Electric Vehicle Emissions Are No Secret

The title of the WSJ opinion piece (“Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret”) implies that nobody really knew that manufacturing EVs creates more global warming pollution than manufacturing gasoline cars. That is just not true. In fact, many organizations have been looking at the manufacturing impacts of EVs for more than a decade. MIT did great work on the issue back in 2000 in their On the Road in 2020 report and followed that up with On the Road in 2035. Carnegie Mellon University’s Vehicle Electrification Group regularly looks at the issue. And Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) has made their GREET Lifecycle Model publicly availablefor years.

In areas of the country where most electric vehicles are sold, their lifetime carbon footprint is about half that of a comparable gasoline car even when you include emissions from making the vehicle. That’s because manufacturing emissions pale in comparison to those created in-use for gasoline.

The fact is that making electric cars does create some additional global warming pollution, but the in-use emissions savings far outweigh the extra emissions from manufacturing. In other words, they are not so dirty and no secret after all.

Vehicle Global Warming Emissions by the Numbers

My colleague already addressed this EV manufacturing vs. in-use emissions issue in a blog last year, but given the WSJ piece, let me add to that discussion.

First, data from the ANL work indicates that nearly 90 percent of a compact car’s carbon footprint comes from making gasoline, transporting it, and then burning it in the car. Only about 10 percent comes from making the vehicle. ANL also indicates that carbon emissions from manufacturing are 33 percent higher for a comparable EV.

Second, most electric vehicles are being sold in areas of the country like California, Washington, and New York, where electricity comes mainly from natural gas, hydropower, and nuclear plants, not coal. Our organization’s study on EV emissions—State of Charge—shows that such grids will lead to an in-use global warming emissions reduction of 60 to 70 percent. That’s better than even the best hybrid cars on the market today.

When you add in Argonne National Laboratory estimates of emissions from making the vehicle with our in-use emissions estimates for places where most EVs are operating, an electric car will still cut carbon emissions in half compared to a gasoline version. And as you will see below, electric cars are still cleaner than gasoline when you look at other parts of the country with dirtier grids.

The Real Dirty Little Secret

The real “dirty little secret” in the WSJ piece is that the author, Bjorn Lomborg, has a history of selectively using information to fit his opinion rather than allowing his opinion to be shaped by all the facts. For example, in his past work on climate, Lomborg cherry-picked information to present a skewed view of how to combat global warming.

In this new piece on EVs, he does exactly the same kind of cherry-picking. He relies on an outlier study that estimates that EV manufacturing emissions are twice those of gasoline cars. He then goes even farther by using an example where the EV is charged from the dirtiest electricity possible, coal.  But, even with these extreme assumptions, my colleague showed that an EV still has an emissions advantage compared to the average new compact.

Lomborg did not stop there, however. He also assumed that an EV would travel at least two-thirds fewer miles over its life compared to a gasoline car. In other words, he assumed that EVs would fail. Honestly, he could have saved us a lot of time if he’d just stated that unfounded and unsupported assumption up front.

Help Focus on Electric Vehicle Facts Over Fiction

If you’re as concerned about the WSJ piece and other unsubstantiated EV critiques as I am, I’d like to ask for your help. When you see an op-ed or editorial that seems to rely on cherry-picked data or fact-challenged claims to spread fiction on EVs, push back by writing a letter to the editor to get the facts out.

We’ve got some resources to help. You can find tips on effective letters on our website, and also see our State of Charge report and Model E web resource for more information on EVs. And you can generally find information you might need if you keep up with my blog and that of my colleague, and if you follow me on Twitter.

While some think that repeating bogus or misleading claims over and over will make them true, we prefer to rely on the facts. And when you look at those, it is clear that electric vehicles are already delivering big benefits and will deliver even more as electricity gets even cleaner.

update 3/15/13: edited spelling in the chart

So, would a proposed trust help or hurt efforts to cut oil use? Or is it too soon to tell?

It’s complicated

A blueprint released by the White House outlined the research areas that may benefit from the trust. Based on that, the trust fund could help provide much-needed resources to improve technologies, like hydrogen fuel cell and battery electric vehicles and low-carbon biofuels, that can curb oil use in our cars and trucks. But I want to lay out a few key questions that need to be addressed if the concept moves forward.

Will the trust really bring new R&D money?

