Look out hybrid owners, there's a new eco-car in town. This Summer, Honda will release its new "FCX Clarity" hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for lease in parts of Japan and Southern California. It boasts improvements over older models, including a much smaller fuel cell that gives the car ample interior space as well as a lithium ion battery to store excess energy for later use and improve the car's overall efficiency. In case you haven't heard of this technology, the fuel cell basically mixes hydrogen and oxygen to create water and uses the energy from that process to power the vehicle. So the vehicle's byproduct, rather than CO2, is a much friendlier 2-letter 1-number combination: H2O.

The reason the car is being released in such a limited capacity is because the car doesn't use gasoline, so in order to refuel it, you need special refueling station. In parts of Southern California, Honda has created a "home energy station" that would put your gauge back on "F" while the car is in the garage. And though it would be quite cool to always set out on the open road with your car already fueled up, these stations produce hydrogen using natural gas, which is less than ideal. For now, hydrogen refueling stations are not widespread in the United States, but given high gas prices and the fact that the car itself zero emissions and--in my opinion--pretty sporty, maybe they will be soon.

The troubles of the polar bear are a great symbol of the effects global warming can have on the Earth's mightiest creatures. The polar bear seems strong not only because of its size, but because of its ability to subsist in the harsh conditions of the Arctic. Now, as the ice disappears, so do the bears. But a new study points out that there are other species facing climate-related troubles. The Independent reported on a recent study that suggests the polar bear is not the species most threatened by a warming climate, and in fact, it is nearly the opposite type of animal.

Small, frail and subsisting in warm areas, insects in tropical climates are imminently threatened by rising temperatures. The survival of these insects is not only important for the sake of their own survival; they are essential to the survival of their entire habitat. When insect species disappear from the planet, the foundation of the food chain becomes damaged, and when foundations crumble, structures collapse. Insects also provide services like decomposition and pollination that keep the life-cycle moving, and without them, many other plant and animal species will be under extreme pressure for their survival.

Even though they are not cuddly or famous for their hugs, these species require attention. Insects are particularly sensitive to changes in temperature and precipitation and act as indicators. If they cannot adapt, this does not bode well for the other planetary inhabitants.

Commenting on the rush to blame biofuels for the global food crisis, the UN's Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, John Holmes has warned against "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." His ideas were echoed by Lennart Baage of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, who said, "It is important not to go to extremes."

In fact, there are a number of experts trying to dispel the myth that biofuels are the sole or primary force behind the unfolding global food crisis. As I have discussed previously on UN Dispatch, the processes that have caused the spike in food prices are numerous and complex (including increased demand, rising oil prices, the weak dollar, commodity speculation, trade distortions), and policymakers should avoid making a scapegoat out of biofuels simply because it is politically expedient.

The truth is that sound policy toward biofuels can be extremely beneficial for the developing world. Nobody has said that the shift to biofuels from fossil fuels has been perfectly executed, but you would be hard pressed to find an energy expert who says that the situation presented by fossil fuel reliance is a sustainable path. The initial move toward biofuels offers developing countries an opportunity to develop natural resources and infrastructure that will help lead away from oil addiction, with the significant environmental, economic and security benefits that implies. Policymakers have already learned many lessons about the "smart" and "dumb" ways to manage the production and sale of plant-based fuel, and with this experience leaders will be all the more prepared to deploy the next generation of biofuels (made from non-food plants and agricultural waste products), which will be even further dissociated with the limitations of the current generation.

John Holmes and Lennart Baage are right, managing food and energy requires a longer-term perspective and casting blame is counterproductive. The food crisis should be approached as a whole and responses must be measured. Thankfully, the UN is prepared to take a cautious approach, so at least on the international level, it seems unlikely that the world will throw the biofuels out with the bathwater.

Current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has initiated immediate and sweeping responses to prevent dire impacts from rapidly escalating food prices. And former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is stressing the importance of long-term investment in agriculture, as part of a drive toward a second "green revolution" in Africa. He estimates that food production on the continent could be doubled or tripled through such a change. Unfortunately, this is made difficult as a result of such factors as drought and lack of property rights for farmers in many African countries. If these problems can be overcome, however, the African continent could quickly move simultaneously toward growing its own food and securing its economic, energy and environmental future.

We all know that the U.S. is by far the largest debtor to the United Nations. In fact, the U.S. represents 94% of all debt to the U.N. regular budget. This means that 6% of the debt to the UN regular budget comes from other countries.

Often people will respond by saying, "Of course the U.S. has the largest debt, since they are the largest contributors." This is certainly a valid point. The U.S. is expected to pay 22% of the UN's regular budget--more than anyone else in the world. Obviously then, if we miss any payment at all, it will represent a large percentage of the debt. The question then, is this:

How does the U.S. proportion of the debt stack up to others when compared to the amount they are expected to pay?

