Author: Julie Halpert

A Drive Toward Fuel Efficiency

Despite the recent defeat in Congress of a measure that would have raised fuel efficiency standards, carmakers are still feeling pressure to design and produce less polluting vehicles. Some companies are betting on new technologies to make those dramatic pollution reductions, and a debate’s emerging over how best to get there. Some observers say what’s at stake is nothing less than the future of the automobile. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert filed this report:

Transcript

Despite the recent defeat in Congress of a measure that would have raised fuel efficiency standards, carmakers are still feeling pressure to design and produce less polluting vehicles. Some companies are betting on new technologies to make those dramatic pollution reductions. And a debate’s emerging over how best to get there. Some observers say what’s at stake is nothing less than the future of the automobile. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert filed this report:

It’s a clear battle between emerging technologies: what’s available now: hybrid engines, versus fuel cells, which aren’t due for at least ten years. Hybrids use current technology, a gasoline engine, and add an electric engine for additional boost. A hybrid car typically gets double the mileage of a non-hybrid.

Toyota and Honda have both opted for the quicker path. They’ve been offering hybrid cars now for the past few years. Toyota’s Prius is a sedan. Honda opted for a sporty, two-seater, the Insight. But whether sporty or practical, Honda’s Andy Boyd says consumers embraced the new engine.

“We had a great reaction to Insight – people really excited by the technology, very accepting of it. It’s very transparent technology, easy to use and we think it’s ready for prime time.”

Prime time for Honda means putting the hybrid engine on a more practical vehicle, which they’re doing. The Honda Civic is a company best seller. The hybrid Civic goes on sale in April. Priced around $20,000 the Civic will get 50 miles per gallon. And Boyd thinks it will result in even broader acceptance of hybrid technology.

A domestic automaker is also jumping on the hybrid bandwagon, hoping to broaden the hybrid’s appeal. Ford Motor Company will launch the hybrid Escape sport utility vehicle later next year. Ford’s Jon Harmon says that’s an even better vehicle choice than the Japanese offerings.

“Most of those vehicles have limitations because they’re such small vehicles and we think that by giving a vehicle with more functionality that customers are looking for, like the Escape HEV, that we’re really going to open up that market.”

The hybrid Escape will get 40 miles to the gallon in the city, twice the mileage of its gasoline engine counterpart.

But while hybrids make big dents in reducing pollution, they’re not considered the final answer to the environmental problem. The more promising contender is fuel cells.

“In a minute we’ll introduce a revolutionary concept, so revolutionary that we believe it’s no stretch to say it could literally reinvent the automobile.”

General Motors President and CEO Rick Wagoner unveiled his company’s first fuel cell car prototype, the Autonomy, at the North American International Auto Show earlier this year. Fuel cells run on a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. They emit only water vapor and heat, so they’re essentially pollution free. They’re also extremely fuel-efficient. But even the GM fuel cell car won’t be available for at least ten years. That’s because the technology still faces many financial and engineering hurdles.

Even so, GM spokesman Bill Nowak says that investing in fuel cell technology is smarter than putting money in less effective, near-term hybrids.

“It has a fair amount of potential to improve your efficiency but you’re adding another power plant. A hybrid combines an internal combustion engine with an electric motor so there’s some cost factors involved in that. That’s why we think the best technology by far is the pure fuel cell.”

Still, many experts and other automakers don’t expect to see fuel cells on the road very soon. David Hermantz is with Toyota’s Technical Center. He says it could take 20 or 30 years. And he’s concerned that by pushing for fuel cells; GM’s trying to postpone any near-term actions to reduce auto pollution.

“GM’s interim image appears to be that ‘leave us alone for now and we’ll get to fuel cells in the future’ and we think we need some kind of progressive path to get to the future.”

That path for Toyota is a commitment to offer 300,000 hybrid vehicles a year worldwide beginning 2005. Honda also will continue promoting hybrids. Again, Honda’s Andy Boyd.

