Zoom Zoom

Check it out here.

h/t The Funny Farm.

From the inventor's website:

The XR-3 Hybrid is a super-fuel-efficient two-passenger plug-in hybrid that achieves 125 mpg on diesel power alone, 225 mpg on combined diesel and electric power, and performance like a conventional automobile. The design of the XR-3 Hybrid focuses on existing technologies and a vehicle “personality” that makes conserving energy a fun driving experience. It showcases the design ideas explored in Robert Q. Riley’s book, Alternative Cars in the 21st Century.

At just 1300 pounds, this high-performance design combines lightening-fast acceleration, a maximum speed of 85 mph, and fuel economy of 125- to over 200-mpg.

Its clam-shell canopy and three-wheel platform boldly differentiates the XR-3 from conventional passenger cars. The vehicle’s hybrid power system, diesel engine, and low curb weight are the main ingredients of its super-high fuel economy and excellent performance. Acceleration equal to that of a conventional car and a maximum speed of 85 mph make the XR-3 Hybrid equally at home on freeways and surface streets.

Plans will be available so readers can build a duplicate of the XR-3 Hybrid prototype, or convert their own car into a significantly more fuel-efficient vehicle. Readers will understand the factors that influence fuel economy, and learn how to make any car achieve greater fuel economy. The XR-3 Hybrid gives enthusiasts and experimenters the opportunity to significantly reduce their transportation expenses and have fun doing it. On a broader level, the vehicle is a highly visible example of the kinds of vehicles that could help reduce personal mobility energy on a global scale.

(Image Credit: Robert G. Riley Enterprises)

Summary only...

Supreme Smackdown

In an opinion released yesterday, the United States Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's arguments that that the US Environmental Protection Agency did not have the authority to regulate carbon-dioxide in automobile emissions. The Court also ruled that the EPA did not have the "discretion" to refuse to regulate greenhouse gas emissions unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

The 5-to-4 decision was a complete smackdown of the Bush anti-environmental policies. Bush's EPA argued that it did not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it didn't have to if it didn't want to. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.

A little background . . . . the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA“shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1). The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent . . . , including any physical, chemical . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air.” §7602(g).

The plaintiffs in this case petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under the Clean Air Act. The EPA refused, arguing that (1) the Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority, it wouldn't regulate the emissions because a causal link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established.

The EPA was forced to modify its position when the case got to Court -- facts have a funny way of doing that to talking points. As the Supreme Court explained the position taken by the agency, it's not that greenhouse gasses don't cause global warming, it's that the problem is bigger than auto emissions:

EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. . . . EPA nevertheless maintains that its decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles contributes so insignificantly to petitioners’ injuries that the agency cannot be haled into federal court to answer for them.

The argument was spurious, and the Court gave it the back of its hand:

But EPA overstates its case. Its argument rests on the erroneous assumption that a small incremental step, because it is incremental, can never be attacked in a federal judicial forum. Yet accepting that premise would doom most challenges to regulatory action. Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop.

Going nowhere with that one, the EPA then argued -- get this -- that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions were not "air pollutants". The Court's response to the Bush Administration's claim that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant is the judicial equivalent of "you gots to be kiddin me":

The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . . .” §7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.”25 Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical . . . substance[s] which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.

The Bush government's other arguments were even weaker and, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court basically told Bush and the EPA: "do your damn job" --

Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. Ibid. To the extent that this constrains agency discretion to pursue other priorities of the Administrator or the President, this is the congressional design. . . . [The President's] authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws.

"[The President's] authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws." -- about time someone told him that.

Guess who dissented? Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas.

In the media:

Portland (ME) Press Herald: Justices side with Maine in two air pollution cases
Time: High Court Rebukes Bush on Pollution
Modesto Bee: Court: Clear the Air
Slate: Sin of Emission
San Francisco Chronicle: Ruling helps California battle global warming
Chicago Tribune: EPA must regulate greenhouse gases
WaPo: High Court Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions
NYTimes: Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases

Summary only...

