Ozone is a long-range killer.

More than 20,000 lives a year could be saved if major industrial regions cut their emissions of ozone-triggering gases by a fifth, a new study has found. And the whole world would benefit: many victims of ozone pollution live a long way from the machines that cause it.

Although ozone high in the atmosphere is vital for our survival, shielding us from harmful UV radiation, at ground level it is very harmful and has been linked to respiratory conditions, heart attacks and even cancer.

Ozone forms when sunlight interacts with gases such as methane, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, emitted by ships, cars and power plants.

To investigate its effect on human health, Susan Anenberg of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and her colleagues used computer simulations to estimate how much ozone people in North America, the European Union, and south and east Asia would breathe if each region cut emissions of ozone triggers by a fifth.

The researchers then plugged this data into a public health model to estimate how many lives would be saved in each region thanks to such a drop in ozone levels.

Lethal traveller

They found that some 21,800 ozone-linked deaths a year could be avoided in the northern hemisphere alone.

But the biggest surprise was how many deaths blamed on ozone pollution in one region could be traced to emissions in another. Up to 76 per cent of the people whose lives could be saved by North American emissions cuts live outside the continent, the researchers found.

"Compared with the other regions, reducing emissions in North America could save the most lives abroad," Anenberg says.

The study found that cutting emissions in North America saved more lives in the EU than it did at home. "Ozone is mainly being generated on the polluted east coast of the US and carried over to Europe by the prevailing winds", says co-author Drew Shindell, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

Policy push

Anenberg hopes that the findings will spur US policy-makers to make more stringent cuts to the country's ozone emissions.

"While the US commonly evaluates the domestic health benefits of proposed actions to reduce ozone pollution, this research shows that substantial benefits may result outside of national or continental boundaries," she says.

The EU is the region where the most people die because of foreign ozone pollution, particularly North American emissions, the study found.

Indeed, if all four regions cut emissions by a fifth, over 50 per cent of the deaths avoided in the EU would be thanks to foreign cuts, the research suggests.

"Our results show that slightly more lives in Europe could be saved by reducing foreign emissions of ozone 'precursors' than by reducing European emissions," says Anenberg.

Asia alarm

Some regions are mostly poisoning themselves, though. South Asia's ozone pollution, for example, kills the most people, and 90 per cent of its victims live locally. Anenberg says that reducing ozone precursor emissions by 20 per cent in the region would save about 7600 lives a year there.

"Our results suggest that collective international agreements may be desirable to reduce emissions and improve human health throughout the northern hemisphere," she says.

It would also buy time against the looming threat of global warming, says Shindell. "Given that many of the precursors of ozone – and ozone itself – are greenhouse gases, this finding adds even more to the rationale of tackling climate change."

"All these results seem reasonable to me", says Mark Schoeberl, an atmospheric scientist with NASA's Earth Observing System based at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who was not involved in the study. "They emphasise again that there is only one atmosphere and air pollution is a global problem, not just a local one."

That opinion is echoed by environmental scientist Mark Potosnak of DePaul University, Chicago: "It's a typical result when further exploring human impacts on the environment – the world is a bit smaller than we first thought."

India against US trade barrier for climate policy

India wants the new global climate change agreement to ban trade barriers targeting nations that refuse to accept limits on their carbon emissions, the chief Indian climate negotiator said Friday.

As some 180 nations work on drafting a new climate accord, India proposed adding a clause to bar any country from taking action against another country's goods and services based on its climate policy.

The clause is largely directed against efforts by U.S. Congress to impose trade penalties on countries that do not commit to specific action against greenhouse gases.

Chief delegate Shyam Saran said such measures looked like "protectionism under a green label," and were complicating the latest round of climate negotiations in Bonn.

Trade issues are "extraneous to what we are trying to construct here, which is a collaborative response to an extraordinary global challenge," Saran told The Associated Press.

The talks in Bonn adjourn Friday after five days of meetings, and resume next month in Bangkok with the aim of reaching a new agreement by the December conference in Copenhagen. The new accord would succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Officials at the talks Friday said delegates have made no attempt to settle outstanding differences on key issues, and there has been little progress in whittling down a 200-page draft accord.

The U.S. House or Representatives has passed a climate bill that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on their emissions, and the Senate is considering a similar bill. President Barack Obama has opposed attaching trade issues to climate and energy legislation.