“In the long-term, fuel cells are probably going to be the answer, but again, if we’re looking out about 30 to 40 years, do we want to wait that long to try and do something about fuel efficiency and reducing emissions? Reducing fuel consumption is the greatest thing we can do to cut emissions, so we’re trying to do that.”

Still, the federal government currently prefers the long-term option. The Energy Department recently scrapped an existing hybrid research program and instead decided to fund an effort to develop a fuel cell powered vehicle.

That concerns Mike Flynn. Flynn runs the University of Michigan’s office for the study of automotive transportation in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He says the government’s decision, which comes amidst a slump in the auto industry, will take pressure off automakers to pursue hybrids.

“They have tremendous demand on their resources right now, so why would I do other than what the government is telling me I should be doing, which is this longer term bet on fuel cells which I may be able to defer a little bit in the first few years and use my resources elsewhere.”

Flynn’s also worried about focusing only on fuel cells. He says that if another technology wins out, the domestic auto industry could be left behind.

But GM’s Bill Nowak says that’s unlikely. And he’s convinced that ultimately, the company’s bet on fuel cells will pay off.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Halpert.

Reining in Diesel Exhaust

  • The EPA is planning to regulate smoke from diesel engines in farm and construction equipment. Photo courtesy of NESCAUM.

You see them every time you pass a construction site: big machines belching thick diesel smoke. The smoke isn’t just annoying. It causes major health and environmental problems. Now, after years of dealing with other issues, the EPA is taking on this major source of uncontrolled pollution: emissions from farm and construction equipment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert looks at the challenges the EPA faces in this far-reaching regulatory effort:

Transcript

You see them every time you pass a construction site. Big machines belching thick diesel smoke. The smoke isn’t just annoying. It causes major health and environmental problems. Now, after years of dealing with other issues, the EPA is taking on this major source of uncontrolled pollution: emissions from farm and construction equipment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert looks at the challenges EPA faces in this far-reaching regulatory effort.


Emissions from diesel engines create problems for both the environment and people’s health. Diesels release nitrogen oxides, which are a factor in acid rain and smog. They also spew very fine particulates that can lodge deep in the lung when inhaled. And that causes respiratory problems.


Controlling these emissions is no easy task. That’s because most diesel engines still burn fuel containing high amounts of sulfur. The sulfur clogs up existing pollution control devices. And that makes it a lot tougher to come up with ways to reduce emissions. But Christopher Grundler, deputy director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality in Ann Arbor, Michigan, says its an important challenge.


“In the year 2007 we estimate that off road or non-road emissions will make up over 40% of the air pollution from mobile sources or transportation sources, so it’s a big deal.”


In tackling air pollution, EPA’s first job was to clean up gasoline car emissions. Now its moving onto diesels. The agency’s first challenge came when they issued a rule for highway trucks last year. That plan drops sulfur content in diesel fuel from 500 parts per million to 15 parts per million. It also reduces overall diesel emissions by 90% by the year 2007. The EPA now wants to use this rule as a model for farm and construction equipment as well. But the agency is likely to face opposition from refiners, who are fighting the on road rule. Jim Williams is with the American Petroleum Institute.


“We feel that the ability of the refining industry to make sufficient volumes of 15 ppm in the timeframe that EPA wants us to is highly questionable, whether we can do that. We’ve done some studies that show there will be supply shortfalls with the 15-ppm limit.”


Williams is pushing to phase in the requirement over a longer period. He says that would give refiners more time to produce the necessary quantities of low sulfur fuel. Until then, refiners also want to continue providing high sulfur fuel.


But Engine Manufacturers don’t like that idea. They’ve agreed to support tough standards only if the switchover to low sulfur fuel happens quickly. Jed Mandel runs the Engine Manufacturers Association. He’s worried that if cheaper, low sulfur fuel remains abundant; users could continue relying on the dirtier fuel.


“If there are dual fuels available — if there’s cleaner fuel on the marketplace for some time, as well as higher sulfur dirtier fuel, and there’s a price differential in that fuel, there will be a disincentive for users to buy the cleanest engines.”


