Norway May Ban Gasoline Cars by 2015

Norway is looking at the option to ban gasoline-powered cars to be sold in Norway. Under the proposal hybrids, flex-fuels, and biofuel powered cars can still be sold, which means that the plan is quite reasonable. I really hope they go forward with this plan – and hopefully other countries will follow.

“This is much more realistic than people think when they first hear about this proposal,” she told Reuters, defending a plan by her Socialist Left Party to outlaw sales of cars that run solely on fossil fuels in six years’ time.

Halvorsen denied that her proposal would undermine the economy — Norway is the world’s number six oil exporter.

“Not at all … we know that the world will be dependent on oil and gas for many decades ahead but we have to introduce new technologies and this is a proposal to support that,” she said.

Asked what she would say if she met the head of a big car producer such as General Motors, she said: “develop new and more environmentally friendly cars. And I know they are working on that question.”

Singapore’s Billion Dollar Green Plan

Singapore has announced their ambitious plan to make the republic green. It seems like their ultimate goal is to have a sustainable lifestyle and economy in order to have an edge over other places – good for them!

If successful, it will make energy usage here more efficient, reduce pollution and expand the nation’s green spaces – even as the demand for resources rises along with economic growth.

The report of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD) – co-authored by five different ministries – also pledges to advance Singapore’s ambition to be a clean technology and urban environmental solutions hub.

This sector is set to add an estimated $3.4 billion to economic output and create 18,000 ‘green collar’ jobs by 2015.

GPS Directions Help Save the Environment

One of the largest makers of consumer GPS devices has commissioned a study on fuel consumption in cars that have GPS devices and cars that lack the feature. The conclusion is that having a device that informs drivers about traffic can lower emissions. Of course, if you can avoid taking a car you should do so.

In a three pronged study which evaluated drivers without a navigation system, drivers with a navigation system, and drivers with a navigation system that included traffic, the results revealed that drivers using navigation devices 1) drove shorter distances and 2) spent less time driving. Conducted in two metropolitan areas of Germany – Dusseldorf and Munich – the study also showed that drivers with navigation devices had a 12% increase in fuel efficiency, as measured by liters of fuel consumed per 100 kms. Fuel consumption among those drivers using navigation fell from 8.3 to 7.3 l/100kms.
This increase in fuel economy translates to an estimated .91 tons (metric) decrease in carbon dioxide emissions every year per driver, or a 24% decrease over the amount that the average non-navigation user emits per year. Stated in terms of grams/km the reduction equates to 25 g/km per car. And with an annualized decrease in driving of nearly 2500 fewer kilometers per driver, 1.19 million tires would also be saved from disposal in Germany due to the decrease in wear and tear.

Earth Day Idea for Canadians

First of all, happy Earth Day!

Here’s a neat idea for Canadians: have manufactures pay for waste management of their products. To our European (and some other) readers, this is not a new or crazy idea, but here in Canada this concept is revolutionary. For Earth day The Toronto Star has examined how Ontario can get manufactures to make more environmentally friendly products through legislation – and things are looking good.

One of the most obvious steps is Extended Producer Responsibility, the European concept that the manufacturer must cover the full cost of properly recycling or disposing of a product at the end of its life cycle.

The merits of EPR are simple: It entices companies strictly for cost reasons to redesign their products so they are easier and cheaper to recycle.

European rules, for example, forced Apple to create a computer without lead – leading to lower costs at the end of its life.

In its purest sense, EPR challenges companies to make product lines that lead to zero waste, because no waste would mean no charges at the end of the day.

The requirement may sound radical in Canada, but elsewhere, especially throughout the European Union, EPR is a familiar feature on the regulatory landscape.

Sustainable Energy – without the hot air

There is a lot of information out there on how we’re destroying our planet and there’s tons of information about how we can save it (this site looks at saving it). David J.C. MacKay has written a book Sustainable Energy – without the hot air that takes all the climate change information and creates an analysis that is much easier to understand than most writing on the subject. The best part is that you can read the entire book for free.

From the introduction to the synopsis:

We have an addiction to fossil fuels, and it’s not sustainable. The devel-
oped world gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels; Britain, 90%. And
this is unsustainable for three reasons. First, easily-accessible fossil fu-
els will at some point run out, so we’ll eventually have to get our energy
from someplace else. Second, burning fossil fuels is having a measurable
and very-probably dangerous effect on the climate. Avoiding dangerous
climate change motivates an immediate change from our current use of
fossil fuels. Third, even if we don’t care about climate change, a drastic
reduction in Britain’s fossil fuel consumption would seem a wise move if
we care about security of supply: continued rapid use of the North Sea Photo by Terry Cavner.
oil and gas reserves will otherwise soon force fossil-addicted Britain to de-
pend on imports from untrustworthy foreigners. (I hope you can hear my
tongue in my cheek.)

How can we get off our fossil fuel addiction?

There’s no shortage of advice on how to “make a difference,” but the
public is confused, uncertain whether these schemes are fixes or figleaves.
People are rightly suspicious when companies tell us that buying their
“green” product means we’ve “done our bit.” They are equally uneasy
about national energy strategy. Are “decentralization” and “combined
heat and power,” green enough, for example? The government would have
us think so. But would these technologies really discharge Britain’s duties
regarding climate change? Are windfarms “merely a gesture to prove our
leaders’ environmental credentials”? Is nuclear power essential?
We need a plan that adds up. The good news is that such plans can be
made. The bad news is that implementing them will not be easy.

Scroll To Top