The agave plant, typically used to distill tequila. Courtesy of kimsdinner.

Tequila takes a shot at decreasing gasoline use
A new study that looks at the life-cycle analysis of agave-derived ethanol has found that the desert plant produces relatively few carbon emissions, positioning itself as a possible biofuel and substitute for gasoline, reports the Guardian. Though agave is best known for its use in distilling tequila, the sugar-filled plant’s ability to grow on desert lands that aren’t usable for other food crops has garnered the interest of the biofuel industry, which is eager to find a plant-based fuel that won’t drive up food prices, a la the corn ethanol disaster. Scientists are already conducting agave biofuel trials in Australia, and the technology may also have potential for use in abandoned agave plantations in Mexico and Africa. Though experts warn that biofuels can’t be the only strategy used to cut carbon emissions, finding more options to fight climate change is still a success worth drinking to.

(Updated 7/20)

This week, the Department of Energy announced new energy efficiency standards for all low-rise residential buildings (like houses, row-houses and small apartments) and commercial buildings. This means all states will need to review and make a determination about their residential building codes by July 2013.  DOE also committed to update the baseline standards for federal buildings that reference these codes.

This is no small matter. DOE last reviewed model energy codes more than a decade ago. During that time, the building industry achieved major improvements in energy-efficient design and construction. These improvements are demonstrated in the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code for residential buildings, and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) / American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) / Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standards 90.1–2007 and 2010 for commercial buildings. But, many Americans are still waiting for their states to update their building codes to capture the significant energy savings available.

Earthjustice Managing Attorney Paul Achitoff

Intro: (This is the first in a series of Q & A's on genetically engineered food, which harm the environment by increasing pesticide use, creating pesticide resistant superweeds and contaminating conventional and organic crops. Earthjustice is challenging the USDA’s decision to allow genetically engineered sugar beets and alfalfa onto the market. To learn more, check out our GMO web feature.

 
EJ: Why are genetically engineered (GE) crops bad for the environment?
 
PA: Most GE crops are engineered to be resistant to herbicides. As a result of continually applying a single herbicide to the same field over and over again, there is now a proliferation of herbicide-resistant weeds across the nation. It’s been particularly prevalent in cotton, but we’ve also seen it in GE soybean fields. The amount of herbicide that’s going into the environment, into the soil and into the groundwater has increased significantly as a result of these GE crops.
 
That’s the main issue, but there are other issues as well. For example, GE crops can contaminate conventional or organic crops, so that has economic impacts on non-GE farmers whose crops become mixed with their GE counterpart.

A recent Greenpeace investigation found that dirty energy companies have been financing a prominent climate change denier. Photo courtesy of L.C.Nøttaasen.

Climate change skeptic awash in oily money
A Greenpeace investigation has found that climate change denier Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, has received more than $1 million in payment from major U.S. oil and coal companies over the past decade, reports the Guardian. Though Dr. Soon denies that any group influenced his studies, the fact that every new grant he has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests has raised more than a few eyebrows. Kert Davies, a research director at Greenpeace, summed it up well by saying, "A campaign of climate change denial has been waged for over 20 years by big oil and big coal. Scientists like Dr. Soon, who take fossil fuel money and pretend to be independent scientists, are pawns."

So who are some of the benefactors shoving money into the good doctor's coffer? None other than ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and the Koch brothers. That's right. In addition to doing some behind-the-scenes fundraising for a number of Republicans who sit on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, many of whom have vowed to restrict the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Charles G Koch Foundation gave Soon two grants that ran about $175,000 in 2005/2006 and again in 2010, according to the Guardian. Apparently when it comes to pushing an anti-environmental agenda, the Koch brothers are going all in.

America’s pocketbook weathered by climate change
It’s no doubt that 2011 has been a year of extreme weather (and the year’s barely half over). All of those tornadoes, floods and droughts have taken an emotional toll on all Americans, especially those hardest hit by these events. Not surprisingly, this flood of record bad weather has also take a significant economic toll, reports Time. According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, extreme weather costs the U.S. about $485 billion per year, which adds up to almost 4 percent of the country’s GDP. And, as we continue to release more carbon emissions into the atmosphere, the weather will only get worse and the cost to repair more steep. As the author notes, “If a broken planet isn't enough to mobilize us, a flat-broke country ought to be.” Find out how Earthjustice is encouraging the use of the cleanest, cheapest and most available source of energy to help weather this inevitable storm.