Pass-fail classes were a gift. I mean, not when I thought I would ace them, because what would be the point? But when getting by wasn’t a sure thing (in my case, for example, in any class that ended in “ometry”), a thumbs up or thumbs down option was a super deal. I could fudge pretty much anything and how hard was it, really, to garner enough lackadaisical sentiment from the powers that be that said: “Whatever. Move along. You’re fine”?

Well, heads up automakers. Teach is onto you. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are looking to take some of the vagaries out of fuel economy labeling by giving new vehicles grades for fuel efficiency. There’s even something on the table resembling a curve, where vehicles will be judged against the performance of their peers. Tough stuff and it won’t be surprising if The Industry doesn’t like what it sees.

The idea is to update the current label, “to provide consumers with simple, straightforward energy and environmental comparisons across all vehicles types, including electric vehicles (EV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and conventional gasoline/diesel vehicles.” The new stickers will now have “ratings on fuel economy, greenhouse gas emissions, and other air pollutants,” which addresses the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. The new label will be debut on vehicles in the 2012 model year.

For about the next two months, the agencies will be soliciting public comment before choosing between one of two proposed stickers. One is a bit more conventional (below), while the other bears the sure-to-be-controversial grading system (bottom). For the latter, according to the NYT, an A+ means a fuel economy equivalent of at least 117 miles per gallon and would be reserved for zero emission cars. Plug-in hybrids coming in between 59 to 116 miles per gallon would get an A, and “conventional hybrids, like the Toyota Prius and Ford Fusion,” would get an A-. The article goes on to say that if the system were in place today, “306 small cars from model year 2010 would receive a B, only eight S.U.V.’s would receive a B+ (68 would get a C), and the highest grade for a van would be a C+.”

Grades aside, a good old MPG ranking will be on whatever label ends up stuck on the windows of 2012 cars and trucks, as well as a “fuel consumption value” chart that measures gallons of fuel required per 100 miles. Egogeek points out that “upstream emissions, such as the emissions from a power plant generating electricity to recharge a vehicle, would not be listed on the label,” but there will a website offered where you can get more info if you want to check it out.

The NYT article is already reporting negative auto industry reaction, saying “the letter grades –  from A+ to D - were immediately denounced by some industry groups, which said the government should not be making value judgments for consumers about vehicles.” I suppose that’s to be expected by a group that’s not used to such getting graded so specifically on its work.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the grading system plays out, if that’s the route that’s chosen, as such an approach is always a delicate proposal. Witness the movie rating system where an NC-17 versus an R can make or break a film even before its release. The trick is going to be objective accuracy and if it’s done right, the carrot of a good grade might just be what’s indicated to get some of slackers in gear.

The weather this summer in the Bay Area has been nothing short of awful. And with me being what my friend calls a “High Priest of Ra,” it’s been posited that my missing a sacrifice or committing some other ungodly affront has resulted in this madness. We’re talking stretches of frigid weeks in July, a sunless, cold anti-summer, followed by sudden August temperature spikes reaching 104 degrees and literally melting the candles in my apartment. 104? I mean, this is San Francisco. Are you kidding me? Dear Lord, could it really be my fault? Do the weather gods care about us humans and what we do here on earth?

Evidently they do care. A lot. Human-induced global warming and our fossil fuel mission/vision of burn ‘em if we got ‘em has someone or something pissed off. Big.

We’ve all had the conversations that start with “How many hurricanes was it this year?” or “The summers have never been like this before!” or “When I was a kid we’d have snow days where we couldn’t even leave the house! What happened to those?”

Invariably, these openers are followed by, “Yeah, right, and there’s no global warming.” Indeed, for general weather phenomena like these, science has been emerging that shows connections between human activity and broad brush climatic change.

But take the conversation a step further to speak about a certain climatic event – the Russian heat wave, say, or Pakistan flooding – and it becomes more challenging to point to a particular culprit. While we all seem to instinctively know there’s a connection between specific weather events and what we’re up to on the ground, the science hasn’t been there to make absolute links, as in “that flood came from that weather pattern which came from those countries burning this much fossil fuel back in these years.” Capiche?

Scientists are beginning to capiche.

Earlier this month, white coats from all over the world gathered in Broomfield, Colorado, at a National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and International Group on Attribution of Climate-Related Events (ACE) workshop series on the “science, application, and communication of climate attribution information.” As defined by the NOAA, climate attribution is “a scientific process for establishing the principal causes or physical explanation for observed climate conditions and phenomena.” This includes attribution for variations “for which great public interest exists because they produce profound societal impacts.”

In other words, what’s behind the mega-weather headlines.

Not too long ago, our ability to address such questions would have been dismissed, says an article in New Scientist. “Many scientists at the time [a decade ago] said that you can never blame an individual weather event on climate change,” says Myles Allen of the University of Oxford.

But attempts to assign blame for such events goes back to 2004, when Allen and others “showed to a high level of confidence that human greenhouse gas emissions had at least doubled the risk of the European heatwave of 2003.” Their research approach required them to “run thousands of simulations of the climate as it is and as it would have been without human influences, then compare the number of times a given event occurs in each scenario.” Today, technological adavances will enable to such analyses to be much more accurate.

