Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

An interesting article was published earlier today, and thanks to the hard work of some researchers at The Universirty of Texas in Austin, there’s some interesting developments in the world of solar powered panels.

The team of researchers expect that within the next three to five years, we’ll be able to tap the sun’s power using sprayable solar paneling. The article from the Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal has more:

Solar cells from a spray can are just three to five years away, according to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin.

Brian Korgel has developed inks with a university research team that are made of nanoparticles of copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) that are 10,000 times thinner than a strand of hair.

These can then be printed onto sheets at a much cheaper cost than current methods of producing solar panels.

“We’d have some sort of flexible substrate, maybe plastic or metal foil, and it would be on a spool and be unrolled. And the nanocrystals would be sprayed on,” Matthew Panthani, a doctoral student and graduate research assistant in Korgel’s lab, told the LiveScience Web site.

The inks today can convert 1 percent of the sunlight that hits them cell into electricity.

“If we get to 10 percent, then there’s real potential for commercialization,” Korgel told LiveScience. “If it works, I think you could see it being used in three to five years.”

Korgel co-founded Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Innovalight Inc., but left that company in 2005. Innovalight is working on silicon-based solar cell printing technology which a spokesman said is completely different from what the Texas researchers are working on.

Can you imagine using sprayable solar panels for power generation? Discuss that question and the development of this technology using the comments features below.

Over the weekend, one of our friends on Twitter reached out to Kendall Cooke and asked about our ability to cover the topic of mercury, our environmentment and the emissions created by cement kilns.

After reading up on the topic more, we decided to post some interesting facts, stories and claims as we came across them.

First was an article written by Matthew Preusch of The Oregonian on Wednesday August 19, 2009. In the article Preusch described the recent efforts by the EPA and other Federal Goverment agencies in the possibility of creating new rules for controlling the emissions of cement kilns.

Preusch writes…

The federal government is considering new rules to limit mercury emissions from cement kilns, which makes two new studies released this week timely.

The first study, from the federal government, shows how pervasive mercury is in our environment. And a study from chemists at Duke University explains how that mercury becomes toxic to us.

Mercury particles released into the air from cement kilns or coal-fired power plants can settle on lakes and rivers where they accumulate in fish and other wildlife. And since we humans are at the top of the food chain, some of that mercury eventually ends up in our bodies.

That’s dangerous because mercury is a toxin that can lead to neurological diseases and other disorders, especially for infants.

“The exposure rate of mercury in the U.S. is quite high,” said Heileen Hsu-Kim, Duke assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering and senior member of the research team behind a new study showing how mercury becomes toxic. “A recent epidemiological survey found that up 8 percent of women had mercury levels higher than national guidelines. Since humans are on top of the food chain, any mercury in our food accumulates in our body.”

A survey by federal scientists, the results of which were released today, found mercury contamination in every fish sampled in 291 streams around the nation, and a quarter of those fish had mercury levels higher than those considered safe for human consumption.

“This study shows just how widespread mercury pollution has become in our air, watersheds, and many of our fish in freshwater streams,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. “This science sends a clear message that our country must continue to confront pollution, restore our nation’s waterways, and protect the public from potential health dangers.”

The Duke study, led by graduate student Amrika Deonarine, found that organic material in soil and water converts the mercury in the air into the toxic form, methylmercury, that can build up in living tissue.

“When the organic material combines with the mercury, it prevents the particle from accumulating with other mercury particles and growing larger,” said Deonarine, who presented the results of her analysis at the summer annual scientific sessions of the American Chemical Society in Washington, D.C.

Since the mercury particles stay so small, they can be readily absorbed by living microbes, whose surfaces would repel larger blocks of mercury.

The next reference materials we found that we felt should be shared were published by the folks at The Daily Green, who profiled The 27 Worst Cement Kilns for Mercury Pollution:

After years of litigation, it appears that environmental groups and states have won a victory against the Environmental Protection Agency, which had refused for 10 years to set mercury emissions limits on cement kilns, one of the largest sources of pollution in the country. The news came to us from Earthjustice, the group that has, in collaboration with national and local environmental groups, led the legal fight to see this mercury pollution reined in.