Funding for Energy Research and Development has been too small for too long. But some questions need to be explored before we know how much the President’s Energy Security Trust will help.*

Historically, energy research and development (R&D) has gotten much less funding compared to areas like defense, health, and space exploration—especially when it comes to R&D for renewable energy and efficiency. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helped deliver a temporary boost in renewables and efficiency R&D, but the challenges of climate change, volatile gas prices, and the other high costs of our oil use continue to loom large. So, more R&D money would help.

Based on a White House official cited in a  New York Times blog, the trust could raise $200 million a year for the Department of Energy. Given that the DoE’s main energy efficiency and renewable energy research office (EERE) has a potential 2013 budget of about $2 billion, the trust could represent a 10 percent increase overall, and a 25 percent boost if you look only at their transportation related budget.

A 25 percent boost in transportation R&D seems like a big step forward, but the EERE might never see that money even if the trust idea gains traction. Why? Well, in the current fiscal atmosphere, I could easily see some in Congress arguing to cut EERE appropriations by the exact same amount generated by the trust. That would be a mistake, resulting in no real benefit for clean energy/tech development.

How will the trust impact drilling?

The trust sets up an interesting paradigm: funding R&D on ways to cut oil use but using oil money to do it. Could this funding structure bring with it unintended consequences of increasing pressure for drilling?

The Administration noted that the money would come from drilling that currently occurs on public lands and waters, though the proposal does assume some increased drilling as part of business as usual. Still, there seems a real risk that the price of putting guaranteed money in for the trust could be a demand by some to increase drilling in return. For example, Senator Murkowski has also proposed a trust in her 20/20 Energy Blueprint, but the money is explicitly tied to increased drilling. That would be a mistake too.

More drilling would certainly benefit the oil companies—$33 out of every $50 you spend at the pump is taken in by oil companies—but it would not help the rest of us. Oil companies will sell what they drill to the highest bidder in the U.S. or around the world (either as oil or as a refined product like diesel or gasoline), so we won’t see any significant relief at the pump. All we’ll see is more pollution and an economy that remains vulnerable to oil and gasoline price spikes.

So what should the President do on oil?

No matter what happens with the trust proposal, I expect the President knows that it won’t be enough. We must also commit the nation to the steps that will cut our oil use in half over 20 years.

The President’s statement that he will act to protect future generations from climate change if Congress does not is key to those steps. He already has the authority to set smart and strong standards to cut emissions and oil use from cars, trucks, trains, planes, and ships, which would go a long way towards saving consumers money and truly insulating us from the high costs of oil.

This means the President will have to build on the impressive progress he’s already made on cars and trucks, while working to make even more progress on both and introducing standards for other parts of the transportation sector. He will also have to reinvigorate and expand advanced vehicle technology manufacturing grants and loans and support for better biofuels. It is not enough to do the research; we also need to get clean car and fuel technologies “Made in America” and on our roads. And all of this requires Americans to speak up and urge the President to dramatically cut oil use.

At the end of the day, the trust could contribute to progress, but many questions remain. What is clear is that more drilling will not address the problems our oil use presents to our economy, our health, our national security, or our environment. The only way to address the problems of our oil use is to use a lot less.

________________________

* Image Source: Figure 3 from Nemet, G. F. and D. M. Kammen (2007). “U.S. energy research and development: Declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion.” Energy Policy 35(1): 746-755 at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421505003551

My Electric Car Is the Best

Recently, the intertubes have been filled with people pitting one electric vehicle technology against another. Reuters declared the imminent death of battery electric cars, while indicating that the Next Big Thing might be hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (others have taken it even further). Supporters of plug-in hybrids are also casting doubt about battery electric cars, something GM started to do when they first came out with the Chevy Volt. Some also pushed back with context on past failures on fuel cell vehicle progress.

All of this comes after a successful year in which battery electric car sales grew by 20 percent and plug-in hybrid sales more than quadrupled (data from Wardsauto.com, behind paywall). At the same time, there’s good news that automakers are partnering with one another on fuel cells to put cars on the road soon. But perceptions of the success and good news is fueling, not stopping the fight.

Infighting Will Doom Electric Cars

In the long run, the rivalry between electric car technologies is a fight over who gets what role in a market that has an annual U.S. revenue stream of $300-$400 billion. But electric car infighting has real and harmful consequences because the game is fundamentally rigged in favor of the incumbent: oil.

As I’ve noted before, even under conservative estimates, the U.S. oil and gas industry has been getting billions in annual subsidies for nearly 100 years. And the U.S. is not alone. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that fossil fuels got over $500 billion in subsidies around the world during 2011—a big chunk of which goes to oil. That’s six times the amount that went to renewable energy.

