<div>All:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Using a very rough CO2 impact calculator reveals that one vehicle on the Palouse annually driving the average mileage for a US driver with an average MPG vehicle will place into the atmosphere the approximate amount of CO2 equal to burning half a football field sized area of the Amazon Rain forest...about 5 tons.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/carboncalculator.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/carboncalculator.cfm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, Joe Campell, do we have a local transportation problem? Or are we living in a world where our actions locally do not impact the world at large? We can put a big dome over the Palouse and live in paradise!</div>
<div>-----------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Info on editorial published in the August 3, 2006 Science magazine:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=4975" target="_blank">http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=4975</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Latest press releases</div>
<h2>International 'Apollo' project needed to stimulate new energy technologies says Lord Rees</h2>
<p><strong>4 Aug 2006 </strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><img height="140" alt="*" src="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/embedImage.asp?id=4975" width="140" align="left" border="0">The challenge of developing new technologies to meet global energy demand while tackling climate change needs an initiative similar to the Apollo' or Manhattan' projects on an international scale Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, writes in an editorial published in the journal Science' today (Thursday, 3 August 2006).
<br> <br>Lord Rees cites the projects, which put the first man on the moon and led to the development of the first atomic bomb, to highlight the need for world leaders to instigate an urgent global initiative to stimulate the development of new energy technologies.
</p>
<p>He says that the joint G8 communiqué, issued at the end of last month's St Petersburg summit, reflects a worrisome lack of determination by world leaders in this area because it neglects to emphasize the importance of public-sector R&D funding for technologies that are too far from market. He asks, "Will G8 leaders have the vision to announce such an initiative at next year's summit?"
</p>
<p>Lord Rees also says that, "...governments of industrial countries are not facing up to the huge energy challenges that lie ahead. That is disquieting because the IEA (International Energy Agency) is predicting that by 2030, based on current national policies, 80% of the world's primary energy demand will be met by fossil fuels. Meanwhile, nuclear, hydro, biomass, and waste will provide 17%, and other renewables, such as geothermal, solar, and wind energy will only account for less than 2%.
</p>
<p>"As a result, the IEA projects that annual energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide will be 52% higher in 2030 than in 2003. Unless there is a radical change, the world will continue to become more reliant on fossil fuels beyond 2030. Without unfeasibly dramatic breakthroughs in carbon sequestration and energy efficiency, this will lead to proportionate increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
</p>
<p>He writes: "One benchmark is set by nuclear fusion, where current publicly funded research runs at around $1.5 billion a year&Proportionate support of all other options surely would be a prudent investment in a world where the cost of worldwide energy consumption is measured in trillions of dollars. These R&D expenditures could be funded through a carbon tax or similar economic instruments, levied initially on the countries with the largest carbon emissions."
</p>
<p>He highlights research that shows public-sector Research and Development (R&D) investment in energy in most industrialised countries has fallen sharply in real terms. In the 11 countries which are members of the International Energy Agency (IEA), and which account for most of the world's energy, investments in major energy R&D program areas dropped by 53% between 1990 and 2003. Fossil Fuels and nuclear power accounted for more than 90% of the aggregate decline, but there was also an overall drop of 5% for R&D on renewable technologies.
</p>
<div>He writes that a global initiative on new energy technologies would have the further public benefit of stimulating education and enrolments in science and technology.</div>
<div>-----------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Vision 2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>