The EPA had cracked down on mercury from power plants in recent years, though that regulation was recently tossed by the courts. But the EPA had refused, despite four court decisions stating that the Clean Air Act required mercury regulation from major industrial sources like cement manufacturing plants, to set first-ever limits.

The cement industry is heavily consolidated and controlled by international companies that are, in many cases, based outside the United States. While the U.S. economy demands cement, the pollution is dumped domestically while the profits are exported. Mercury fallout from burning coal and processing limestone contaminates lakes, rivers and reservoirs, where elemental mercury is transformed into toxic methymercury. That neurotoxin enters the food chain and can damage the brains of fetuses and young children who eat, or whose mothers eat, contaminated fish.

Here’s a list of the 27 cement kilns that emitted more than 100 pounds of mercury in 2006. (View all 100 in the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory.

That article, which is incredibly detailed and is certainly considered a must read for those interested, then went on to list the “Biggest Cement Kiln Mercury Polluters” using 2006 statistics. The list includes…

1. 2,582 Pounds of Mercury — Ash Grove Cement Co., Durkee, Baker County, Ore.
2. 654 Pounds of Mercury — California Portland Cement Co., Colton, San Bernardino County, Calif.
3. 586 Pounds of Mercury — Lehigh Southwest Cement Co., Tehachapi, Kern County, Calif.
4. 522 Pounds of Mercury — Ash Grove Cement Co., Chanute, Neosho, Kan.
5. 496 Pounds of Mercury — Hanson Permanente Cement, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, Calif.
6. 472 Pounds of Mercury — Ash Grove Cement Co., Foreman, Little River County, Ark.
7. 417 Pounds of Mercury — LaFarge Midwest Inc., Alpena, Alpena County, Mich.
8. 416 Pounds of Mercury — LaFarge Building Materials Inc., Ravena, Albany County, N.Y.
9. 271 Pounds of Mercury — Cemex California Cement LLC, Victorville, San Bernardino County, Calif.
10. 252 Pounds of Mercury — River Cement Co., Festus, Jefferson County, Mo.
11. 241 Pounds of Mercury — Cemex Cement of Texas LP, New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas
12. 225 Pounds of Mercury — Cemex de Puerto Rico Inc., Ponce, Ponce County, Puerto Rico
13. 208 Pounds of Mercury — National Cement Co. of Alabama, Ragland, St. Clair County, Ala.
14. 190 Pounds of Mercury — Lehigh Cement Co., Mason City, Cerro Gordo County, Iowa
15. 176 Pounds of Mercury — Essroc Cement Corp., Speed, Clark County, Ind.
16. 172 Pounds of Mercury — RMC Pacific Materials, Davenport, Santa Cruz County, Calif.
17. 163 Pounds of Mercury — Essroc Cement Corp., Nazareth, Northampton County, Penn.
18. 161 Pounds of Mercury — Mitsubishi Cement Corp., Lucerne Valley, San Bernardino County, Calif.
19. 160 Pounds of Mercury — Buzzi Unicem USA, Cape Girardeau, Cape Girardeau County, Mo.
20. 159 Pounds of Mercury — Lehigh Cement Co., Mitchel, Lawrence County, Ind.
21. 153 Pounds of Mercury — Ash Grove Cement, Leamington, Leamington County, Utah
22. 151 Pounds of Mercury — Essroc Cement Corp., Bessemer, Lawrence County, Penn.
23. 149 Pounds of Mercury — Capitol Cement Corp., Martinsburg, Berkeley, W.Va.
24. 130 Pounds of Mercury — Buzzi Unicem USA, Greencastle, Putnam County, Ind.
25. 120 Pounds of Mercury — Holcim (US), Dundee, Monroe County, Mich.
26. 106 Pounds of Mercury — Holcim U.S. Inc., Clarksville, Pike County, Mo.
27. 105 Pounds of Mercury — Keystone Cement Co., Bath, Northampton, Penn.