I crunched these numbers, and I found out something interesting. There are two countries that stand out when you compare their percentage of the debt and their expected payment: the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both of these countries have a percentage of the total debt to the UN regular budget that is 426% of what they are expected to pay annually. For comparison, Japan's debt stands at just over 5% of what they are expected to pay each year.

This statistic says a lot about comparative attitudes toward the UN and engagement with the rest of the world. If this is the preferred measure of those who would withhold funding from the UN, it should give them pause to realize the company they keep by doing so.

I hope everyone had fun breaking out the organic snacks and the biodegradable party hats for Earth Day yesterday. I noticed that the public sphere was plastered with green-tinted news, content and advertisements. For one day, at least, everything was green, grün, verde, vert, or even lu se.

But in the green hangover following the ephemeral appreciation of that infinitely complex and awe-inspiring system that is our planet, I am reminded of something I read in the Economist back in December of 2007.

"Whilst chlorophyll is, without doubt, hugely significant to life on this planet, the anthropocentric, terrestrialist view of the world that dubs those that care as "green" needs to be challenged."

Indeed, this is referred to as "The Blue Planet" and not the green one. The Economist goes on to explain that we have consumed 90% of the world's large fish, destroyed much of the coral and created state-sized blooms of algae. There is also an ocean warming problem that will have numerous effects that we have not even begun to think about yet. Even beyond the obvious scale of any ocean-related disasters that are brewing are the disturbing implications of problems associated with fresh water. Fresh water disasters will lead to even further complications with our beloved green-scape.

So, this year, as you put away your bright green organic hair dye and face paint, remember that being "green" is really less than 30% of a commitment to the planet. Because yesterday was "Earth Day" and not "Land Day", I want to remind everyone that going green is great, but without adding a lot of blue, blau, azul, bleu or lan se to our palette of awareness and activity, we could be destined to serve the agenda of less favorable colors.

Over on TreeHugger, I found this inspiring item. It looks like Al Gore's got a new slideshow and some new calls to action. TreeHugger has synthesized some of the video's key points in clips, but I definitely encourage you to spend a little over 20 minutes and watch the full video, then go change the world.

The Detroit Free Press reported Wednesday that Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has decided to rule out a carbon tax or an increase in gas taxes to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. To explain his decision, the Congressman said

"I simply cannot support these policies at a time when families in my district are dealing with record gas prices, high levels of unemployment, a home foreclosure crisis and rising food costs."

The proposal would have charged $50 per ton of CO2 emissions and raised prices for gas and jet fuel by 50 cents, while also introducing measures to quell suburban sprawl.

It's too bad to see these measures "off the table for now" as Dingell put it, but the fact is, this kind of proposal is a long-shot anyway, and Bush himself has recently referred to new taxes as "the wrong way" to take on the climate crisis. Dingell is not licked, however, as he is still working on "cap and trade" legislation that he will introduce sometime this year.

Climate is becoming a prominent topic on Capitol Hill these days. In fact, the "Climate Security Act" sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) is pending in the Senate and could come up on the Senate floor in June. This proposal aims to cut emissions from key sectors like transport and the power industry by 19 percent in 12 years and 71 percent by 2050. Additionally, as we've reported here, Bush himself has even come out in favor of keeping the planet from heating up.

With Democrats, Republicans, and even Independents backing action, the fight against the climate crisis has attained a rare status as a "tri-partisan" issue. Even if proposals differ, at least there's consensus that something must be done, and that is a huge step in the right direction. So keep at it, Congressman Dingell, and don't feel too discouraged. While gloom and doom can often dominate the climate issue, I certainly see a bit of light peeking through the carbon dioxide.

In the Green Room over on Slate, they've come up with another interesting thing to think about when following the dramatic rollout of the Olympic torch--its carbon footprint. I won't give away the ending for you, but here's a hint: it's really high.

As food prices continue to rise, various theories have emerged as to the underlying forces driving prices higher. BBC News reported today on the growing debate about the role biofuels might play, and highlighted a vigorous rebuttal from the President of Brazil.

Brazil, in particular finds itself defending the biofuels industry at a conference of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Brasilia. Both Brazil and the U.S. are heavily invested in the production of corn and sugar-cane-based fuels, with Brazil being the world's largest exporter. BBC News reported Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's comments:

"Biofuels aren't the villain that threatens food security," said President Lula.

"On the contrary... they can pull countries out of energy dependency without affecting foods."

He said that rises in food prices came because people in developing countries like China, India and Brazil itself are eating higher up the food chain--shifting from grain to meat--as economic conditions in those countries improved.

An interesting argument. Could there be a connection between rising obesity levels and rising food prices? It's something to think about, and it's another reason to follow through with that diet you've been thinking of doing. We already know that our food consumption habits affect far more than our dating prospects.