The Kyoto accord required 37 industrial countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a total 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012, but made no obligations on developing countries.

The world's wealthier nations want developing countries, such as China and India, to share the burden and agree to slow their explosive emissions growth, even if they cannot yet make reductions.

The developing countries, however, have resisted specific commitments, holding out for pledges of hundreds of billions of dollars to help them adapt to climate conditions and move to low-carbon growth.

Poorer countries also want the wealthy ones to commit to reducing emissions further by up to 40 percent by 2020, from 1990 levels. So far, the wealthier bloc has pledged an aggregate reduction of 15-21 percent, the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat said this week.

Those figures exclude the United States, which rejected the Kyoto Protocol but says it wants to join in a Copenhagen deal. The House bill called for a 17 percent emissions reduction from 2005 and a cut of more than 80 percent by 2050.

Environmental activists warned that progress in the talks was too slow, with just a few weeks of actual negotiating time left before the decisive conference in December.

Unless every country contributes more, the final agreement could become known as "greenwash Copenhagen," said Aileen Yang, the climate campaign manager for Greenpeace China.

In New Delhi, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said India "is not yet prepared to take on legal binding targets" regarding its carbon emissions, "but it does not mean that India is not ready to take on responsibilities."

Ramesh, who is heading to China on Aug. 24 for environment talks, said India would control its carbon footprint through measures including the formation of an environmental protection agency modeled on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He said the new Indian agency would likely be in place by December.

Saran said India already is spending 2-2.5 percent of its gross domestic product on adapting to climate change, from introducing new crops to researching the effect of melting glaciers and the need to build reservoirs. India also will spend $2.5 billion over the next five years to regenerate its forests.

Indian natural herb Tulsi to fight back swine flu

Ayurveda, the traditional 'science of life', has a remedy for diseases when every other stream of medicine fails. Now, at a time when swine flu is spreading like wildfire across the world, Ayurveda has the remedy in the form of the miraculous herb, the basil leaves commonly known as Tulsi.
Tulsi, the purest and most sublime plant, has been known and worshipped in India for more than five millennia for its remarkable healing properties. Considered as an 'Elixir of Life', this wonder herb has now been claimed to keep the deadly swine flu at bay and help fast recovery in afflicted persons.
"The anti-flu property of Tulsi has been discovered by medical experts across the world quite recently. Tulsi improves the body's overall defence mechanism including its ability to fight viral diseases. It was successfully used in combating Japanese Encephalitis and the same theory applies to swine flu," Dr U K Tiwari, a herbal medicine practitioner says.
Apart from acting as a preventive medicine in case of swine flu, Tulsi can help the patient recover faster.
"Even when a person has already contracted swine flu, Tulsi can help in speeding up the recovery process and also help in strengthening the immune system of the body," he claims.
Dr Bhupesh Patel, a lecturer at Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar is also of the view that Tulsi can play an important role in controlling swine flu.
"Tulsi can control swine flu and it should be taken in fresh form. Juice or paste of at least 20-25 medium sized leaves should be consumed twice a day on an empty stomach." This increases the resistance of the body and, thereby, reduces the chances of inviting swine flu," believes Patel.
As its name suggests, Tulsi has again proved to be the 'the incomparable' medicine - this time, in the prevention and cure of swine flu.
The symptoms of the H1N1 flu virus in people are similar to the symptoms of seasonal flu and include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. A significant number of people who have been infected with novel H1N1 flu virus also have reported diarrhea and vomiting. The high risk groups for novel H1N1 flu are not known at this time, but it's possible that they may be the same as for seasonal influenza. However, Please consult a practitioner in case of any such symptoms. Doctors have strictly advised against self medication.