Now, the relevant news now is that the EPA is allowing for public commentary to be provided through September 4, 2009 on this matter. In March of 2006, under the pressures of environmental and public health groups, the EPA finally responded to demands and began listening to recommendations.

EarthJustice has more in their article, “EPA Finally Sets Plans for Mercury Limits on Cement Kilns”:

Washington, D.C. — Under intense pressure from states and local and national environmental and public health groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in a recent court document plans to regulate mercury pollution from over 100 cement kilns across the country by September 2009. The announcement marks a dramatic shift in EPA policy which, until now, had been to resist requiring mercury controls for cement kilns.

“After nearly a decade of litigation and multiple court orders directing EPA to regulate mercury from cement kilns, it seems the agency is finally paying attention,” said Earthjustice attorney James Pew.

Three times in the last ten years, federal courts have ordered EPA to set emission standards to control cement kilns’ mercury emissions. Until now, EPA has ignored these orders or sought to evade them. EPA finally indicated that it would set mercury emission standards in papers filed on February 20, 2008, in a fourth case brought by Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club, Downwinders at Risk (TX), Friends of Hudson (NY), Montanans Against Toxic Burning, Desert Citizens Against Pollution (CA), and the Huron Environmental Activist League (MI). The States of New York, Michigan, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania also filed suit.

“Cement kilns are among the nation’s worst polluters, and their free ride on mercury pollution needs to end at long last,” said Jane Williams, executive director of Desert Citizens Against Pollution.

How You Can Get Involved
If you’d like to help stop the emissions of mercury into the air when it’s produced at cement kiln factories, please let the EPA know more about your concerns. Don’t stop there, either… Be sure to reach out to local and state government officials and public health boards, particularly if you’re in a state with one or more of these cement kiln factories.

Philly.com has a report out, posted from ealrier this morning, that makes note of the EPA’s sharp criticism of the New Jersey’s Environmental Protection Department.

The article reads…

Federal officials are criticizing how New Jersey’s Environmental Protection Department operates.

An Environmental Protection Agency audit found “significant shortcomings,” especially in the DEP’s division that handles contaminated site cleanups.

The EPA says the site remediation program lacks oversight and the DEP takes contractors hired by polluters at their word without checking.

The report also found the agency has failed to take corrective action to fix problems uncovered in a 2005 audit.

The DEP remedies were outlined in a plan issued by Lisa Jackson, who now heads the federal agency. Jackson was DEP commissioner from 2006 to 2008.

The DEP says it would have to review the EPA audit before commenting.

Are you from New Jersey, or spending enough time there to make note of the efforts put forth by New Jersey’s Environmental Protection Department? If so, please share your comments and opinions on this topic using the commens section below.

By now, most Americans have become familiar with the Teutul family of Orange County New York because of their hit television series, Orange County Choppers.

While loud bikes and amazing designs have captured viewers attention for years, this week, it was all about innovation. Paul Teutul Senior took a brand new chopper, custom fabricated in his Orange County Chopper headquarters, and hit the road to unveil an environmentally safe alternative to gas guzzling road hogs… an all electric bike custom fabricated for Siemens.

Siemens announced the project via a press release on the PRNewswire on August 12th.

Included in that press release were these details:

“We wanted to build this unique chopper to raise environmental awareness and reflect what the 69,000 employees of Siemens USA are doing to help America stay on the cutting edge of tomorrow’s green economy,” said Daryl Dulaney, President & CEO of Siemens Building Technologies. “Siemens is already very much a part of the fabric of America, and our portfolio is one of the greenest in the business. Green is not marketing hype for us; it is in our DNA.”

“If energy or energy efficiency is involved–Siemens is involved,” said Randy Zwirn, CEO of Siemens Energy, Inc. “Our technologies are helping to more efficiently and cleanly produce, deliver, consume and conserve energy. And these technologies are here today. This bike represents the spirit of innovation and passion we have for seeking sustainable solutions for our planet.”

Orange County Choppers, a leading manufacturer of custom motorcycles, built the Siemens Smart Chopper over the course of a month. Siemens also developed a compatible Smart Grid-ready charger which communicates with the utility to enable charging when the electricity is most affordable.