Mandel says that could cause a delay in purchasing these engines for several years.


Like Mandel, Jason Grumet, executive director of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, also wants tight standards. Northeast states, plagued with acid rain and smog caused largely by these diesels, are pushing the EPA to develop the tightest standards possible to meet clean air goals and also to better protect equipment operators.


“The particles from diesel emissions can lodge very deep within the human lung and we know that these particles are carcinogens, so for folks who work with construction equipment every day or on construction sites, for people who farm or plow fields for several hours a day, we think that the emissions of diesel pollutants cause a very substantial and real threat to their health.”


(sound of tractor)


Herb Smith isn’t worried about his health. Smith hops off his tractor and stands on the land that his family has farmed in Ida Township, Michigan since 1865. Despite years of inhaling diesel fumes, Smith said he’s in perfect physical condition. Though he supports regulations to control diesel emissions, he’s worried that the EPA will place undue hardship on farmers.


“I am concerned about fuel costs because our margin in farming is very slim and anything we add to fuel costs, we have to absorb it.”


Smith fears that some of the smaller farmers may not be able to bear higher fuel and engine costs and could go out of business.


Despite the many different viewpoints on the issue, EPA’s Grundler is confident that his agency can develop a rule that will bring tremendous public health benefits at a reasonable cost.


“We’ve shown we can do it for cars and SUVs. We’ve shown it can be done for heavy duty on highway engines. I’m absolutely certain it can be done for these sorts of engines as well.”


The agency expects to issue a technical report outlining emission control options by the end of the year. A proposal is due by the middle of next year. For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Halpert.

Getting Rid of Automobile Toxins

When we think of car pollution, we’re usually worried about the
dirty exhaust coming from the tailpipe. But did you know that your car
starts to pollute even before it leaves the garage? The Great Lakes
Radio
Consortium’s Julie Halpert takes a look at the toxics behind the wheel
– and the latest push by environmentalists to get rid of them:

Car Companies Seek Solutions

For years, environmentalists have been pressing car companies
to make vehicles cleaner. They feel the companies have been moving too
slowly to eliminate substances that are dangerous to the environment.
But automakers aren’t standing still. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Julie Halpert takes a look at new efforts by car companies
to take the toxics out of cars, and the challenges they face in this
job:

Ford Strives for Greener Image

Ford Motor Company chairman William Clay Ford, Jr. largely has his nameto thank for his quick rise to the top. But after just two years on thejob, he’s decided to take on a challenging mission: improving theenvironment while making cars people will buy. Can Ford carry out thisplan while leading a profitable company? The Great Lakes RadioConsortium’s Julie Halpert reports:

Transcript

Ford Motor Company chairman William Clay Ford, Jr.
largely has his name to thank for his quick rise to the top. But after just two
years on the job, he’s decided to take on a challenging mission: improving
the environment while making cars people will buy. Can Ford carry out this
plan while leading a profitable company? The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Julie Halpert reports.


In 1970, the nation’s cities faced a severe air pollution problem. So
Congress passed the Clean Air Act that, in part, tightened standards on auto
exhaust. Car makers said those standards couldn’t be met, yet they were
quickly able to do so. Still, over the next twenty years, automakers
consistently fought new pollution and fuel economy standards as costly. And
every time, they complied with the rules without breaking the bank.
With this kind of track record, it’s not hard to see why domestic
automakers have a credibility problem when it comes to environmental
issues.


But now, Ford Motor Company is trying to set itself apart. Bill Ford
has declared his intent to address all types of pollution coming from cars.
For instance, he decided to tackle the controversial subject of global
warming in a recent speech to environmentalists in London.


“What role should the business community play in
addressing this issue? Well, there’s no doubt that business was overly
cautious — some may even say obstructionist — in its initial reaction.
Whatever reasons there were, and however genuinely felt they were, I
believe now there is more than enough evidence to warrant an immediate
and comprehensive — and considered response.”