One-Third of World's Biggest Firms Still Not Addressing Climate Change

Asking what investors should be doing about the unprecedented "projected impacts of climate change on the environment and society," a new report by EIRIS, a U.K.-based provider of research into the social, environmental and ethical performance of companies, compared the corporate responses to climate change of the 300 largest companies in the FTSE All World Index to its 2008 analysis. The report, entitled Climate Change Compass: The road to Copenhagen, looks forward to what it describes as "the most important climate change-related meeting since 1997," to be held in December, 2009, in Copenhagen. If combined with stimulus packages and clear regulatory frameworks from governments, the meeting in Copenhagen offers opportunities for companies to develop low-carbon activities. SocialFunds.com spoke with Carlota Garcia-Manas, Assistant Head of Research at EIRIS and the author of the report, about its findings. "In general, there's been a positive trend," said Garcia-Manas. "The majority of companies in the group now have some kind of climate change policies, many of which contain emissions reduction targets." The report found that of the 300 companies analyzed, 55 percent have short-term targets on climate change, up from 48 percent in 2008. In addition, 91 percent of high and very high impact companies disclose absolute CO2 or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data. High impact sectors are defined by the report as chemicals, construction, electricity, food, industrial metals, mining, and oil and gas. Other positive findings of the report include a significant decrease in the proportion of companies in high-impact sectors with no or limited responses to climate change, from 34 percent in 2008 to 19 percent. The number of companies in high-impact sectors with a corporate-wide commitment to climate change mitigation increased, from 84 percent in 2008 to 99 percent. Only one high-impact company of those analyzed in the report had no such commitment in 2009. Overall, the proportion of companies with no or limited disclosure on climate change decreased to less than 12 percent in 2009, from 29.4 percent in 2008. However, utilizing such key indicators as governance, strategy, disclosure, and performance, the report found that over a third of the 300 companies analyzed continue to carry unmitigated climate-related risks. Some high-impact sectors, such as industrial metals, food producers, and oil and gas producers, were found to have a greater proportion of companies with unmitigated risk when compared with 2008. Garcia-Manas said, "While most company policies now contain some reference to short-term emissions reduction targets, when we look out five or ten years we don't see as much information. The lack of long-term strategies could be because companies are waiting to see how governments adopt regulations for emissions reductions." While the report found that a "lack of clarity and comparability of quantitative data persists and can compromise investment decisions," it is not because of inadequate reporting initiatives that this is so, according to Garcia-Manas. "The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is an established initiative that provides guidance to companies for greenhouse gas emissions disclosure," she said. Another of the key findings of the report is the necessity for investor engagement. According to the report, "Investors must understand the impact these issues will have on their portfolios and integrate climate change into their engagement strategies or when exercising voting rights." Underscoring the importance of investors in encouraging companies to address climate change risks effectively, Garcia-Manas said, "The more companies are doing, the less risk investors are incurring. We suspect that investor activism has had an impact on companies addressing more of risk." One important area in which investors and Boards of Directors can encourage companies in their portfolios to address climate change more effectively is in the area of remuneration. Only about 20 percent of companies incentivize management attention to climate risks, according to the report. "Remuneration is one of the main issues," said Garcia-Manas. "Activist investors can engage with companies to ensure that management structures incentivize attention to climate risks." Asked by SocialFunds.com if the report focused on regional differences among companies, Garcia-Manas said, "At the moment the only country assessment we have is a study of Asian companies, but we plan on issuing a report on North American companies this year." Entitled Climate Change Tracker: Asia [PDF], that study, which was released in May, 2009, found that while initiatives on the part of Japanese companies was having a positive influence, opportunities for Asian companies to improve performance through increased levels of disclosure and engagement remain. The new report concludes, "Given the importance of Climate Change and the likely impact of it on future long-term corporate financial performance it is increasingly seen as an investor's fiduciary responsibility to integrate consideration of climate change into their investment strategy." Garcia-Manas concluded, "The three pillars in improving reporting are the companies themselves, governments, and investors."

New hope for intelligent life on other planets

Intelligent life beyond Earth might not be as dim a hope as many scientists think, according to a new study challenging a widely held anti-ET argument.
Many skeptics tout an idea called the anthropic argument that claims extraterrestrial intelligence must be very rare because the time it takes for intelligent life to evolve is, on the average, much longer than the portion of a star's existence that is conducive to such life.
But now astrobiologist Milan M. Cirkovic and colleagues say they've found a flaw in that reasoning.