The motorcycle features and design include:

– First electric chopper by Orange County Choppers
– Recycled materials
– Advanced DC Motors Inc. Series Wound 8″ motor
– LED lighting by OSRAM SYLVANIA, a Siemens company
– 27 Peak horsepower and maximum speed of 100 MPH
– Range of 60 miles on a single charge
– On-board charger that can be plugged into any 110-volt outlet

“Building an electric bike from recycled materials was something new for us, but we definitely enjoyed the challenge and think that the end product makes a great addition to our wide range of unique motorcycles,” said Paul Teutul, Sr., founder of Orange County Choppers, based in Newburgh, N.Y. “While electric bikes probably won’t surpass traditional ones for the foreseeable future, we also think that energy efficient technologies are increasingly important for both manufacturers and consumers.”

While the episode of Orange County Choppers where the team builds the bike won’t premiere until October 22nd, some photos and videos have surfaced online:

Yesterday the Wichita Eagle posted an online article on Kansas.com that listed 10 essential principles for U.S. energy policy. We here at EcoWorld loved the list, and thought it’d be the perfect thing to share with our reader.

Here is an excerpt of the original 10 essential principles for U.S. energy policy:

The energy policy of the future must take into consideration global terrorism, foreign policy, national security, environmental concerns, the fear that climate change will cause catastrophic consequences and worldwide economic considerations. Ten essential principles that must be included in an energy policy adopted in the U.S. are:

1.) Reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic energy production.

2.) The world and the U.S. have vast crude oil and natural gas reserves, but policies must allow for exploration and production.

3.) Crude oil, natural gas, and coal will provide a majority of U.S. energy needs for many years to come.

4.) Policies enacted should have a positive impact on U.S. economy, national security and foreign policy.

5.) Make certain that the environmental gain (i.e., reduction in greenhouse gases) outweighs the economic pain.

6.) Other countries must reduce greenhouse gases similarly.

7.) Policy must be based on sound science.

8.) Energy efficiency and conservation should be increased.

9.) Encourage research and development in technology.

10.) Government actions must be based on market conditions and consumers’ needs, and private enterprise must be the spark plug that ignites the engine.

Policymakers must recommend solutions that are realistic and pragmatic. Policies that are unrealistic, and reflect only wishful thinking, will create future energy shortages, accompanied by higher prices. Realistic proposals should be based on market forces and consumer preferences. The economic consequences of each idea should be analyzed and compared to the gain achieved through changes in the environment, conservation, or new technology.

Sound science must serve as the cornerstone of any policy regarding climate change or global warming. Energy efficiency is the cheapest, most plentiful form of new energy. Energy saved is energy found.

Diversity of domestic energy supplies is critical. Whether it is crude oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, ethanol, etc., originating in the U.S., North America, South America, Middle East, etc., the key must be building a mix of energy that continues America’s economic and military strength.

Even though renewable energy sources appear to be the current preference of Washington policymakers, the fact remains that it will be decades before renewable energy will play a large role in providing sufficient amounts of energy at competitive prices. Crude oil will be the primary transportation fuel for the world for many years to come. Natural gas, coal and nuclear will provide a majority of the electricity. Federal and state governments should continue to encourage private enterprise to invest in renewable energy, but it would be a catastrophic mistake to tax or punish one source of energy, i.e. hydrocarbons (crude oil and coal), to finance research in renewable energy.

This piece was written for the Wichita Eagle by Ed Cross, the president of the Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association. For more, please see the full article on Kansas.com.

Do you agree with the ten principles for energy policy? Please share your thoughts and opinions on this topic using the comments section below this article.

If you’ve read today’s copy of The Mercury News, you may have come across an interesting article from writer Jennifer Squires… One that discusses the potential of eco-terrorism incidents in California.

Squires writes…

SCOTTS VALLEY — The vandalism at a construction site on Green Hills Road earlier this month likely is connected to similar attacks on heavy equipment at UC Santa Cruz this summer, investigators said Thursday.

“We got some information that links the two,” said Lt. John Hohmann of Scotts Valley police, who still has yet to classify the incidents as eco-terrorism.

