The Environmental Protection Agency says cars and trucks are starting to get better gas
mileage. That comes after a long period of worsening fuel economy.
Dustin Dwyer reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency says cars and trucks are starting to get better gas
mileage. That comes after a long period of worsening fuel economy.
Dustin Dwyer reports:
The EPA says over the past three years, average vehicle fuel economy has improved by
about five percent, but that’s a small reversal after 20 years in which gas mileage only got
worse.
Jim Kliesch is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says the problem is that
getting more miles per gallon has not been a priority for automakers:
“The industry has been improving their vehicles for years. It’s just that they’ve been
applying their technical innovations to performance and not to fuel economy.”
Automakers say they’re now working to make cars more fuel efficient. In part that’s
because they have to under new fuel economy rules for trucks. And lawmakers in
Washington are debating new rules that could force even higher fuel efficiency.
Most of the cuts would come from tailpipe emissions, but the UCS says other improvements can be made in engine design as well.(Photo by Mark Brush)
A federal judge has ruled in favor of a state law aimed at cutting greenhouse gases from
cars and light trucks. Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
A federal judge has ruled in favor of a state law aimed at cutting greenhouse gases from
cars and light trucks. Mark Brush has more:
Like 11 other state laws – the Vermont law calls for a 30% cut in heat-trapping gas
emissions by 2016. Automakers sued Vermont saying these kinds of regulations would
hurt the industry and can not be made by individual states. A federal judge disagreed.
Michelle Robinson is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. She says the judge heard
from the group’s engineers. They designed a minivan that would meet these new
standards with technology that exists today:
“There’s no need to change the look of the vehicle or the performance of the vehicle in
any way. So you could maintain the levels of safety and performance that drivers expect
while improving the pollution performance of the vehicle.”
Aside from a likely appeal from the auto industry, the states are also waiting on the
Environmental Protection Agency. They have to get a waiver from the EPA before they
can enforce their laws.
A look at the new window sticker that will be seen on all 2008 models. (Photo courtesy of the EPA)
Starting this year you’ll see new fuel economy window stickers on cars and trucks. And as Mark Brush reports – the gas mileage displayed on these stickers will be closer to the actual mileage you’ll experience:
Transcript
Starting this year you’ll see new fuel economy window stickers on cars and trucks. And as Mark Brush reports – the gas mileage displayed on these stickers will be closer to the actual mileage you’ll experience:
The EPA gas mileage stickers will appear on all 2008 cars and trucks. And the Environmental Protection Agency says these stickers are more accurate. No more inflated gas mileage claims. Mileage estimates have been based on old tests that don’t reflect how we drive today.
David Friedman is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says car buyers might get sticker shock:
“Well what they will see is no matter what the car or truck they get they will see lower numbers. In fact, depending on the size class they are dealing with, the new window sticker numbers are anywhere from 10 percent to 15 percent lower on a combined basis than the old numbers.”
Consumers won’t just see the lower miles per gallon numbers. They’ll also see a bar graph that compares each vehicle’s gas mileage to others in its class.
There’s a lot of talk these days in Washington about creating new laws
to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One major question right now is how
the government will handle carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Any
new regulation is expected to have some financial impact on automakers.
And, as Dustin Dwyer reports, the carmakers are looking to share the
burden:
Transcript
There’s a lot of talk these days in Washington about creating new laws
to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One major question right now is how
the government will handle carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Any
new regulation is expected to have some financial impact on automakers.
And, as Dustin Dwyer reports, the carmakers are looking to share the
burden:
Back in March, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing
on how the auto industry could help fight global warming. All the
bigwigs in the U.S. auto industry were there: the heads of Ford,
General Motors and Chrysler, the North American president of Toyota and
the head of the United Auto Workers.
At the hearing, all of them agreed they would support a cap on CO2
emissions from vehicles, but they had a sort of caveat:
“We believe that there’s a lot of merit to it. And we believe if it’s
upstream…”
“For Cap and Trade, I think the further upstream you go, the more
efficient you’re going to be.”
“I’d just echo the upstream part.”
“The upstream as I stated earlier and the rest is absolutely critical.”
That was Ron Gettlefinger of the UAW, Jim Press of Toyota, Alan Mulally
of Ford, and Tom Lasorda of Chrysler.
So what do they mean by “upstream”? Here’s Ford spokesman Mike Moran:
“Lower carbon fuels, so that it’s just not what comes out of the
tailpipe, but you’re moving upstream and including the fuels that would
be included in the equation in the transportation sector.”
Basically the idea is, if you have less carbon in the fuel, you’ll pump
less carbon dioxide into the air.