The anthropic argument, proposed by astrophysicist Brandon Carter in 1983, following on his pioneering work on anthropic principles in 1970s, is built on the assumption that the two timescales - the lifecycle of a star and the time required for evolution of living and intelligent creatures - are completely independent. If this is true, Carter argued, it's extremely unlikely that these two windows of possibility would last roughly the same amount of time, and would occur at the same time.
But that mode of thinking is outdated, Cirkovic claims. In fact, he says the relevant timescales are not independent; they are deeply entwined. "There are many different ways in which planets in our solar system are not isolated," Cirkovic said. "We must not regard habitable planets as closed boxes. If you abandon that assumption of independence, then you have a whole new background in which you can set up various models of astrobiological development."
Cirkovic points to gamma ray bursts, nearby supernovae, and perturbations of comet clouds as possible events in the astrophysical environment of the star that can influence the biological environment on a planet. For example, when a star travels through one of the dense spiral arms of the Milky Way, both its own development and that of its planets could be disrupted by higher levels of interstellar electromagnetic radiation and cosmic rays, due to the higher frequency of star-forming regions and supernova explosions.
getCSS("3053751")
Slideshow

Month in Space: Cosmic fireworksSee a stellar blast, a solar eclipse, liftoffs and other outer-space highlights from July.
more photosAll these connections conspire to rule out the independence suggested by Carter and connect the life of a star and the evolution of life on a planet, Cirkovic argues.
In the case of the Earth, the two timescales have lined up fortuitously to enable life. Our Sun is about 4.6 billion years old, and Earth is just slightly younger, at 4.5 billion years old. The first, most basic cells are thought to have formed on our planet about 3.8 billion years ago, although the homo genus, to which humans belong, did not appear until about 2.5 million years ago. And modern humans are only about 200,000 years old.
For more than 80 percent of the Sun's existence, life has existed in some form on Earth. It seems the timescales of biology and astrophysics have favorably aligned in our case. According to the anthropic argument, this coincidence means that Earth, and its life, are unique. But Cirkovic thinks the two timescales may not have overlapped by chance. Instead, they may be part of a complex history, involving interdependence of the Earth system with the rest of the Milky Way.
Clocking CatastrophesCosmic events like gamma ray bursts or nearby supernovae could reset the astrobiological clock to give a planet and star a second chance to sync up and try again to produce life. Gamma ray bursts are mysterious explosions that release huge amounts of energy, occurring either as the dying explosions of super-massive stars (like Eta Carinae) or collisions of neutron stars in close binary systems. If a gamma ray burst occurred in a large region near a planetary system, it might cause a flash of radiation and possibly cosmic-ray jets that could disrupt life on planets. Supernova explosions, though not quite as energetic as gamma ray bursts (but much more frequent overall), pack quite a wallop as well, and could send a shock of energy to any nearby planets.
"A gamma ray burst won't affect whether life will begin at some particular point in time, but it would affect how quickly life develops or takes hold by causing changes in atmospheric chemistry on the planet," Cirkovic said. "This can be interpreted as resetting astrobiological clocks which tick on each habitable planet in the Milky Way."
This idea leads to a new way of thinking about the origin of life. Instead of a long, gradual evolution, a catastrophic event could spur development of a complex biosphere and intelligent beings, much like the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that species will undergo long periods of slow evolution punctuated by brief bouts of drastic change.
For instance, paleontologists say that human beings evolved to our present state only thanks to an asteroid impact 65 million years ago that wiped out the planet's primary predator – the dinosaur. Earth has over the course of its history experienced many mass extinctions that had various causes. While extinctions wipe out life, they are also a "reset" button that alters the environment and allows other types of life to emerge. Overall, this is part of a complex set of astrobiological histories that Cirkovic and colleagues dub the "astrobiological landscape" of our Galaxy.
Click for related content
Hello, ET? Web site sends texts into spaceNear-Earth asteroid found to be tripletsPlanet-hunting probe spots test target
"The speed of evolution is very variable," Cirkovic said. "There is no reason to think that life on Earth has only one single origin. It is quite possible that there were several beginnings of life on Earth."
Cirkovic also notes that the evolution of intelligent life could occur slower or faster in different settings, and need not follow the astrobiological history of the Milky Way.
"Large-scale correlations might cause more such SETI targets to be contemporary with us than would be expected on the basis of planetary age distribution only," Cirkovic said.
Cirkovic and team outline their argument in the June 2009 issue of the journal Astrobiology.
courtsey.msnbc

