It was a hot week, yes? That wasn’t surprising to scientists at the National Climatic Data Center, who issued a report that the first half of 2006 was the hottest year on record. Part of the reason why we have such warm weather is because of greenhouse gases, which we can trace to automobiles burning fossil fuels on the road, here and around the world.

On this very subject, the EPA released a study on Monday that showed there was no increase in the fuel efficiency of cars available in the U.S. since the 2005 model year. In fact, as the EPA’s own summary states, “Model year 2006 vehicles are estimated to average 21.0 mpg, the same as last year, but five percent below the fleet-average fuel economy peak value of 22.1 mpg achieved in 1987.” The Los Angeles Times noted, “Improvements in fuel-saving technology failed to boost overall fuel economy, as the average vehicle weighed in at a record 4,142 pounds, 11% more than in 1997.”

Of specific manufacturers, Honda’s cars had the best average mpg in the survey (24.2), and Toyota was second with 23.8; U.S. car companies General Motors (20.5), Ford (19.7), and DaimlerChrysler (19.1) were lower down in the rankings.

Elevated gas prices have made many of us palpably aware of the way that we consume fossil fuels. In an attempt to use this kind of heightened mindfulness to combat global warming, Britain is weighing a plan to keep track of individual citizens’ carbon emissions. The system, based in part on the emissions trading scheme now used for businesses in the E.U., would assign each person an allowance for the carbon generated by various activities: air travel, car travel, electricity usage, home heating, etc. If you expend less than a certain level by living an energy-efficient lifestyle, you can sell your remaining carbon credits to someone else; if you’ve gone over the limit, then you must buy additional credits.

The proposal—which is a bold one, to say the least—has generated a great deal of discussion in the U.K. There are many uncertainties about how it would work and what its economic implications would be; some environmentalists have even criticized the proposal, saying that such a system would only be viable when more renewable energy options are available. I like the visionary thrust of the proposition, but I’m not entirely convinced that it is the best thing. I also worry that such an ambitious, nationwide scheme might ultimately have the same fate as the Clinton health care plan of the early ’90s.

Speaking of alternative medicine, a study released this week revealed that mainstream hospitals are increasingly offering complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in their panoply of treatments. Though you might think that CAM is an East Coast/West Coast thing, the report noted that such therapies “were most common in the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) and less common on the West Coast.” Another interesting detail from the article: “Teaching hospitals accounted for 36% of hospitals responding to the survey and offering CAM services, perhaps reflecting the finding in a 2004 study that more than 3/4 of medical schools require a course in CAM.”

If only the same mandatory educational curriculums applied to sustainability and global warming, then we’d all be in better shape.