Vandals sabotaged the engines of 15 tractors and earth movers during the weekend of Aug. 15-16, causing more than $500,000 damage to machines parked at the site of a 16-home subdivision.

No one has claimed responsibility for the vandalism, which rendered the machinery inoperable, but a report of the incident was posted under the “diary” section of the North America Earth Liberation Front press office Web site. The report listed the incident “as of yet unclaimed.”

The environmental organization is a legal news service that publicizes clandestine attacks it says are aimed at protecting the environment.

The UCSC vandalism was not listed on the site, and no one has claimed responsibility for it either, according to UCSC spokesman Jim Burns.

A lift machine and an air compressor, both at a McHenry Library construction site, were damaged, Burns said. A forklift in the East Remote parking area also was vandalized.

Investigators from Scotts Valley and UCSC police are working the case and the FBI has offered assistance. No suspects have been identified, police said. Over the weekend, a security guard at the Scotts Valley site ran off some teens, who were clad in dark clothing, but it’s unclear whether they’re connected to the vandalism, police said.

What do you think about the incidents? Are they the work of eco-terrorists, or has someone simply posted the links on the North American Earth Liberation Front web site trying to take advantage of the incident?

Are movements like those by ELF too aggressive? Discuss it within the comments section, below!

Bobby Magill of the The Coloradoan reported this morning on a two hour forum featuring Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter that discussed President Barack Obama’s “Clean Energy Economy” agenda.

In his article, he discusses what a large group of students and area residents were told by the leaders…

Ritter said his vision for such a clean energy economy in Colorado means creating an “ecosystem” in Colorado supporting research and development of renewable energy technology, something that is already quite robust here.

To make a response to climate change meaningful, people must “change the culture and how we think about energy,” Ritter said, answering a question from a student. “At the end of the day, it’s (about) the way you consume.”

Calling on the U.S. Senate to pass an energy and climate bill, Salazar said climate change and its solutions constitute an issue “where the very future of our children and planet are hanging in peril.”

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act in June, a cap-and-trade bill aimed at reducing the nation’s carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020.

Markey said the House’s vote on the bill was “tough,” but change comes by the bill’s critics slowly.

“There is a lot of misinformation,” she said. “People feel they’re going to be taxed.”

But that’s not true, she said, adding that the agriculture so prevalent in her district benefits the most from the House’s clean energy bill.

“There will be no ‘cow tax,’ ” she said, referring to a notion that beef producers will be taxed for the methane their cattle emit.

Addressing the panel, Colorado Public Utilities Commission Chairman Ron Binz said he supports the idea of cap-and-trade, and a law requiring it is needed soon.

“We need an emissions cap,” he said. “That makes our job so much easier. The trade part is much less important.”
Advertisement

He said public utilities want to be given an emissions requirement to comply with, but because “Byzantine” regulations will make it harder to do so, a cap-and-trade bill needs to be simple and clear-cut.

Binz said later he’d also like to see tiered pricing for electricity based on consumption, a proposal he said the PUC will likely address and approve later this year.

Stephen Yurash, a member of the Fort Collins Electric Board, urged Ritter and the panel to support natural gas as part of any clean energy plan but also ensure government regulations don’t get in the way of using natural gas.

“Natural gas is absolutely a part of this,” Ritter said, insisting the state is serious about trying to build a natural gas infrastructure in Colorado to deliver it to market.

Ritter said after the forum that the environmental impacts of developing natural gas in Colorado have been addressed in new state rules regulating how and where natural gas is extracted.

Before the forum began and as an airplane circled above carrying a banner saying, “No Obama,” a small group of people stood outside the school protesting climate legislation and health-care reform.

The forum was held at the Fossil Ridge High School in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Doreen Hemlock and Jaideep Hardikar of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel published an interesting report over the weekend about biofuel projects in South Florida, and in particular, the potential jatropha has in the area.

The neatly planted rows of jatropha trees in Delray Beach are sprouting round, green fruit that can be crushed into oil to run diesel engines.