On top of all of that, oil companies are raking in the money. You spend almost as much on gas as you do on your car. In fact, oil companies take in two-thirds of what you spend on gas—that’s $33 out of every $50 you spend at the pump—and they use it to fuel their record profits.

Yes, electric vehicles and other clean tech get some help too, and it is being put to good use. But recent stimulus funds have been the exception, not the rule. With a playing field so tilted, an oil-based outcome is almost a foregone conclusion. Leaving the oil industry laughing as different electric vehicle technology supporters fight for something only slightly better than scraps instead of working together to end oil subsidies and share a much bigger pie.

Keep Your Eye on the (Climate, Economic, and National Security) Prize

As part of a portfolio of solutions, electric vehicles can help halve, and ultimately eliminate emissions and oil use from our cars.

The whole reason we’re talking about electric vehicles in the first place is because we need real solutions to the climate, economic, and national security problems inherent in oil. It is pretty clear that electric vehicles of one form or another will need to dominate the marketplace by about 2040 if we are to meet our climate goals and effectively end the use of oil in our cars. The IEA is on the same page. And while they may not buy the goals, both car and oil companies actually agree on the path to meet them. That’s part of why I love electric cars.

At the same time, ALL electric vehicle technologies face real challenges in addition to the rigged game in which they have to play. Some face greater hurdles than others, but the big picture here is that we need many solutions to cut our oil use, starting with the goal of halving it over 20 years.  Nobody knows which electric vehicle technology will win out. It may take more than a decade to sort it out and there will likely be different solutions for different parts of the vehicle market. Meanwhile, oil companies will take advantage of the uncertainty and infighting.

So, enough with the arguing. The clean car race is a marathon and there will be plenty of room to jockey for position once we get past the first few miles. Instead, let’s do something about that polluting monster-truck of an oil industry that’s trying to stop the race before it can really even get going. Otherwise, all electric vehicle technologies will be left in a constant state of uncertainty, without the popular and financial support needed to get out of the technology valley of death.

A Campaign Promise Kept

When first running for office, candidate Obama promised to cut U.S. oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, take 50 million cars-worth of pollution off the road, and save Americans more than $50 billion on gasoline.

Soon after taking office, the President set in motion steps to deliver on this promise. Following a key Supreme Court decision backing the Clean Air Act and the scientific finding that carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gases endanger our health and welfare, he directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop a harmonized set of fuel economy rules and the nation’s first greenhouse gas standards for cars and light trucks.

Over the course of two rulemakings and in partnership with California, those two agencies put in place standards that will nearly double the fuel economy of new cars and light trucks and cut their global warming emissions in half by 2025. On top of that, those same agencies set the world’s first greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for new commercial trucks, from heavy-duty pickups to garbage trucks to big-rigs, covering 2014 to 2018.

Based on our analysis and that of others, Politifact is now rating Obama’s oil saving goal as a promise kept. By our calculations, the combination of the three standards will deliver oil savings reaching 2.6 million barrels per day by 2025. In that year alone, the combined standards will save consumers about $120 billion, even after paying for the improved vehicle technology, and will cut global warming emissions by the equivalent of taking over 70 million typical cars and light trucks off the road for a year. These savings will continue to grow, reaching more than 4 million barrels per day by 2035, with even more money in consumers’ pockets and emissions saved.

We have the technology and innovative solutions to cut projected U.S. oil use in half in 20 years. Now we need a national commitment to turn the plan into a reality.

Commit to Half the Oil, Because We Can ½ It!

After an election season filled with cynicism about politicians and the role of government, it is really refreshing to look back and see that candidates can fulfill their promises and that our government can work very well in the interest of Americans.

It is in that light that we need to challenge the President to go even farther and set his sights even higher. The President can and should keep up the oil, emissions, and money savings momentum in his second term by committing the nation to cut our projected oil use in half over the next 20 years. My analysis for the UCS Half the Oil plan (halftheoil.org) shows that we could achieve that goal through a combination of efficiency and innovative alternatives to burning oil to get around.

If the President expands on the kind of steps his administration has already taken, he could meet his 2.5 million barrels per day oil savings goal by about 2020, five years earlier. And if we keep up the pace, including medium and heavy-duty truck standards that double fuel economy; setting similar standards for planes, trains, and ships; and ramping up investments in electric cars, better biofuels, and more efficient ways to move people and goods and fuel our homes and industry, we could cut the use of oil and other petroleum products in the U.S. down to 10-11 million barrels per day in about 20 years.