Ford’s statement was shocking, since the auto companies typically
have fought initiatives to curb global warming. But it should not has come as
a surprise, because when Bill Ford took the reins of his company, he
announced his plan to make Ford the most environmentally friendly
automaker. So far, he appears to be trying to do just that. He’s promoting
efficient, clean manufacturing. He hopes to make redesign of Ford’s 80-year-
old Rouge manufacturing plant in Dearborn, Michigan, a shining example.


“We think this is a terrific opportunity to transform the
icon of 20th century manufacturing into a model of 21st century sustainable
manufacturing. The new Ford Rouge Center will be a world-class center of
lean and environmentally sensitive manufacturing.”


Ford also is targeting big polluting sport utility vehicles as part of his
environmental mission. He recently announced plans for the first mass
produced SUV to get 40 miles to the gallon. That was a pleasant surprise to
Dan Becker. Becker is with the Sierra Club. He was impressed when Ford
included in its stockholder report a Sierra Club quote calling the Ford
Expedition a rolling monument to environmental destruction.


“The first step in changing your behavior is recognizing
the problem with the behavior. So that when Ford admitted their SUVs were
unsafe and polluted too much, that was a first step that had to come before
they began to change them.”


Ford has pledged to increase fuel economy in sport utility vehicles by
25% over the next five years. But while Becker heralds that development,
others are more suspicious. Jason Grumet directs a group of northeast state
regulators. He believes the company is merely trying to head off criticism of
SUVs while maintaining their share of the market for the gas-guzzling
vehicles.


“They don’t want SUVs to become the fur coats of the
next decade so they’re trying to take some modest steps within the
boundaries of big internal combustion engines to be able to suggest a
corporate ethos of environmental concern.”


But federal regulators say that Ford’s actions shouldn’t be taken for
granted. The EPA’s Bob Perciasepe says that Ford is headed in the right
direction.


“Every little bit helps. We have to take the first step
toward making the existing cars that we use more fuel efficient, while we’re
investing money in newer technologies that will do even better.”


Others applaud Ford for trying to clean up the SUV market.
Automotive analyst David Cole says that Ford can’t simply turn its back on
the popular vehicles.


“You look at Bill Ford and he is absolutely a sincere
environmentalist. There’s no question about that in my mind and at the same
time he is a sincere business person that recognizes that his company, if it’s
going to be able to do what he wants to do over the long term, has to be very
profitable.”


Cole says those SUV profits could then fund ongoing research into
new environmentally friendly technologies.
But the question remains: will such changes be good for Ford’s bottom
line?


David Andrea, chief economist of CSM Worldwide, thinks Ford can
generate profits. He says the effort to reduce pollution in manufacturing, in
particular, could save money.


“If you view any type of pollution as a waste and waste
as a cost, it’s in perfect alignment with continually improving your cost
structure and your bottom line.”


Andrea says that Wall Street will naturally be keeping tabs on the
company’s stock price. Similarly, EPA and environmentalists plan to keep a
close eye on Bill Ford to make sure he lives up to his fuel economy
promises, in particular. EPA will have the chance to measure Ford’s success
when the company unveils its high mileage Escape, due in 2003. For The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Halpert.

Green Auto Marketing Takes Off

It used to be that horsepower, lots of chrome and cool colors soldcars. But now, automakers are using something different to market theirproducts: the environment. For the first time, they’re competing overwho’s the most green. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpertfiled this report:

Transcript

It used to be that horsepower, lots of chrome and cool
colors sold cars. But now, automakers are using something different to
market their products: the environment. For the first time, they’re competing
over who’s the most green. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie
Halpert filed this report.


“Introducing the new Silverado. It’s bigger. It’s more
powerful. It’s the truck from Chevrolet.”


This ad, with men working in a foundry, plays to the size and strength
of the General Motors truck. For years, car companies have succeeded in
luring customers by ascribing macho characteristics to their vehicles. But
now, they’re trying a new tactic. This ad, by Honda, takes place in a car
wash.


“The 75 Civic was the first in Honda’s line of clean cars.
Today, more than 88% of our cars are low emission vehicles. We’re planning
for tomorrow with our zero emission fuel cell vehicle. Is it any wonder
Honda was recently named the cleanest car company in the world?”