America's Green Trade Challenge

The Obama Administration's trade policies can spur a green jobs revolution -- but proposals moving their way through Congress could stop it in its tracks. "The nation that leads the world in creating a new clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century global economy," President Obama has said. But establishing that clean energy economy in the U.S. will depend in part on the Administration's success in opening markets overseas and overcoming a new breed of green protectionism at home and abroad.
Although trade policy has been largely overlooked in discussions about climate change, innovative and environmentally conscious leadership from the U.S. is essential to increase the number of green jobs.
While the U.S. market for green goods and services is the largest in the world, growth has slowed in recent years. Future growth of the U.S. industry will depend on foreign markets, which are expanding rapidly and offer tremendous potential for American exporters. Currently U.S. companies face disproportionately high tariffs and other obstacles on exports of environmental goods and services like wind turbines and solar panels, particularly in fast-growing developing countries such as China and India. Reducing these impediments would allow U.S. companies to capture a larger share of the nearly $700 billion global market in environmental goods and services, which is growing at twice the rate of all merchandise trade.


Reducing barriers on green goods and services can also help the environment. The widely cited Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change prepared for the British government highlights "a clear case for lowering tariffs" on green goods, and argues that "Increased trade allows effective and efficient mitigation or adaptation to climate change." Research also suggests a link between more green trade and improved environmental quality.
Yet despite the potential benefits to the economy and the environment, international discussions over how to encourage more trade in green goods and services have been relegated largely to one institution -- the Geneva-based World Trade Organization. Virtually no mention is made of the economic or environmental importance of green trade in global climate change talks under way at the U.N.
A new strain of green protectionism
In the U.S., the American Clean Energy & Security Act, which passed the House in June, is also silent on the importance of green trade to the U.S. economy. In fact, the legislation would establish a framework for the U.S. to impose what amounts to new carbon tariffs on some foreign goods, which in turn could make it more difficult for U.S. manufacturers to export green products to key markets.
Equally worrisome are actions by U.S. trading partners that suggest a new strain of green protectionism. Brazil recently raised its tariff on certain wind turbines from zero to 14% in advance of a major auction for wind farms that will take place this fall. China is increasingly sheltering its markets from international competition and giving preference to domestic producers for local green contracts even as it exports much of its clean energy manufactures, like solar energy panels, to the U.S.
President Obama has an opportunity to stem this protectionist tide and promote green trade by vigorously supporting the conclusion of an international agreement to lower barriers to environmental goods and services. In 2007, the U.S., along with the EU, proposed eliminating trade barriers in the context of ongoing trade negotiations at the WTO. While the Obama Administration has expressed support for such an agreement, the time is right to elevate the importance of green trade at home and abroad.
One good place to start would be Pittsburgh, where the members of G-20 nations will meet in September, chosen in part because of the city's commitment to green technologies. U.S. diplomats should also seek to ensure that the global climate agreement scheduled to be concluded in Copenhagen this December reflects the importance of eliminating green trade barriers to achieving environmental goals.
The President should work with Congress to include support for removing green trade barriers in domestic legislation, which the Senate is scheduled to consider in September. Emphasizing the importance of an environmental goods and services agreement in climate legislation would complement congressional efforts to spur U.S. green jobs and deliver clean technologies to the developing world.
A bipartisan green trade policy
There are potential political benefits to supporting green trade, too. By positioning himself as a "green trader" abroad, President Obama would help to establish his trade credentials with U.S. trading partners. Such an effort could help to deflect criticism from U.S. allies about low-level protectionism that has crept into U.S. legislation in recent months.
President Obama also has a unique opportunity to bring together traditional supporters of trade in Congress with proponents of clean energy legislation who recognize that the number of jobs created in the United States will depend in part on how many products and services U.S. companies can sell abroad. After suffering through nearly a decade of bruising partisan division, the U.S. trade agenda would benefit from an issue such as promoting green trade, which could attract support from Democrats and Republicans.
The road to U.S. recovery may be green, but it is up to U.S. trade policy to help pave the way.