Keeping a Promise to Our Children

On election night last November, President Obama made another promise. He committed to take bold action to reclaim our nation’s legacy as the “global leader in technology and discovery and innovation” and to ensure our children grow up unafraid of the “destructive power of a warming planet.”

Fulfilling this climate promise means dramatically cutting the use of oil and other petroleum products, the largest source of global warming emissions in the U.S. Reclaiming our nation’s technology and innovation legacy means becoming a global leader in the transportation technology that will dramatically cut oil use. And giving American’s real relief from the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year on oil and the recessions caused by oil price spikes means dramatically cutting oil use.

Or, to put it more simply, using less is the real oil solution.

Of course, let’s not kid ourselves. If the President works to fulfill this promise, he’s going to get a lot of push back. Oil companies and their allies are making a killing selling us oil in its many forms and they are going to fight hard to block the progress that would mean more money in our pockets and less in theirs.

So, let the President know that you are tired of the high costs and many problems our oil use creates. Tell him you will fight alongside him as oil companies push back, and urge him to keep his promise to our children and commit to making the Half the Oil Plan a reality.

WATCH: See the Half the Oil Plan in Action

Using less oil is practical, achievable, and benefits us all. Yet one powerful group is intent on blocking progress. Who’s standing in the way? See for yourself.

Massive federal support for well established, highly profitable oil companies is a waste

A study by DBL Investors shows the oil and gas industry has enjoyed massive subsidies for nearly a century, and we’ve got today’s high and volatile gasoline prices, pollution, oil spills, and myriad other problems to show for it.

A study by DBL Investors found that from 1918 through 2009, the oil and gas industries received an average of $4.9 billion per year in U.S. government support. That’s $450 billion handed over to the oil and gas companies with today’s high and volatile gasoline prices, pollution, oil spills, and myriad other problems to show for it.

Given what we did not know about the impacts of carbon emissions on our global climate at the time and the benefits oil did provide, it made sense for the federal government to help get the oil industry in gear a century ago. But that time is long past. Oil companies are making massive profits from selling oil, and with prices where they’ve been for the last five years, they don’t need any added incentive to drill for more.

Federal support for clean tech is essential to get out of the “valley of death”

Instead, doesn’t it make sense for the U.S. to help companies that are investing in battery technologies that will save us billions on gas, create jobs, protect our health, reduce global warming emissions, and help us cut our projected oil use in half in 20 years?

Of course it does.

But, the Journal, Koch Industries, and others are now arguing that we should simply end all energy subsidies. Don’t let this new position shock you. It is easy to call for an end to all energy subsidies when your industry has enjoyed them for almost a century and your competition is still in the proverbial technology “valley of death.”

That’s where technologies with immense promise, but large research and capital requirements, are often left to wither—exactly from where electric vehicle technologies, like batteries and fuel cells, are trying to emerge with the help of federal investments.

Maintain the U.S. as a global technology leader

Batteries, fuel cells, and other clean technologies are essential to build a strong economic future based on lower costs and cleaner air while maintaining the U.S. as a global technology leader for the 21^st century.

If we don’t invest to get these promising technologies out of the valley of death, China is more than happy to take yet another energy-saving U.S. technology and sell it back to us for a profit while the Journal keeps us distracted using the challenges of building a clean energy industry as a political cudgel. Instead of the Journal continuing to be part of the problem, it should try to be part of the solution.

So, keep an eye out on the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed pages and write them a letter when their hypocrisy on federal support for energy rears its head again.

_______________________________

** WSJ Links not available at time of posting, used Google cached versions instead.

Image source: Page 7, DBL investors report, “What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future”

Not one, but two companies are vying for control of battery assets

The competition over the assets of battery maker A123 is good news for the manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

Wisconsin’s Johnson Controls Inc. and China’s Wanxiang have been making bids and/or threatening legal action as they jockey for position in the race to snatch up the assets of A123. Those assets include battery technologies, and some contracts, for hybrid and electric vehicles, U.S. military applications, electric grid/backup power storage, and replacements for lead-acid batteries in a wide variety of other applications. A123 also has U.S. research and manufacturing facilities in Michigan, Massachusetts, and Missouri.