But car companies really can’t take the carbon out of fuel. That’s
really more of a job for the oil industry. So are auto executives just
passing the buck?
David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says yeah, they’re
dodging the issue:
“The auto companies are basically finding more creative ways to say,
‘No,’ they won’t do anything to improve their products.”
Auto executives would say they’re already working to improve their
products, with millions of ethanol-capable vehicles on the road, and a
growing number of gas-electric hybrids. And many in the auto industry feel that they’ve been singled out for
regulation in the past.
The carmakers main lobbying group, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers says that for the past 30 years, the auto industry has
been the only industry subject to carbon dioxide regulations. Though
most people try to avoid saying so in public, there is clearly some
tension between the auto industry and the oil industry.
Louis Burke is with Conoco Phillips. He says his company is willing to
do more to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the oil company just
came out in favor of setting up mandatory federal rules. Those include a
possible system that caps carbon dioxide emissions, and allows
companies to trade carbon credits as if they were commodities:
“You can cap and trade at some point down within the value chain,
whether it’s all the way upstream, or whether it’s pretty far downstream. You
can also apply a carbon tax throughout the whole value chain. The whole
idea is it’s gotta be transparent, it can’t penalize any one group.”
So upstream, downstream, the point is something needs to be done.
David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says everyone can
do a little more:
“Everyone has to do their part. That means car companies have to
produce vehicles to get more miles to the gallon. Oil companies need to
have lower carbon fuels and yes, even consumers need to find ways to
drive less.”
It’s still not clear what exactly what approach Congress will take
toward cutting auto emissions, but while leaders in Washington try to
settle on a plan, local and state officials across the country are
coming up with their own plans.
California and 10 other states have their own plans to regulate
tailpipe emissions. Those plans are being challenged in court by the
auto industry. And California has also gone forward with the nation’s first low carbon
standard for fuels.
That “upstream” plan has the support of both auto and oil companies.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule
on aluminum production that could trade one kind of
pollution for another. Dustin Dwyer reports that some are
skeptical of the plan:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule
on aluminum production that could trade one kind of
pollution for another. Dustin Dwyer reports that some are
skeptical of the plan:
When you make aluminum for vehicles, there’s a leftover
sludge that can include some toxic chemicals. The EPA wants
to loosen regulations on that sludge.
It says that could encourage more auto manufacturers to use
aluminum instead of steel in vehicle bodies, and since
aluminum is lighter than steel, those vehicles would burn
less gas. Don McKenzie of the Union of Concerned Scientists
says he’s not sure it’s a good idea:
“Aluminum can help to get us more efficient vehicles. But we
shouldn’t need to be changing the rules around aluminum
production to get aluminum into vehicles.”
McKenzie says if the government imposed stricter fuel
economy standards, and kept the rules on aluminum sludge in
place, more automakers would be forced to use aluminum
anyway.
For the Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.
The fish and wildlife agency already has announced plans to
cut more than 250 jobs over the next three years. Further
cuts are expected soon.
The agency blames a flat budget and rising operational and
personnel costs, but Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility says visitors to the affected
refuges will find a less enjoyable experience at no real
savings in tax dollars:
“All the cutbacks in the refuge system are less than what
we’re spending in Iraq in a day. I mean to put it in some
perspective, we’re talking about literally millions of
dollars versus billions of dollars that are being
hemorrhaged out of other government operations.”
Democratic Congressman Ron Kind co-chairs a caucus on
wildlife refuges. He says he’ll try to address the job cuts
in the next federal budget.
An environmental group is calling on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to monitor nuclear power plants more closely before there’s a severe accident. Lester Graham reports the group issued a report on nuke plants that have had problems:
Transcript
An environmental group is calling on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to monitor nuclear power plants more closely before there’s a severe accident. Lester Graham reports the group issued a report on nuke plants that have had problems:
The report from the Union of Concerned Scientists looked at problems that caused nuclear reactors to shut down for a year or more. It’s happened 51 times. The report found 36 of those year-plus outages were caused by “excessive” tolerance by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The nuclear industry notes there has not been a serious accident since Three Mile Island in 1979. The industry says if it can replace its aging plants, things will be even safer.
David Lochbaum is the author of the report. He says hold on, not until you fix the problem.
“Nuclear power plants are aging. But the conditions that led up to these year-plus outages need to be addressed to provide a proper foundation for any new nuclear power plants that are built. Otherwise we’ll just be replicating yesterday’s mistakes.”
