vehicle industry can thrive and sustain growth over the long term.

Image

The scariest thing about dioxin is, “More than 90% of human exposure [to dioxin] is through food, mainly meat and dairy products, fish and shellfish.” Dioxin also tends to stay in the body once it is absorbed.  It is one of the nasty chemicals that is fat soluble, so it clings to your fat cells and is nearly impossible to remove, similar to DDT.  “A single hot dog can contain more dioxin than the proposed limit for a 2-year-old [a day].”  That is a terrifying fact.

The WHO (World Health Organization) believes, “Food contamination monitoring systems must be in place to ensure that tolerance levels are not exceeded. It is the role of national governments to monitor the safety of food supply and to take action to protect public health.” Currently Americans are consuming dioxins at higher levels than recommended.

To date, no limit is set for dioxin consumption, but lobbyist are working to push the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to enforce a limit.  “The EPA is expected to recommend an intake limit of 0.7 picograms of dioxin per kilogram body weight per day.  A picogram is one trillionth of a gram.  The WHO and European Union limit is higher—from 1 to 4 picograms per kilogram per day.”

So of course the food industry is opposing this possible regulation.  They are claiming it will cause economic damage and a health scare among consumers. They formed The Food Industy Dioxin Working Group, which represents beef producers, food processing companies, farmers and food retailers.   One of their biggest reasons for opposing regulation is, “ ‘Under EPA’s proposal, this advice [EPA recommended daily dose of dioxin] could no longer stand as nearly every American – particularly young children – could easily exceed the daily RfD after consuming a single meal or heavy snack,’ according to the industry groups.”  I feel that the possibility of exceeding the RfD after one meal should be a reason for concern, not proving that the standards are too strenuous.  Especially when dioxin is known to be so toxic and harmful.  Shouldn’t we be protecting our children and not big money?  How can we be sustainable down the line if out children are ingesting potentially harmful levels of a known toxic chemical?  How will that impact the population if they are all suffering from diseases and other ill effect from dioxins?

The best way is to avoid dioxins until EPA actually acts like the protection agency they are suppose to be is to eat less high-fat meats, dairy foods, and seafood.  This goes along the lines of eating less meat since it is more sustainable to avoid the consumption of animal products.

For a brief reminder of last year’s state of the union, check out our coverage of the speech.

The legislation, which went into effect at the beginning of this year, outlines how Germany will ramp up production of renewable energy. The goals stated in the policy are: at least 35 percent of energy will come from renewable sources by 2020, at least 50 percent by 2030, at least 65 percent by 2040, and between 80 and 95 percent by 2050. A recent press release by Germany’s Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety shows that renewable energy accounted for roughly 20 percent of energy production last year, up from just 6.4 percent in 2000.

According to the Associated Press, Germany’s vast expansion in renewable energy will depend on investment incentives, government subsidies, and the continued cooperation of taxpayers. Technology-specific remunerations, or feed-in tariffs, are given to renewable power plants for 20 years, and reward those that start up sooner. While expediting investment, feed-in tariffs will help give market access to smaller companies. To help foot the bill, Germans pay for electricity by the “user-pays” principle, meaning the price of power increases with consumption. German citizens also pay a 3.5 euro cent per kilowatt-hour tax, or roughly $205 per year for a family of four, to help subsidize costs associated with the legislation (see link above for more information).

Since first being adopted by German Parliament in 2001, the Renewable Energy Act has been fairly successful. Besides boosting the share of Germany’s renewable power sources to over 20 percent, each legislative benchmark has been surpassed along the way. Producing electricity from renewable sources also eliminates the hidden costs (for example, to public health) associated with burning fossil fuels. However, the plan has not escaped criticism. One study, carried out on behalf of the Bavarian Business Association, estimates the cost of the legislation (€250 billion) plus indirect costs (€85 billion) to total €335 billion, or $469 billion, over the next nine years—not to mention up to 2050. As Jeremy Rifkin, an American economist put it, “Germany can’t afford to fail.”

Image taken in England

While a typical battery for a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with a 40-mile electric range cost $12,000 in 2008, we’re on track to demonstrate technology by 2015 that would reduce the cost to $3,600. And last year, we set a goal of demonstrating technology by 2020 that would further reduce the cost to $1,500 – an accomplishment that could help spur the mass-market adoption of electric vehicles.