As I’ve written about before, the carbon intensity of electric automobiles is totally dependent on the source of electricity you use. They can be a huge win, a marginal win, or in some cases, a net loss compared to internal combustion and hybrid vehicles. Claims that electric vehicles are, in general, “emissions free” are so obviously wrong that you have to doubt the motives and trustworthiness of the claimant. Enter the EPA who, rightly, asserts that we have to modify our vehicle efficiency rating system, and has proposed a new standard for 2012 (link the proposed standard and to a WSJ article on the topic).

A little over two years ago I wrote an article for Environmental Leader declaring that 2007 would be the year of “Peak Carbon” in the US, such that GHG emissions would generally decline from that point on (with accommodation for random short blips upwards). In the short term I figured that the economy would get the curve to peak, and that then a series of other policy and economic factors would continue to drive the emissions downward in a steady matter.

In Associate Professor Anil Karnani’s world, Corporate Social Responsibility professionals at the world’s largest companies only do two things: propose projects that the business should already be doing because they make total financial sense, and propose projects which are financial disasters and companies should never seriously consider. And if you lived in his world, you’d reach the same conclusions that Dr. Karnani does in his article in today’s WSJ, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility”: CSR is at best irrelevant, and can even be dangerous.

With the 500 car Cooper Mini E field trial, we’re finally started to get some real-world data on the performance of electric vehicles. The WSJ recently ran an article which surveyed participants in the field test and found they were generally getting in the 100-110 miles per charge range, less than the advertised 150. The battery in the Mini E is 35 kWH (not 35 kW as stated in the article).

I got the following note from a friend from my MIT days: There is a drilled well that, at the seabed, enters a structure that is compromised. That structure cannot be fixed in a timely fashion or at all. Thus eliminate the structure (drag it away, underwater demolition, piecewise removal). Once that is removed, you can create a clean single exit point for the oil/gas. THAT is where you want to apply an engineering solution.

When I first heard of the concept of a Cap and Trade system for reducing pollution, I thought it was one of the most elegant ideas that I’d ever heard. A Cap puts a hard limit on the amount of pollution that will be allowed in a given time period, and permits for that amount of pollution are distributed and traded among the polluters. Polluters that are ahead of the goals can sell their excess permits, and those that are behind have to buy extras.

We have compelling reasons to drive for clean, cheap energy, but we lack the technology to get there today. Threats of climate change, national competitiveness and energy security (OK, “clean, cheap, domestic energy”) all contribute to the urgency of this innovation challenge. Given the scale of the challenge, coupled with the dire consequences of not succeeding, it is only natural that we’d look for reassurance and guidance from historical success stories of large-scale innovation.

We are witnessing a tragedy unfold, and a prime example of what happens when engineers don’t deliver on their basic responsibilities to society. Maybe the engineers who designed the BP oil platform in the gulf just plain made a mistake in their design, or maybe they knew the design wasn’t right but were ordered to go ahead anyway, and didn’t tell anyone that corners were being cut. Either way an engineered system has catastrophically failed, and it seems like we’re only beginning to see the extent of the damage to the ecosystem and the economy.

Today, on the 40th Earth Day, we look back at where we’ve come from, but also look forward to where we’d like to go. And while, as Americans, we’re compelled to look towards Washington and focus on what our politicians have done in past, and may or may not do in the future, on behalf of the environment, we also need to look at our innovation system and how we keep it healthy as well.

With the upcoming release of the Kerry/Graham/Lieberman energy bill amidst a contentious environment on Capitol Hill, we’re starting to see the big push to get business support for the legislation. The Politico interview with Sen. Graham makes the case explicitly: “The package represents major victories for the business community, which was virtually shut out of House deliberations on an energy reform bill that passed last year. …. But the partisan atmosphere in Washington could wipe out those gains if the corporate world doesn’t stand behind it, Graham said.