Now, Where Have I Heard That Before?

"For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil." -- 2007 SOTU.

"By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." -- 2006 SOTU.

"Four years of debate is enough: I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy." -- 2005 SOTU.

"Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run -- so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy." -- 2004 SOTU.

" Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy." -- 2003 SOTU.

"This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil." -- 2002 SOTU.

"America must become more energy-independent, and we will." -- 2001 SOTU.

But, I'm sure he means it THIS time. Because, after the first six times he said it:

"May 2, 2006 -- Today Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski and Attorney General Hardy Myers filed a lawsuit challenging the Bush Administration’s new fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks, alleging the rules fail to address global warming and other harmful effects on the environment. The state also challenges an assertion in this new federal rule that claims that only the federal government can regulate motor vehicle carbon dioxide emissions. . . . Oregon joined nine other states, the District of Columbia, and the City of New York in filing the lawsuit in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit alleges the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in adopting the fuel economy standards, violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Both federal laws require the government to determine the impacts of new regulations on fuel conservation and the environment."

And, you know, I think that stuff about health care rings a bell, too . . . .


(Image credit: Hakawi From the East)

Summary only...

Yeah, What's He Know?

Kids, it's science, not "common sense" -- that's why it takes experts to study and explain it to the rest of us non-experts.

Summary only...

Too Dam Funny To Miss

You will regret it if you don't take the five minutes to read Gort's What About the Beaver.

Summary only...

How to Stop Global Warming

It seems that the petrochemical industry has hit on an effective strategy to end global warming as we know it -- education.

By slicing off a teeny portion of their record profits and picking up a small portion of the government's failure to fund education, the industry has managed to bribe science teachers into adopting curricula designed to confuse young minds about the reality of global warming. Through financial support of the National Science Teacher's Association (NSTA), ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, and American Petroleum Institute (API).

In today's Washington Post, Laurie David, a producer of An Inconvienent Truth, and founder of StopGlobalWarming.org, tells us that the NSTA rejected an offer of 50,000 free copies of An Inconvenient Truth for use by their members. According to David, the NTSA said it was rejecting the offer because, among other things, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters."

'Targeted supporters' -- meaning Exxon & friends from the API. As David explains in Science a La Joe Camel in today's WaPo:

In the past year alone, according to its Web site, Exxon Mobil's foundation gave $42 million to key organizations that influence the way children learn about science, from kindergarten until they graduate from high school. . . . [T]he oil industry, the coal industry and other corporate interests are exploiting shortfalls in education funding by using a small slice of their record profits to buy themselves a classroom soapbox. NSTA's list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA's Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called "Running on Oil" and read a page that touts the industry's environmental track record -- citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way -- but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called "You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel," a shameless pitch for oil dependence. . . . John Borowski, a science teacher at North Salem High School in Salem, Ore., was dismayed by NSTA's partnerships with industrial polluters when he attended the association's annual convention this year and witnessed hundreds of teachers and school administrators walk away with armloads of free corporate lesson plans.

Along with propaganda challenging global warming from Exxon Mobil, the curricular offerings included lessons on forestry provided by Weyerhaeuser and International Paper, Borowski says, and the benefits of genetic engineering courtesy of biotech giant Monsanto. . . . An API memo leaked to the media as long ago as 1998 succinctly explains why the association is angling to infiltrate the classroom: "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future."

Brilliant strategy. Defeat global warming by spending millions in faux educational materials designed to grease the slide for their faux science designed to deny the existence or human causes for global warming. Effective, also. How often do we hear people referring to "common sense", the cycle of ice ages, and the canard about volcanoes spewing out carbon dioxide? Talking points straight out of API propaganda and huge number of people who were in public school at anytime from the 90s onward were likely introduced to skewed science.

Fight back. Here's a great holiday gift idea.

Summary only...