EMISSIONS: In cold Northeast, officials consider limiting furnace emissions

Eleven Eastern governors are expected to approve a blueprint for slashing carbon dioxide emissions from cars -- and perhaps home furnaces -- before January, according to state officials, potentially sparking a widespread shift to residential heaters that burn wood pellets.
Officials in states from Maine to Maryland are preparing the outlines of a regional plan that would limit the amount of greenhouse gases a unit of fuel, like a gallon of gasoline, could emit. That's meant to prompt oil companies, refiners and motorists to use cleaner fuels made from trash and plants and renewable electricity.
Emission reduction targets are not yet established, but officials are basing preliminary calculations on a goal of cutting carbon 10 percent by 2020. That's identical to California's pioneering low-carbon fuel standard.
The Eastern program could be strikingly different in one way: More than 1 million homes in the region are heated with oil, more than anywhere else in the country. It could be a controversial task to regulate the fuel that keeps New Englanders warm during long winters.
But the alternative is just as troubling: Oil-burning furnaces consume more fossil fuel there than diesel-driven trucks. If heating emissions are not reduced, they could undermine the clean fuel standard -- and perhaps make the states unable to meet their existing global warming goals.
"A critical decision will be whether to limit the program just to transportation fuels or whether to also include heating fuel," said Michelle Manion of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, a nonprofit research group involved in designing the plan.
'Difficult' to cut emissions without addressing heat
In Massachusetts alone, about 963,000 homes -- almost half -- rely on oil heat. They consume 2 billion gallons of carbon-rich fuel every year, accounting for almost 20 percent of the nation's heating oil. New England burns 4.6 billion gallons of the stuff annually. That amounts to almost 15 percent of the region's petroleum use.
So there's concern that if heating oil is not included in the fuel standard, the 11 states might not be able to meet their individual emission reduction targets. All of them have promised to cut carbon.
"We are looking at whether we would be able to meet our goals without including home heating oil," said Rebecca Ohler, a supervisor with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and a participant in the plan's design. "I do think it would be difficult."
Another contributor, Ellen Pierce, an analyst with Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection, said heating oil is "a significant contributor to air emissions."
"It's something we should look at," she added.
Limiting emissions from transportation fuel is already daunting. Adding furnace fuel vastly increases the complexity of whom to regulate and how. Scores of additional businesses would fall under the watch of state regulators, probably prompting stronger opposition when state legislatures begin considering the plan for approval.
Politicians could become squeamish if the fuel standard is perceived to hike home heating bills during Northern winters.
'Cheaper' heat could mean widespread upgrades
But that may not be the case, said Nancy Seidman, deputy assistant commissioner for climate strategies with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
"If folks switch to wood or a different fuel, then in some cases, it may be cheaper or more efficient," she said.
The report emphasizes the states' home-grown opportunities. Wood pellets could be culled from the forests and manufacturing sites of Pennsylvania, New York and other states, reducing lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with extracting, refining and transporting oil around the world.
But that raises an infrastructure question. Thousands of homes might have to replace oil furnaces with wood-burning heaters. Other options exist, like using renewable electricity to heat homes, switching to natural gas or running oil furnaces on cleaner mixes of biofuels.
"The use of woody biomass and electricity as substitutes, combined with increased natural gas use for space heating, provides near-term low carbon fuel options for the Northeast," according to a 233-page analysis released last month by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management.
That assertion could cause waves. Energy is expensive in New England, and residents could find new costs associated with replacing furnaces unappetizing. State officials are just beginning to model the economic effects of the plan.
Oil sands could cause havoc
The Energy Consumers Alliance of New England supports state initiatives aimed at replacing heating oil with low-sulfur diesel, a cleaner fuel. But the program's main thrust is to reduce the cost of oil by pooling the buying power of 17,000 households. That's not exactly an incentive to produce less emissions.
"The green they're interested in saving is their own," said Phil Lindsay, who runs the group's oil program.
The plan could be up and running in two years, said coordinator Manion. The governors from all 11 states -- including big polluter Pennsylvania -- are expected to sign a memorandum of understanding this year that establishes the broad strokes. Each state would then have to approve the program through legislation or executive order.
If emissions were reduced 10 percent by 2020, that would prevent 30 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere every year. That's without cleaning up home heating systems. Even so, it's still a bigger impact than that of the nation's first regional cap-and-trade program, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is reducing emissions from 233 East Coast power plants.
If home heating is not regulated, it could spur an influx of high-carbon petroleum from Canada's controversial oil sands, analysts warn. Refiners could direct Canadian bitumen into residential oil tanks, even as that emission-heavy fuel is being blocked from entering cars by the low-carbon fuel standard.
That could undermine emission targets, and the "carbon intensity of the region's fuel supply could rise significantly," according to the states' official analysis. Currently, about half a percent of the region's home heating supply comes from Canadian oil sands.