Wanxiang had been looking to invest in A123 as far back as August, but that effort ruffled feathers due to the risk of losing valuable intellectual capital to China, not to mention the A123 military contracts. Johnson Controls then stepped in around the time of the A123 bankruptcy, which appears to be the catalyst for financial and legal wrangling that is far beyond my expertise to follow.

A bargain for all the right reasons

Whoever gets the assets, it will be a bargain for all the right reasons. These companies would not be fighting to get ahold of A123’s technology and factories if they were worthless. They know better than to throw good money after bad.

Instead, they realize that electric cars are charging forward, as I noted in the National Journal’s blog last week. With triple the sales of last year and a promising future thanks to long-sighted investors and smart policies like government support for clean tech and California’s Zero Emissions Vehicle program, electric cars can move us closer to a Half the Oil future.

Photo credit: A123 Systems

Here are some top line observations from digging into the sales data at Wardsauto.com. (Spoiler Alert: Hybrids are hot and electric vehicles are on the move.)

Hybrid sales are up almost 50% over last Model Year

Hybrid vehicle sales are booming, up 50% from last Model Year, led by Toyota and GM.

A lot of the car talk I’ve been following these last few months has been about plug-in electric vehicle sales, but there’s been big progress on conventional hybrids, and that deserves attention too.

Hybrid sales grew by more than 130,000 between MY11 and MY12. That’s more than 50 percent growth, which is impressive by itself. But, even more impressive: Hybrid sales grew more than four times as fast as the rest of the vehicle market in MY12. We’ll have to see how this plays out over the next few years, but it is a good sign that hybrids are taking up new market share.

GM picks up the hybrid pace

Two companies led the way in expanding the hybrid market in MY 12: GM and Toyota. GM boosted their hybrid sales by almost 30,000 vehicles, capturing about 7 percent of the hybrid market (up from 2 percent last year). This growth relied on their relatively “mild” hybrid system which was included as an option the Buick LaCrosse and Regal and the Chevy Malibu. This system, called e-Assist, delivers up to a 25 percent boost in fuel economy over a comparable 4-cylinder model. For MY13 e-Assist is now standard on the baseline Buick Regal and Lacrosse models, so we should expect further growth in the coming months.

Toyota expands leadership as hybrid king

The really impressive numbers, however, came from Toyota, which boosted their hybrid sales by more than 70 percent this Model Year, compared to only a 23 percent growth in total U.S. sales. Toyota was already king of the hybrids, but this year they actually expanded their dominance, controlling 75 percent of the hybrid market, up from 60-70 percent since 2009. The Prius led the sales growth, but it was quickly followed by expanded sales from the Camry Hybrid and sales of the new Prius c.

I’m sure some of this growth was the release of pent up demand as Toyota recovered from the tsunami that crippled major production lines last year. But, plenty of their other models were affected as well, so this seems like real growth.  Exhibit A is that hybrids now account for 15 percent of all of Toyota’s U.S. sales, that’s more than 1 out of every 7 vehicles Toyota sells here. Their hybrids had been stuck at 10 percent of Toyota’s U.S. sales since 2007 (i.e. both before and during the tsunami year).

Plug-in electric vehicle sales have tripled

I blogged on plug-in electric vehicles last month, so I also wanted to revisit those numbers with the final Model Year data. Overall, it is a picture of significant plug-in growth with some bumps in the road that might require added effort on the part of automakers and policymakers to keep the technology in gear.

MY12 sales of plug-ins are about triple those of last year. With sales of over 37,000 units in their second year on the market, plug-ins have about doubled the sales of hybrids from back in MY01, their second model year on the market. It is hard to make any exact comparison with a decade in between, but I remain very impressed at the strength of the early electric vehicle market especially considering the myriad of bigger barriers they face than did hybrids 10 years ago.

Plug-In electric vehicle sales have tripled over last Model Year, with plug-in hybrids leading the charge.

This impressive growth was driven mainly by plug-in hybrids (PHEV), whose sales more than sextupled (yes, I had to look that up to make sure it was right for 6X). Chevy Volt sales grew by a factor of nearly 5 while the plug-in Prius arrived in its first year by doubling the sales of the Volt from its first year.

Battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales are up about one-third versus last model year. That’s also good news, though several models weren’t available for the full MY11. There are also concerns about some vehicles, particularly the Nissan Leaf, which has lost market share to new BEV models.

To turn things around, it looks like Nissan will be offering a less expensive Leaf by no longer forcing consumers to purchase extra luxury features they may not want. We’ve talked a lot about automakers pushing forced features on hybrid buyers as part of our hybrid scorecard, so it is good that Nissan is getting this message on BEVs.

