Are these environmental goals any good?

On a recent press conference Obama announced a new standard for cars and trucks emissions (Obama to Toughen Rules on Emissions and Mileage). I wonder if this is the right move?

It was in college while studying Computer Simulation that I learned about retro-feeding cycles. These are cycles where several factors contribute to the growth (positive cycle) or shrinkage (negative cycle) of a specific variable. A retro-feeding cycle occurs for people who gain weight (that is why its so difficult to lose weight). As the person starts to eat more and more, he or she feels less and less energy to exercise (or even walk), also the stomach grows bigger and bigger providing for more space for food as well as preventing the person from feeling satisfied from eating. There are probably other physiological and psychological factors that also contribute to the weight gain of these specific person. Here is a graph that illustrates this retro-feeding cycle:

The environmental damage we are causing to planet earth is a very complex retro-feeding cycle that is further enlarged by other retro-feeding cycles. Population growth is a retro-feeding cycle  that contributes to the "environmental damage" cycle (the more people, the more growth), so is the "energy needs" retro-feeding cycle (more energy creates more progress and more need for additional energy).

So, is 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 enough to change the negative retro-feeding cycle of carbon emissions?

The only way to neutralize a retro-feeding cycle is to create a counter-cycle that grows at equal or higher rate than the cycle we are trying to overcome.

I have read that when Kennedy proposed the lunar landing goal before the end of the decade (1960's), the US was very far from achieving this goal. Furthermore, Kennedy did not know if that goal was achievable at all!

In the world of Greentech, 35 MPG does not sound very impressing. There are many vehicles out there that can easily achieve that mileage today (click here to see some of them)! Are we selling ourselves short? If we have the technology to achieve 50MPG today, is setting 35MPG by 2016 going to help or to hinder the development of that technology?

So I ask you again: Are these environmental goals any good?

Comments from Why Greentech in Israel?:

First of all I want to share an article closely related to this post Israel's Clean Technology Pioneers

“Sami, exactly my sentiments. Israel also has it's own environmental challenges which desperately need Greentech solutions. In some ways Israel is an island and needs find new ways to harvest renewable energy, and recycle water and upcycle raw materials.”

“I agree with you in general terms, in specific I would ad that in some cases Israel needs some expertises to be imported for example in the windfarms development. But even here there are a lot of candidates ready to cooperate with companies from Israel provided they are invited”

“My only thought is on the following: "Because it’s easier and cheaper to continue with our current behaviors." It is easier, but not cheaper, to behave unsustainably. True, the greedy don't always pay now, but longer term the costs to society will be far higher to have ignored our planet's well-being”

“Why is that? Following the great success in the IT sector?
Do you believe "Silicon valleys" are the best place to start green start-ups?
Israel is where most of solar nergy concepts and ideas were born and rose up to become products and technologies. Do you believe that this background is another good reason for Israel being a good place to do greentech? “

Until next time: SHALOM!