The report includes six recommendations to identify and fix problems at nuclear power plants faster.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
People who buy a hybrid car or truck this year could get a bigger tax credit. The IRS has issued new tax credit guidelines for the purchase of hybrids. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:
Transcript
People who buy a hybrid car or truck this year could get a bigger tax credit. The IRS has issued
new tax credit guidelines for the purchase of hybrids. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Celeste Headlee reports:
Beginning this month, hybrid owners will be eligible for a tax credit of up to 3,400 dollars. That
money will be subtracted directly from what the taxpayer owes the IRS. Under previous tax law,
hybrid owners could only claim a 2,000 dollar tax deduction.
Don McKenzie is a Vehicles Engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says the new
law is a step forward because it’s performance based… vehicles with better fuel economy are
eligible for a higher tax credit.
But he says the credit is phased out after a company builds about 60,000 eligible vehicles… and
there’s another important component missing as well.
“It doesn’t require an increase in overall fleet fuel economy and it is possible that some
automakers could use increased sales of hybrid vehicles to offset increased sales of gas guzzlers.”
Automakers are responsible for getting their vehicles certified as eligible vehicles. They hope to
have vehicles certified beginning this summer.
Owners of hybrids like this Honda Insight could save on their taxes. (Photo courtesy of the National Park Service)
President Bush has signed a new energy bill that will raise tax savings for buyers of hybrid vehicles. Supporters predict high credits will boost sales of hybrids, and those cars will save gas. But some experts doubt the move will curb demand for oil. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee
reports:
Transcript
President Bush has signed a new energy bill that will raise tax savings for buyers of hybrid vehicles. Supporters predict high credits will boost sales of hybrids, and those cars will save gas. But some experts doubt the move will curb demand for oil. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:
Starting next year, hybrid-buyers could get up to three thousand dollars in tax credits, depending on the hybrid model. Sounds like a sweet deal, but some environmental groups doubt the move will translate into national fuel savings.
That’s because hybrids make up less than one percent of the car market. Congress didn’t require the other ninety-nine percent of cars to improve their fuel savings. David Friedman directs vehicle research for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“The only way we could have saved oil in this energy bill is if Congress had actually had raised fuel economy standards or set a real goal for saving, say, a million gallons of oil per day by 2015.”
Overall fuel savings might stall for another reason. The number of hybrid tax credits is limited to 60,000 per car maker. Toyota expects to sell more than 100,000 Prius hybrids this year alone.
Some federal lawmakers are concerned that the EPA's estimates on different cars' gas milages may be misleading consumers. (Photo courtesy of the National Institutes of Health)
Some federal lawmakers, along with a few environmental and consumers’ groups, want the Environmental Protection Agency to change the way it calculates a vehicle’s miles-per-gallon. They say your actual mileage will probably vary from the EPA’s figures. More from the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland:
Transcript
Some federal lawmakers, along with a few environmental and consumers’ groups, want the Environmental Protection Agency to change the way it calculates a vehicle’s miles-per-gallon. They say your actual mileage will probably vary from the EPA’s figures. More from the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland:
According to the EPA, my Ford Escort should get 33 miles per gallon. I wish. With the Fuel Efficiency Truth in Advertising Act, Congress could soon force the EPA to revise its fuel economy tests to reflect real-life conditions. David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists is among those who say a change is long overdue. He says the EPA created its current tests years ago.
“You wouldn’t evaluate how a student knows current events based on a test from the early 1970’s. So, it doesn’t make sense to be testing the fuel economy of our cars and trucks based on tests that are 30 years old.”
The EPA says your actual mileage depends on a number of factors, like how you drive and how you maintain your car. It says its carefully controlled lab tests are helpful in comparing one vehicle model to another.
Turbines like these not only could help produce energy from a renewable and seemingly infinite resource, but could also create thousands of new jobs, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
A new report says a national renewable energy policy could create thousands of new jobs in the Midwest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
A new report says a national renewable energy policy could create thousands of new
jobs in the Midwest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
The report by the Union of Concerned Scientists urges Congress to adopt a policy
requiring 20 percent of the nation’s energy to be produced using renewable sources
by the year 2020. Those sources could be wind, solar, or geothermal energy. The report
says such a policy could create thousands of new jobs in manufacturing, construction and
maintenance.
Jeff Deyette is an energy analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says
rural communities – especially farmers – could be the biggest winners under the proposal.
“Farmers that were chosen to have wind power facilities sited on their land could get up
to as much as $4,000 per turbine to lease on their property.”
Deyette says a national renewable energy standard could save consumers nearly 50 billion
dollars by 2020. He says that’s because increased competition from renewables would help
lower the demand and the price of natural gas.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.
