Well, President Obama acted to get the EPA to approve California (and other states) more strict emissions standards for automobiles. His new mileage mandate would require automobiles sold in the US to achieve 35mpg (per 2008 test) by 2020. His mandate includes a 4% increase per year to achieve this (more on these actions here).

In response to Obama's proposed stimulus/bailout (depending on which news channel you watch), the Canadian group "PowerUP Canada" is pushing for a similar deal in Canada. The proposal would nearly match the Obama proposal in funds for green goals, and would have the same purpose. Most of the money would go towards retrofitting buildings so that they are more energy efficient (more from the story here).

Personally, I am glad to hear that North America will be cutting down on pollution and wasting less energy. Though I am an independant (for politcal purposes) I really like what the democrats have proposed so far for this "green" agenda. I can only hope that there will be some sort of major rail (both passenger and freight) included in this stimulus/bailout.

So far so good, from Pres. Obama.

Lisa Jackson, the nominee to head the EPA under the new administration in the USA, seems firm in her commitments to the mission of the EPA. In fact, from reading this story, she seems to be as committed as Ralph Nader would be.

It really seems that she will seek to curb emissions, and to change the course of the USA with regard to pollution and environmental safety. However, one of her statements she talked about Science having the most influence. While this will help her achieve her goals, it also signals that she works from a humanist standpoint.

Naturally I work from a different starting point. I feel that if one starts with the idea that humans determine right and wrong, then it is possible to make improper judgments about right and wrong. In fact, a utilitarian idea which neglects the future of the human species would argue for ignoring environmental issues altogether and seek to achieve the greatest happiness at present.

I would rather start where the Bible (God's revelation) starts. God created the earth, and therefore it has value. God uses the earth to bless humanity and therefore it has value. While my ideas may work out in a way that affirms similar policy to what Mrs. Jackson affirms, I begin at a totally different starting point.

Recently, the EPA denied the Texas Governor's request for a waiver on E10 RFG. (Read the story here). I'm all for changes to help the environment, but I DO NOT THINK E10 RFG actually helps things. I want to put aside the argument of rising corn prices as a result of adding corn based ethanol. That argument is not of concern to me. I want to submit the idea that E10 RFG is less efficient than regular gasoline, even other re-formulated gasoline variants. I have been keeping detailed mileage logs on my car, based on fuel type. Many other hypermilers do as well (click here to read). I have found that E10 RFG gets about 12% less miles per gallon than other gasoline I've used lately ((7.8 RVP, MTBE-No Increase) -which you can find in most Texas counties (like McClennan County -Waco). The interesting thing is that if you consider the change of burning 10% less fossil fuel, you should see a 10% drop in economy (at worst). BUT, in the real world, it turns out to be a 12% drop in economy. If a driver drives 15,000 miles per year (in a car with fuel efficiency similar to my 2001 Accord), that turns into a difference of nearly 50 more gallons of gasoline being needed. In a car like my Ford Explorer, the difference goes to 100 gallons. I think you can see the implications. If E10 RFG requires more fossil fuels to be burned, then it actually results in MORE POLLUTION!!