Teri Gevinson founder of Ag-Oil LLC, foresees a day when South Florida farms like hers grow 10,000 acres of jatropha, enough to make 15 million gallons a year of oil.

But like many biofuels projects, her dream depends on obtaining millions of dollars for a state-of-the-art processing plant ¡V money hard to find in the current credit crunch.

Gov. Charlie Crist and President Barack Obama both tout renewable energy ¡V including biofuels ¡V as vital to stem U.S. dependence on foreign petroleum, reduce carbon emissions and create “green” jobs.

Yet scores of promising projects remain in early stages and face uncertain futures, experts say, unless the government, venture capitalists and others loosen purse strings soon.

“Renewable energy should be leading the way out of this recession, but it’s not ¡V because investors are not investing,” said Sean O’Hanlon, who runs the Miami-based trade group American Biofuels Council.

Adds Jim Lane, editor of Miami-based BiofuelsDigest.com: “There’s always been a gulf between obtaining venture capital and project finance. Now, it’s an ocean.”

Gevinson, a 38-year-old Boca Raton real estate developer, started her 40-acre jatropha test farm in January on her own land, investing about $200,000 so far.

Struggling vegetable farmers had given up a lease on the property, unable to make ends meet.

This spring, she earned a $2.5 million Florida grant that she hopes to use for equipment to harvest and crush jatropha. She also is seeking $25 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, mainly for a processing plant that would use the latest algae technology to boost jatropha oil yields and make the project profitable long-term.

The Energy Department is offering more than $700 million in stimulus funds for biofuels, but so far, approvals have been slow. That’s partly because the Department has too few staff to study the complex deals, pick viable ones and divvy up funds, said Dennis Dolan Crook, a Fort Lauderdale-based executive with biofuels firm Interex Global.

More from this article can be found here.

Chalk it up to being environmentally minded, or perhaps just price conscious. Either way – the bottled water industries are suffering right now, and our environment has at least a small reason to rejoice.

The problem with bottled water is well known… The lack of recycling participation leads our landfills to become filled with discarded plastic bottles of water, which have nowhere to go for hundreds of years. While some communities try to crack down on those who refuse (or “forget”) to participate in recycling programs – the efforts have little impact on the larger issues at hand.

While bottled water will continue to be a problem for the environment, companies that produce water here in America are feeling a pinch.

The Washington Post has more on the matter in their article Bottled Water Boom Appears Tapped Out:

The recession has finally answered the question that centuries of philosophers could not: The glass is half-empty.

That’s because sales of bottled water have fallen for the first time in at least five years, assailed by wrathful environmentalists and budget-conscious consumers, who have discovered that tap water is practically free. Even Nestle, the country’s largest seller of bottled water, is beginning to feel a bit parched. On Wednesday, it reported that profits for the first half of the year dropped 2.7 percent, its first decline in six years.

The biggest loser? Water.

“It’s an obvious way to cut back,” said Joan Holleran, director of research for market research firm Mintel. “People might still be buying bottled water, but you can bet that they’re refilling those bottles.”

The news delighted environmentalists, who have long berated the industry for wasting natural resources and stuffing landfills with plastic bottles. “I thought we’d never be able to impact sales of bottled water, and all of a sudden it’s really gained momentum,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of advocacy group Food & Water Watch. “I think we’re making real progress.”
ad_icon

Not so long ago, bottled water was bubbling. It climbed up the ranks of America’s favorite beverages in recent years, beating out juice to become the third most popular in 2008, according to Mintel. (Soda is the drink of choice by far, followed by milk.) Sales of bottled water swelled 59 percent to $5.1 billion between 2003 to 2008, making it one of the fastest growing beverages. About 70 percent of consumers say they drink bottled water.

But the economic downturn is stemming the tide. Nestle sells a variety of brands, such as Poland Spring, Deer Park, S. Pellegrino and Perrier. It was the only sector in Nestle’s food and beverage group to post a decline in global sales during the first half of the year, down 2.9 percent because of weakness in the United States and Western Europe. Coca-Cola has also blamed softening demand for weaker U.S. sales of its bottled waters.