One of the worlshop’s attendees, Dr. Claudia Tebaldi, of Stanford’s Carnegie Institution, says that research already has been able to attribute causes of  trends in continental scale temperatures, large area-averaged precipitation trends, ocean temperature trends, long-term changes in atmospheric humidity and more to, well, us.

“Using sophisticated computer modeling and high quality observations,” she writes, “we are able to say with great confidence that in these changing aspects of our climate system, the fingerprint of human causes is already evident.”

Now the the goal is use new methods to get even more specific regarding particular events and their causes. And while forecasting is of primary importance, right now there’s a lot of buzz around the legal implications of pointing accurate fingers. For example, can one country sue another for activity that can be proven to be responsible for something as devastating as a flood, heat wave or famine?

In 2005, Katrina victims filed a lawsuit against some oil companies, saying their activity in the Gulf contributed to the power of the hurricane. The case was recently dismissed due to a legal glitch, but you get the idea. Big implications here.

Connecting weather events with their causes is going to be a huge undertaking in upcoming years. As climate changes have increasingly profound effects on the lives of millions, people are going to want to know the whys and whos and hows and, hopefully, how to predict and prevent catastrophes going forward. And leaving it up to the gods just ain’t going to cut it. (Sorry, oh dear and powerful Ra. Can I have some more summer please? Just a little? What do you want? A dead goat?)

Image: crowt59

It just became official: global warming is bad for our health.

You think? This headline may look like something lifted from The Onion – but in fact we’re talking legally and in the Here and Now. For the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency appears to have designated greenhouse gases (the most infamous being carbon dioxide) as a danger to human health, opening the way to regulating these gases under the Clean Air Act.

In other words: the government is legally required to directly tackle these gases as pollutants that threaten people right now – not as a form of housekeeping for the future of our planet.

The Obama adminstration has been quick to impress with its unprecedented environmental reforms – but this is potentially colossal. And naturally it has a sizable slice of the commercial sector up in arms. They’re asking the question: is a recession really the time to impose such a check upon economic development? The fear is that all major manufacturing projects will have to comply with stricter emissions controls, which will prove costlier and so hamper economic growth.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is unimpressed, to say the least – but it ties in nicely with the current government’s proposed “cap and trade” system, where companies will have to obtain a permit to be allowed to release emissions.

Whether such hands-on regulation comes from Congress or from the EPA, it appears to be on the way at last. Democrat Edward Markey has stated that the EPA report “will officially end the era of denial on global warming”. And that’s change by anyone’s definition.

Image: Foto43

They’re called Eco Started Kits, but they’re more like emergency kits designed to heal what’s hurting our injured planet: greenhouse emissions, energy out the window, water down the drain.

For $97.50, you get a lot more than a Band-Aid. You get essential tools for an extreme green makeover, as well as a method for measuring and monitoring your carbon footprint as your transformation takes place.

What’s the emergency?

“Because of climate change, we need to get people moving as fast as possible,” says Andrea Nyland, the co-founder of Eco Hatchery, which makes and sells the kits. “We have about a 10-year window to make a difference, and all of the tools included are easy to use and will have a big impact.”

Nyland, an environmental consultant, partnered with Adam Borut to package three types of kits (including two new ones being launched next week) that can cut through the green “noise” that creates obstacles for well-intentioned consumers to start conserving and reducing.

The company surfed green websites to research the best products to go place in their kits. “We’re actually putting the tools in your hands, including booklets that list recycling directories,” says Nyland. “If you need to dispose of your old bulbs, we tell you how to do it safely.”

Among the must-have objects in the starter kit: an eco soy candle; reusable filtered water bottle; water quality test kit; two faucet aerators; three leak detectors; an energy monitor (find out which appliances are sucking the most energy); a compact fluorescent light bulb (premium Phillips Marathon 13-watt CFL that replaces a 60-watt incandescent); removable weather stripping; outlet and light switch sealers; water pipe insulation fitting tools; and an Eco Roadmap to help you identify additional savings.

“As you use the products in the kit, you can imprint information online and measure your success as you shrink your carbon footprint,” says Nyland. This is especially true in the home where she says energy use accounts for over 20% of all the carbon dioxide generated nationwide.

Nyland estimates users can reduce greenhouse emissions by two and a half tons per household the first year, saving about $260. In terms of water use, you’re looking at a savings of one gallon per minute.

Still, the kits aren’t geared just for households. Universities, cities and counties are encouraged to work as teams to reduce their impact.

“Energy efficiency is a hot item, especially with the current administration and the recession,” figures Nyland. “Whether you are motivated by the environment or the economy, you are headed to the same place.”

Eco Hatchery has set up the site so you can send the kits as gifts with a message. Among its best customers so far are real estate agents presenting house warming presents to clients.

In a couple of weeks, those thoughtful agents will be able to send a new Green and Healthy Home Kit ($50), which includes some of the items in the starter kit. Another kit being launched is the Energy Efficiency Kit ($60) with more gadgets for people focused on lowering those utility bills.

One of the best selling points is the packaging, which the company has tried to make as visually pleasing as possible, grouping products into sections and categorizing by activity. “Energy efficiency isn’t always pretty,” observes Nyland. “People rarely think of aerators as attractive gifts.”