A few years ago, if you tried to plug the environmental attributes of a
car, buyers wouldn’t bite. But now, with gas prices near all-time highs,
consumer pocketbooks are being hit hard by driving big cars. And at least
some are feeling guilty about causing pollution. So automakers are
responding — trying to make their cars greener. Or at least they’re saying
they are.


In July, Ford Motor Company pledged to produce the cleanest sport
utility vehicle by 2003. Ford’s Neil Golitely says the time is ripe for
marketing on the environment.


“I think you’re seeing it more and more. In some of our
corporate advertising, for example, we’re kind of pointing to our seriousness
about environmental issues.”


After Ford’s environmental announcement, other automakers also
started trumpeting their accomplishments.


“We think our record stands on its own and it’s hard to
see anyone in front of us in terms of our environmental performance as a
company across the board.”


That’s Denny Manano, chief environmental officer for General
Motors. He says that GM wanted to make clear that it takes no back seat to
Ford on the environment.


“All we did was quite simply indicate that our
performance in model to model comparison in the SUV area and the truck
area already led the industry. That means that the plan we put in place not
this year, but the plans we put in place in 96, in 97 has led to products out
there that are the lead in fuel economy in product by product comparisons.”


Japanese automakers, though, were among the first to bring out the
heavy environmental artillery. For many years, they’ve been trumpeting their
environmental innovations. Toyota’s Michael Love says those innovations
have led to real results. He says his company is a leader in meeting federal
fuel economy requirements, known as CAFE.


“We’ve had better fuel economy for a multitude of
reasons for a long time. We’ve never had a problem complying with the
CAFÉ standards, and right now our fuel economy is roughly where Ford
says they want to take theirs in 2004.”


Still, some are worried that automakers are more flash than sizzle, that
saying you’re green doesn’t necessarily mean you are. Jason Grumet is with a
group of northeast state regulators. He said automakers need to stop focus on
changing current technology, which is limited. Instead, they should begin
thinking more about dramatic changes that could bring huge environmental
benefits.


“So I think the notion that we are going to have more
than incremental change, but actually a revolutionary change, in the ability
to propel ourselves around, seems to me is what’s going to be necessary in
the long-term.”


But car manufacturers say that kind of radical change could be
spurred on by the current fierce advertising competition over the
environment. And automotive analyst David Cole says it’s not just the
advertising that will do it. He says that automakers will provide the cleanest
cars because consumers are finally demanding them.


“It’s really nice to see them, in a sense, competing on the
basis of improving fuel economy and reducing emissions versus who can
build the largest, least fuel efficient vehicle and I think it’s one dimension of the transformation that the industry is going through right now.”


Automakers say they are ready to race each other on the environment.
And Ford’s Neil Golitely says the competition carries big benefits.


“We’re quite pleased with the competition, the fact that
other companies feel the need to sort of one up one another on the
environmental front is, quite frankly, good for the industry and it’s good for
society and it’s good for the customers.”


Meanwhile, with all the environmental consciousness raising,
consumers should expect to see many more green ads in the coming months.
For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Halpert.

A GAS ADDITIVE GONE WRONG (Part 1)

Just a few years ago, the EPA and environmentalists were heralding an additive used in gasoline for drastically reducing air toxics emissions. Now, the chemical, methyl tertiary butyl ether, or M-T-B-E, is being blamed for contaminating groundwater all over the country. And Congress is scrambling to write legislation to ban it. In the first of a two part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert takes a look back into the history of this controversial chemical:

The STRUGGLE TO BAN M-T-B-E (Part 2)

The Environmental Protection Agency recently recommended banning an ingredient commonly used in gasoline. The additive, called methyl tertiary butyl ether, or M-T-B-E, has drastically helped reduce air pollution. But it’s also leaking from gas tanks and contaminating groundwater. Banning M-T-B-E is proving to be no simple task. In the second of a two part series, The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert reports on the heated deliberations: