Investing in Cars of the Future

  • Both studies agree that we need more efficient cars (Photo by Karen Kelly)

Recently two reports on the future of automobiles came out. They looked at cars and trucks from very different perspectives, but came to some similar conclusions. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Recently two reports on the future of automobiles came out. They looked at cars and trucks from very different perspectives, but came to some similar conclusions. Lester Graham reports:

The first report was published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology. It looked at what it would take to get U.S. automobiles to reduce the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, enough to lower it to 1990 levels.

Why cars? Because cars and trucks produce a third of U.S. CO2 emissions.

Greg Keoleian is one of the authors at the University of Michigan. He says there are three things that need work.

We need to drive less, burn cleaner fuels, and, within about 40 years, increase the average fuel mileage way beyond the 20-miles per gallon we’re getting now.

“That would need to increase to 136 miles per gallon to meet the carbon targets. Alternatively, if we just focused on fuels, basically we’d need about 80% cellulosic ethanol by 2050. And the third scenario is a reduction in driving. It would mean we’d have to cut our driving in half by 2050.”

It’s unlikely we can accomplish any one of them, and the study’s authors suggest it’ll probably be a combination of more efficient cars, better fuels, and driving less if we’re to reduce greenhouse gases enough to make a difference.

The second report entitled ‘Envisioning an Uncertain Future’ comes from the Boston Consulting Group. It looks at the future of the automobile from a business perspective.

One of the authors, Xavier Mosquet, says the study assumes rising oil prices will force some changes.

“And that the pressure from the consumer on the governments will be so high that the governments will have to take energy actions to develop green products and green cars.”

But the report notes green cars will cost more – as much as 15,000 dollars more for hybrids or plug-in hybrids compared to standard cars.

“The consumer will look at these cars and say, ‘well, these are more expensive than I can pay.’ And therefore they’re not going to buy them. So, what I think the government has to do if they want to go that way is to look at the cost of putting those technologies on the market and either subsidizing the car’s manufacturers and suppliers or helping the consumer with much more tax incentives. Otherwise it will not happen.”

So, from a business perspective, the Boston Consulting Group report suggests without government help, manufacturers won’t build more efficient cars at a price we can afford. But we’ll need them because of high fuel prices.

The University of Michigan report on cars and climate change agrees the government will have a major role.

Author Greg Keoleian says if we take climate change seriously and are committed to doing something about it, we’ll have to change driving habits, encourage innovative manufacturers and invest government money.

“We are capable of doing this and the cost of climate change to society is tremendous. And each sector needs to play a major role in addressing the needs to reduce.”

The studies look at the future of the automobile from very different perspectives, but both agree we need more efficient cars and that won’t happen without the government pushing a little and helping a lot.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Senate Dems Revisit Climate Bill

  • Democrats in the Senate are talking about climate change policy. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

Democrats in the US Senate are talking about climate change legislation again. But its fate is uncertain. Tamara Keith reports from Washington:

Transcript

Democrats in the US Senate are talking about climate change legislation again. But it’s fate is uncertain. Tamara Keith reports from Washington:

Barbara Boxer is the senator who chairs the Environment and Public Works committee. The committee will be putting together the climate change legislation. A climate bill didn’t get anywhere last year in the senate, but Boxer says things have changed since then.

“A lot of those who voted against us are no longer here.”

But what’s not changed is the argument over how sweeping controls on carbon emissions could affect the economy. Those opposed call climate legislation a job-killer. Steve Cochran with the Environmental Defense Fund argues the opposite.

“If those of us who want to see strong climate policy are effective and articulate and persuasive on the jobs argument then I think we can actually get this done. And if we’re not I don’t think we will.”

Boxer said she didn’t know when the full senate would take up the legislation.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

An End to Gas Guzzling?

  • President Obama's recent announcement is a clear sign that tougher fuel efficiency standards will come sooner rather than later (Photo by Ben VonWaggoner)

The Bush Administration stopped California from setting stricter fuel efficiency standards. Now, President Obama says his administration might allow the standards to go forward. Mark Brush reports it’s a sign that big changes are ahead for car makers:

Transcript

The Bush Administration stopped California from setting stricter fuel efficiency standards. Now, President Obama says his administration might allow the standards to go forward. Mark Brush reports it’s a sign that big changes are ahead for car makers:

President Obama’s recent announcement is a clear sign that tougher fuel efficiency standards will come sooner rather than later.

Mark Gillies is the executive editor of Car and Driver Magazine. He says, if stricter standards are passed, automakers will have to make big changes to their entire fleets of cars and trucks.

“It’s like a super tanker. Trying to turn the super tanker around is not easy. Trying to get cars to the point where they’re 25% more fuel efficient in 6 years is not the work of the moment. You’re going to see some car makers manage to do it and some car makers won’t be able to do it.”

Gillies says if these new standards pass, you’ll see automakers scrambling to make more electric and hybrid cars. He says it could also curb development of sportier cars.

That’s because car companies might have to spend their resources developing the greener cars of the future.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Nyc to Turn Yellow Cabs Green?

  • NYC has new incentives to try to get more hybrid taxis, like this one, on the road (Source: Momos at Wikimedia Commons)

When big cities think about putting more fuel efficient, less polluting cars on the road, the first color that comes to mind isn’t green — it’s yellow. There are so many cabs on city streets, they seem like a good place to start environmental initiatives:

Transcript

When big cities think about putting more fuel efficient, less-polluting cars on the road, the first color that comes to mind isn’t green— it’s yellow. There are so many cabs on city streets, they seem like a good place to start environmental initiatives. In New York City, the mayor has a plan to replace conventional cabs with gas-electric hybrids. But not all taxi drivers are thrilled about the plan. Samara Freemark talked to some of them:

Ask a New York city cabbie what kind of car he drives, and chances are, this is what you’ll hear.

“Crown Vic.”

“Crown Vic.”

“Crown Vic.”

Cabbies love this car. It’s this big, solid, safe thing. It’s got a lot of leg room. It’s easy to repair.

But it burns a lot of gas. And that means a lot of pollution, especially when you realize that there are 13,000 cabs in New York City. All that pollution contributes to asthma, heart disease, and a mess of other health problems.

And that is why New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has it in for the Crown Victoria.

Bloomberg has a plan. He wants to use market incentives to encourage cab companies to buy hybrid.

“To turn NY City’s yellow cabs green.”

Cute slogan.

But Bloomberg isn’t messing around. Just ask the reporter who challenged the idea at a press conference.

“The taxi owners who oppose your plan say it’s deeply troubling that the city is…”

“I think it is more deeply troubling that they’re trying to kill our kids.”

Tough talk, right? But here’s how Bloomberg’s plan would actually work.

A lot of cabbies don’t own their own cars – they lease them from cab companies.

Bloomberg wants to lower the fee companies can charge drivers to take out Crown Victorias. So company owners would make less money on conventional cars.

And he wants to let cab companies charge drivers more to take out hybrids. Companies that chose those cars would make more money, giving them a reason to go green.

There’s something in it for the drivers, too. Although have to pay more to rent the hybrid cabs, they’d make up that money, and then some – a big chunk, actually – in gas savings. Bloomberg says hybrid cab drivers could save hundreds of dollars a year under his plan.

It sounded like a win-win-win situation: good for cabbies, good for cab companies, and good for the environment.

So I went out to the curb to ask some cabbies what they thought of the mayor’s idea.

“I wanted to ask you about hybrids.”

“Hybrid taxi? Yes.”

Sukhinder Singh hadn’t heard about Bloomberg’s plan, but he liked it.

“That’s not a bad idea. You’re not spending any extra money. 3, 4 dollars or 10 dollars extra, you know that later on when you go home you get it back because if you spend less on gas. It helps also for the pollution too. Lot of cabs around NYC, so all pollution.”

But a lot of cab drivers – especially veteran drivers – are not that enthusiastic. They are worried that hybrids aren’t safe. They are worried that hybrids are too small. They are worried about the time and money it takes to repair a hybrid. And most of all, cab drivers like Lal Singh are worried about giving up their Crown Victorias.

“Of course we wish not to pay more money for the gas. But I prefer to keep this poor Crown Victoria. This car makes us live. This Crown Victoria is a very big time strong car. These hybrids, they are not for taxi. They are very small, very unsafe, very unfit.”

So you get the idea – he doesn’t like hybrids.

And there’s one more problem with Bloomberg’s plan. It looked pretty good when it came out, when gas was 4 dollars a gallon. But prices now are about half that. That means cabbies don’t save that much money when they pick a hybrid. And so they have even less reason to give up their beloved Crown Vics.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Insecticide Chemical Is a Powerful Greenhouse Gas

  • Sulfuryl flouride, a chemical used to fumigate termite-infested buildings, is a potent greenhouse gas (Source: Esculapio at Wikimedia Commons)

The federal government is going to take some significant steps to reduce global warming gases. Carbon dioxide is the main target, but there are other types of greenhouse gases. Lester Graham spoke with one researcher who found a potent greenhouse gas lingers in the atmosphere much longer than previously thought:

Transcript

We hear a lot about carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. But there are other chemicals that trap heat and contribute to global warming. One of them is an insecticide used to fumigate termite-infested buildings. It’s called Sulfuryl fluoride. That insecticide is four-thousand times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. It’s been estimated that Sulfuryl flouride hangs around in the atmosphere for five years or so… but new research shows that it lasts a lot longer than that:

Mads Sulbaek Anderson is working with other researchers at the University of California-Irvine published a study in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

He’s with us now… first, how is this termite insecticide used?

“Well, it’s used in a number of applications. What the fumigators do is, they basically cover the house in a giant tent. And then you fill up the house with this compound, and over the span of a few days, one or two days, this compound acts like a pesticide- it kills all of these bugs. After that time span, you remove the tent, and make sure that all of this compound evaporates and dissipates.”

What did you discover about how long this insecticide actually stays in the atmosphere?

“The usual routes by which pollution is removed from the atmosphere has to do with reactions, and there’s something called an OH radical, a hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere. That’s the usual cleaner of the atmosphere. In this case, this radical didn’t react at all with the compound – we couldn’t detect anything.”

Is this a significant contributor to global warming, or greenhouse gases?

“It’s still a question of how much is actually present in the atmosphere right now. But, we know how much is used every year of this compound. And so this compound, right, it’s 4,000 times more efficient in trapping the heat compared to carbon dioxide. But of course, there’s not much of it out in the atmosphere yet. But it’s more a precautionary tale, because other compounds are being phased out for other reasons and so sulfuryl fluoride could take over for those applications, if we don’t think twice about this. And it stays around for at least a few decades. So, it’s not an enormous problem by itself- we have to focus on the real problem, which of course is due to emissions from burning fossil fuels. But this compound too contributes to the warming of the atmosphere, or could potentially do it.”

Mads Sulbaek Anderson is a researcher at the University of California-Irvine. Thank you.

“You are very much welcome.”

Related Links

States Band Together on New Gasoline Standard

  • The partnering states want to reduce the amount greenhouse gases coming from car tailpipes. (Photo by Ben VonWaggoner)

Eleven Northeastern states are working together to create a new fuel standard that will mean lower greenhouse gases.
Julie Grant reports that means, when you fill up your car in those states, the gas won’t be quite as bad for the environment:

Transcript

Eleven Northeastern states are working together to create a new fuel standard that will mean lower greenhouse gases.
Julie Grant reports that means, when you fill up your car in those states, the gas won’t be quite as bad for the environment:

The partnering states want to reduce the amount greenhouse gases coming from car tailpipes.

Ian Bowles is Secretary of Energy with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

He says the states would prefer that the federal government take the lead on this issue, but they’re doing what they can to limit carbon emissions from cars and trucks as soon as possible.

“If everyone waits and sits on their hands until there’s a global agreement, it’s going to take a long time to get anything done.”

Bowles expects the eleven-state agreement to spur investment into new types of ethanol and biofuels. And he says that will mean new jobs in science, engineering, and at fuel refineries.

“We’ll be creating a much bigger market for biofuels. Jobs will get created and greenhouse gasses will be cut.”

The states expect to have a legally binding agreement on the low carbon fuel standard by the end of the year.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Interview: Making Greenhouse Gases a Commodity

  • (Photo courtesy of the EPA)

We can expect Congress will take up a carbon

cap-and-trade bill soon. That would make

greenhouse gases a commodity. The United

States Climate Action Partnership wants to

know the rules of the carbon trading game

sooner rather than later. US CAP is made

up of businesses such as GE, automakers,

some power companies and environmental groups.

Other business leaders say a carbon cap-and-trade

program will only increase the cost of everything.

Dan Lashoff is with the Natural Resources Defense

Council, one of the US CAP members.

The Environment Report’s Lester Graham asked him

why the companies in US CAP would want Congress

to come up with a cap-and-trade program now?

Transcript

We can expect Congress will take up a carbon

cap-and-trade bill soon. That would make

greenhouse gases a commodity. The United

States Climate Action Partnership wants to

know the rules of the carbon trading game

sooner rather than later. US CAP is made

up of businesses such as GE, automakers,

some power companies and environmental groups.

Other business leaders say a carbon cap-and-trade

program will only increase the cost of everything.

Dan Lashoff is with the Natural Resources Defense

Council, one of the US CAP members.

The Environment Report’s Lester Graham asked him

why the companies in US CAP would want Congress

to come up with a cap-and-trade program now?

Dan Lashoff: The opportunity that we have, right now, is to, first of all, invest
billions of dollars in the economic stimulus package – which the Congress will be
taking up in the next couple of weeks, that President Obama has made clear he
wants to see a substantial portion of that investment go into clean energy
technologies: insulating homes, building a smart grid to carry renewable energy
around the country. So, there’s an immediate step that needs to take place to
get investment flowing, to jump-start the green energy economy that we need.
That should be quickly followed with the type of comprehensive climate policy
that US CAP has called for, because that will guide longer-term investments, it
will mobilize private capital that is needed to build the clean energy future that we
need to have. And that will put people to work installing wind turbines, installing
solar systems, insulating homes, insulating schools. And keep the investment
flowing, and actually create an export opportunity for companies that are making
clean and efficient energy systems that the world is going to increasingly
demand.

Lester Graham: President Obama has talked a lot about the green economy and
green-collar jobs that you just mentioned, but will those jobs actually offset the
economic pain that a cap-and-trade program is expected to cause?

Lashoff: Well, first of all, you have to realize, if we passed a cap-and-trade bill
tomorrow, the actual limits would not kick in until 2012 at the earliest, and, by that
time, hopefully, the economy is really moving forward. So, what the value of
passing the legislation now is that it sets the long-term agenda, it sets the
strategic agenda that’s going to reduce our emissions, and it mobilizes
investment flows. The actual price signal that is needed to discourage global
warming pollution actually wouldn’t kick in for a couple of years, and that actually
works quite well with the timing, that is appropriate given the current economic
crisis.

Graham: The 80% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2050 is exactly
what President Obama has suggested we do, but there still are enough
Republicans who hold enough seats in the Senate to block cap-and-trade if they
wanted to. What are the chances of having legislation like this passed?

Lashoff: Well, I’m very optimistic that with the momentum that the US CAP
proposal delivers, the strong business support from at least a significant portion
of the business community, certainly not universal, that we can move forward. It
certainly will require a bi-partisan effort. There will need to be Republicans
joining the Democratic majority in the Senate as well as in the House to enact
legislation. I think we can do that. I think that this proposal provides a lot of
insight into the types of provisions, in addition to the cap itself. Things like
energy efficiency investments that will hold down the costs for consumers,
approaches to dealing with concerns of the economic impact – that chose a
pathway to get legislation enacted, hopefully in 2009.

Related Links

Electricity From Factory Farms

  • Methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. (Photo by Bill Tarpenning, courtesy of the USDA)

Lots of people who live near big livestock farms complain
about the stench of manure. One of the by-products of all
that manure is methane gas – which can be used to create
electricity. More states are starting to offer tax breaks to
factory farms to make energy from their waste.
Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

Lots of people who live near big livestock farms complain
about the stench of manure. One of the by-products of all
that manure is methane gas – which can be used to create
electricity. More states are starting to offer tax breaks to
factory farms to make energy from their waste.
Julie Grant reports:

Several states around the nation are offering tax breaks to
encourage factory farms to capture the methane from their
cow manure – and to convert it into usable electricity.
Methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases contributing
to global warming.

You might think environmental groups would support the
idea. But Ed Hopkins of the Sierra Club says taxpayers
should not subsidize manure-to-energy projects.

“We see factory farms as a business. And like any business,
they should pay the costs for their pollution control
equipment – not the public.”

Hopkins says taxpayer money for manure to energy projects
will only encourage more factory farming and the other
pollution problems associated with those big operations.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Getting Consumers to Want Greener Cars

  • The Editor of Car and Driver Magazine suggests that customers will demand gas guzzlers as long as gas is cheap. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)

Some members of Congress called
for GM, Chrysler, and Ford to make more
fuel efficient and less polluting cars
and trucks during the debate over federal
loans for the Big Three. Lester Graham
reports one industry observer thinks that’s
not helpful:

Transcript

Some members of Congress called
for GM, Chrysler, and Ford to make more
fuel efficient and less polluting cars
and trucks during the debate over federal
loans for the Big Three. Lester Graham
reports one industry observer thinks that’s
not helpful:

Csaba Csere is the Editor of Car and Driver magazine. He says those forcing the
Detroit automakers to build greener cars is not the solution. He says customers will
demand gas guzzlers – as long as gas is cheap.

Csere suggests if the government really wants to change the kinds of cars Detroit
builds, it’ll have to give car buyers a reason to buy more fuel efficient cars.

“If we really wanted to have an energy policy in this country, the solution is not to
force the carmakers to build more efficient vehicles, it’s to force the consumers to
buy them. And a gas tax is a way to achieve that.”

He’s not advocating that policy. And a whole lot of people don’t like the idea – at all.
Members of Congress would rather pressure the troubled automobile manufacturers,
than to tell the voters at home, ‘hey we’re voting to raise taxes on gasoline because
it’s good for the environment.’

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Algae Fuel Aspirations

  • A net drags floating algae toward the boat (Photo by Ann Dornfeld)

Algae is attracting a lot of
attention and investment as an alternative
energy source. It grows quickly, contains
a lot of oil, and doesn’t take up valuable
farmland. Ann Dornfeld profiles one company
that’s trying to turn algae into fuel:

Transcript

Algae is attracting a lot of
attention and investment as an alternative
energy source. It grows quickly, contains
a lot of oil, and doesn’t take up valuable
farmland. Ann Dornfeld profiles one company
that’s trying to turn algae into fuel:

I’m standing on a pontoon boat floating just a few feet off the shore of a saltwater bay.
Two men are standing in the waist-deep water around the boat. They’re guiding a layer of
floating algae into a funnel that’s sucking the algae into a burlap bag.

(sucking sound)

It’s an algae harvest – and James Stevens is directing the process. He says they
have to be careful not to suck up young salmon or other animals along with the
algae.

“This junction can be turned on, and it allows me to feed water into a box where
then I can sort and make sure there’s no by-catch actually coming through the
system.”

Stevens is Vice President and Chief Scientist of Blue Marble Energy. It’s
a Seattle start-up trying to turn algae into fuel. Most algae-to-energy researchers
are growing algae in giant tanks. Blue Marble has a different plan: gather algae
that’s already growing in noxious blooms along coastlines.

(sound of waves)

Here in Dumas Bay, not far from Seattle, huge blooms of algae often rot in the
water. That process uses up oxygen and kills marine life. And when the dead algae
washes up on the beach, it creates a smell the neighbors hate.

Blue Marble President Kelly Ogilvie says these algae blooms are common
around Puget Sound – but that’s nothing compared to more polluted waterways
elsewhere in the world.

“And the most recent, I think, salient example was Qingdao, China. And the
bloom that occurred there was, I think, like 800 square miles and they pulled a
million tons out of the water and that is prologue to what is going to be happening
on coastlines across the planet.”

Warmer water can help algae grow, and some scientists think global warming is
contributing to an increase in gigantic blooms. Nutrients from sewage dumping
and fertilizer runoff from farm fields and lawns also help algae flourish.

“If you think about what is actually happening in our oceans, the algae bloom
crisis has just begun. And if we can find a way to turn that new crisis into a
solution to something else, by goodness we’re going to try and make a go at it.”

Most companies doing algae-to-energy research focus on creating biofuels for cars
or jets. Instead of liquid fuel, Blue Marble wants to convert algae into natural gas
and biochemicals.

Along with private investment, Blue Marble has a contract with the Washington
Department of Ecology to collect algae at two bays in Puget Sound.

The department’s Alice Kelly is watching today’s harvest from the beach. She says
her agency hopes this gets rid of the rotten egg smell neighbors have been
complaining about without hurting the ecosystem, the sealife near the shore.

“It’s very important to protect that habitat. So we’re walking a very fine line here
between trying to deal with the excess odor problem and protect the near shore.”

Blue Marble’s approach provides that protection, she says, because its operation is
based just offshore. They aren’t dragging equipment across the beach. And today,
it looks like the only by-catch has been other species of algae.

But some conservationists have big concerns about harvesting wild algae for fuel.

One of them is Kevin Britton-Simmons, a researcher at
the University of Washington. He says a lot of unnatural algae blooms could be
prevented by keeping fertilizer and other pollutants out of the water.

“I feel this is essentially exploiting the problem instead
of fixing it. I’m concerned if we allow a business to develop that’s dependant on
this problem, what’s gonna happen when we fix the problem? Will there then be
pressure for this business to harvest natural populations of algae?”

Natural blooms are a valuable part of the food web, and he says removing them
could rob marine life of a major food source. He says it’s also hard to distinguish
between natural algae blooms and those caused by pollution.

(sound of waves)

Back on Dumas Bay, Kelly Ogilvie says his company has netted nearly 10,000 pounds of algae from the two harvests it’s completed. The next step is to
use bacteria to break down the algae into natural gas and various chemicals.

If all goes as planned, Ogilvie says Blue Marble’s first batch of natural gas will be
ready any day now.

For The Environment Report, I’m Ann Dornfeld.

Related Links