According to consulting firm Beverage Marketing Corp., Americans drank 8.7 billion gallons of bottled water last year, compared with 8.8 billion in 2007 — the first decline this decade. Per capita consumption dropped from 29 gallons to 28.5. Jeff Cioletti, editor in chief of trade publication Beverage World, said he doesn’t believe bottled water will return to galloping growth for a long while.

“There were sort of a lot of headwinds,” he said.

Those forces include not only the economic downturn, which is whacking at sales of everything from cars to clothes, but also the massive campaign by environmentalists to get consumers to turn on the tap.

If you have time to do so today, read up on the latest news concerning Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and his views on climaate change and related issues. The New York Times has an excellent article that suggests Pawlenty may be abandoning his real concerns in favor of gaining political backing from his republican colleagues.

Why? Perhaps for a run in the 2012 presidential campaign.

New York Times ClimateWire author Evan Lehmann has more…

Minnesota’s Republican governor used to make soaring speeches about defusing climate change. Now he’s making jokes, and some environmentalists are wondering whether his gone-missing support amounts to “bait and switch” politics.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is stoking frustration among Democratic state lawmakers and prominent climate thinkers for becoming “totally silent” on two major efforts to stem greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota and in a strip of states stretching from Canada to Kansas.

The turnaround is striking because it was the governor who powerfully promoted the initiatives. Now, chafed participants believe Pawlenty is abandoning climate action to mend his conservative credentials before taking a stab at the Republican nomination for president in 2012.

“What we’re seeing from our governor currently is all focused on his national political ambitions,” said state Rep. Bill Hilty, the Democratic chairman of the state’s House Energy Committee.

It may not be that simple. The governor is cooling toward bold climate steps that could raise costs on businesses and residents, his supporters say. There was no way to know how big the price would be without delving deeply into the issue, one supporter said.

Not long ago, Pawlenty and Hilty were cooperating on muscular legislation to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Hilty introduced the bill and Pawlenty signed it in 2007, establishing Minnesota as an early carbon-cutter. The law set goals to reduce emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent by 2050.

Pawlenty went further. He named more than 50 science and business leaders to an advisory group tasked with designing ways to meet those targets.

“Our global climate is warming,” Pawlenty said when he named the group in April 2007. “We cannot solve it by ourselves, but we need to lead and do our part.”

Governor is ‘delaying action’

A few months later, Pawlenty punctuated his commitment to pulling the nation back from its climatic “tipping point” when he was elected chairman of the National Governors Association.

“Our nation is too dependent on imported sources of energy, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow too quickly,” he said. “Governors have a tremendous opportunity to lead the country toward a cleaner, more independent, more secure energy future.”

Those were remarkable words coming from a Midwestern Republican in a state where coal cars click-clack on rail lines and river barges filled with the black stuff float through the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. About 75 percent of the state’s power comes from coal, compared to the national average of 55 percent.

Then something happened.

After more than a year of meetings, tussles and compromises, the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group sent the governor its recommendations. The list included capping carbon by the ton, energy efficiency measures and renewable power mandates. Silence from the governor.

The recommendations are getting dusty, according to participants. Lawmakers plan to introduce legislation addressing some of the issues, like a low-carbon fuel standard, but the governor’s new position is feeding uncertainty about the likelihood of success.

“I think you would say that’s delaying action,” said J. Drake Hamilton, a member of the advisory board and a climatologist with Fresh Energy, a renewable energy group. She believes Pawlenty is “ignoring” the recommendations of the group he established.

“At best, it’s disingenuous to have created and staffed a process that says we’re going to create economic opportunities around clean energy in the Midwest, and then to abandon that process without offering any other way to move forward,” Hamilton added. “What does this man really believe?”

Using ‘climate change’ against Obama

Aides to Pawlenty did not respond to requests for comment or to appeals for an interview with the governor. But Pawlenty appeared to break his silence on global warming last week. He used the term “climate change” to mock President Obama’s health-care initiatives at the GOPAC conference in Chicago.

“It appears that President Obama is making great progress on climate change,” the governor chided, according to Politico. “He is changing the political climate in the country back to Republican.”