So Brazil says it's simply a supply and demand situation, others note that agriculture is highly dependent on petroleum and that skyrocketing oil prices are a primary cause of food price increase. And as I continue to read these kinds of stories, as well as OECD reports that weigh the pros and cons of biofuels, it is apparent that there is no single cause or villain, and that we haven't seen the last of the debate.

More support from the Republican party for action on climate change, as John McCain responds to a question from Hardball's Chris Matthews on MSNBC about where he differs with Bush. Here's what McCain had to say:

So what's an area of disagreement? Climate change. Climate change. I believe that climate change is real. I think we have to act...

(APPLAUSE)

Absolutely right Senator. He continued on to try to convince those who still deny the reality of the climate crisis to come on board anyway:

I would just like to put the question this way to my fellow Americans. Suppose that we are wrong and there's no such thing as climate change but we go ahead and adopt green technologies and we reduce greenhouse gas emissions? All we've done is give our kids a cleaner planet, OK? But suppose...

(APPLAUSE)

Suppose we are right and do nothing. Suppose we just continue this endless debate and continue the increase of greenhouse gas emissions, and we hand these wonderful Americans a damaged planet? I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

An interesting call to action from John McCain on climate, to be sure. Citing this as a departure from Bush's policies however, may soon prove problematic as Bush has also indicated recently that the Administration will push for legislation regulating greenhouse gases.

Given that all three frontrunner candidates for the Presidency are on board for fighting global warming, the November election, no matter the outcome, will almost definitely spell progress for agreeing on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

The Washington Times reported this yesterday:

President Bush is poised to change course and announce as early as this week that he wants Congress to pass a bill to combat global warming, and will lay out principles for what that should include.

"This is an attempt to move the administration and the party closer to the center on global warming. With these steps, it is hoped that the debate over this is over, and it is time to do something," said an administration source close to the White House who is familiar with the planning and who said to expect an announcement this week.

An interesting development, especially given that the President has opposed legislative attempts by Democrats to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The question, then, is why would the Administration push for the Congress to do something about the climate crisis? The answer is in the article:

The administration also is trying to head off what it sees as a regulatory disaster. Environmentalists say greenhouse gases can be regulated under existing rules under the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act, and have filed lawsuits to try to force action. The Bush administration and others want to avoid a web of rules and regulations for businesses.

This makes perfect sense, and is the oft hidden nexus of environmental and private sector interests. International Business and Industry have long been saying that policies on global warming need to be coordinated across jurisdictions, because if not, the regulatory disaster mentioned by the Bush Administration would become a massive hassle and a cost to the private sector. Even on a strictly American level, having differing regulatory regimes in different states is hugely problematic for firms operating trans-continentally.

It's good to see the Administration pushing for regulation on greenhouse gas emissions, and it's great to see them finding common ground between two sides of what need not be such a polarizing debate. If we can get some effective, acceptable legislation through the Congress, we may be able to convince other developing major emitters to sign onto future global deals on warming, which is the ultimate U.S. goal in the United Nations process. It may sound trite, but it's true: global problems require global solutions.

Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times Dot Earth Blog posted White House Secretary Dana Perino's responses to questions on the Washington Times article, for those who are interested in more background on this story.

The Guardian UK reported today on the failure of rich nations to lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the article, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said, "Looking at the politics of the situation, I doubt whether any of the developing countries will make any commitments before they have seen the developed countries take a specific stand."

This is a big problem, especially considering that the United States has repeatedly refused to sign any international climate agreement that does not include developing nations. This decision does not rest solely in the hands of the President, however. When Bill Clinton signed on to the Kyoto protocol in 1997, the ratification was overwhelmingly voted down in the Senate because developing nations were not covered. There is a vicious cycle here that must be broken, and since we can't control the policies of major developing emitters like India and China, it's up to the U.S. to take the high road and step up to the challenge.

Europe is already doing quite a bit, and the Guardian cites Germany and the U.K. as examples of positive change, but progress in these states doesn't include emissions from aviation and shipping.

Pointing fingers from either side gets us nowhere, but as long as developing countries can point to developed ones and talk about a lack of commitment to reducing emissions, the major changes that are needed to curb global warming are not going to happen. It is called global warming for a reason, and if we want to get everyone on board, we're going to have to lead by example.

The Chicago Tribune reported Thursday on IPCC predictions that the impending climate crisis will have intense ramifications on water and food -- reducing the availability and increasing the costs of each.  This is particularly disturbing, because these commodities are already in short supply in the parts of the world that are most vulnerable to the effects of warming.  There are already millions of people without access to sanitary water for drinking and cleaning, and food prices are already spiking and causing trouble for aid organizations like the UN's World Food Program.  History has taught us that a scarcity of necessary resources leads to violent conflict.  Droughts are largely responsible for sparking violence in Darfur, and Ban Ki-Moon himself has implicated global warming in that case.  This is another in a long list of reasons why governments should take immediate action to quell the climate crisis.  After all, the price of bread has brought down more than one regime.