Closing caveat

Let me end with what I think will become my standard disclaimer.  As an engineer and numbers geek, I find all of this fascinating. But, the engineer in me also knows very well that we shouldn’t get too hung up on the horse race because it takes time for high-tech vehicles to make progress.

We can cut our projected oil use in half over the next 20 years and both conventional hybrids and electric vehicles will play a major role. The sales figures back this up: They show a steadily growing consumer acceptance of electric vehicles, just what you would expect from a developing market that is much more a marathon than a sprint.

What could be more self-destructive than nations risking conflict in the formerly frozen north to get MORE of the fossil fuels that are driving climate change, especially when there’s a solution that could reduce conflict, save consumers money, AND help cut global warming pollution?

As climate change contributes to record low Arctic sea ice, a growing international military presence creates potential for conflict.

“Cold War” references are no joke

Don’t be tempted to write off the use of “cold” as just a turn of phrase that works because we’re talking about Arctic oil (though it IS that as well). An article in the Guardian a few months back looked even deeper into the military buildup in the Arctic this summer as sea ice receded. The countries involved in the buildup include Canada, Norway, Russia, and the United States plus NATO. Meanwhile, China is building economic ties and good will to create a foothold in the Arctic.

All of this is a natural expansion of the role global militaries and politics have played in oil for much of this century, either directly securing oil resources at times of war or supporting stability in oil-producing nations. The same kind of role that U.S. military exercises are currently playing in the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most important choke points for oil supply.

Oil, the U.S. military, and a new battlefield

The U.S. military is also playing a different role when it comes to oil: finding ways to use a lot less. As my colleague discussed a few months ago, the U.S. Air Force and Navy are looking to biofuels to cut our exposure to the risks of oil. The U.S. Army is supporting research to boost fuel economy in troop transports and improve efficiency in tanks. And the U.S. Pacific Command began operating a fleet of fuel cell electric cars this year.

Retired military leaders are also playing an important role by highlighting the need to use a lot less oil. Last year, the CNA’s Military Advisory Board called for a national goal for a major reduction in oil use. This year, in the Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC), a group of retired leaders from all branches of the military and from several major U.S. corporations, issued a report on oil use and solutions. The ESLC, a project of Securing America’s Energy Future, was very clear that reducing the risks of oil, “…can only be accomplished by reducing the role of oil in our economy.”

Half the Oil: Half the headaches, half the carbon

My hope is that the ESLC’s conclusion is not too surprising to you. If you’ve read our Half the Oil plan, you know that the simplest and most effective way to insulate our economy from the risks of oil use is to use a lot less. It is also the most effective way to cut carbon emissions from oil.

Which brings me back to the irony that started this conversation: We’re only talking about a potential “cold war” over oil in the Arctic because fossil-fueled climate change has contributed to Arctic sea ice receding to its lowest extent since scientists have been keeping track. So, whether you are frustrated about oil because of its military, climate, economic, public health, or other risks, please do your best to cut back on your own oil use and help us encourage the President to put the nation on a path to Half the Oil in 20 years.

————————————————————

Image Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Feature Image Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center, Julienne Stroeve

It turned out to me that it was almost all good news, which made me realize that we all need to be careful to not read too much into the horse race data and to avoid getting wrapped up in the sales hype that comes with each new vehicle introduction.

Plug-in vehicles are ahead of the pace set by hybrids

This is the second year since plug-in electric vehicles have returned to the U.S. market and they are doing pretty well. With four months left in 2012, over 25,000 plug-ins have been sold in the United States according to data from WardsAuto.com (subscription required). That is almost triple the 9,428 that were sold at the same point in 2011. It also ignores modest plug-in sales from Coda, Fisker, and Tesla because public information on their sales was not consistently available for the year.

A near tripling in sales is stunning enough by itself, but wait, there’s more. In 2001, the second full year of conventional hybrid sales in the United States, combined sales of the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius were about 20,300 units (again according to data from WardsAuto.com). That means that in just 8 months, plug-in EVs have already beaten 12 months worth of sales of conventional hybrids during a comparable period after market introduction. That is an impressive feat given the higher incremental cost of plug-in EVs compared to conventional hybrid electric vehicles, not to mention the state of our economy.

Plug-in hybrids are through the roof

So, where is all this growth coming from? The market so far in 2012 was split roughly 27%/73% between pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), but it was the latter that saw the growth.

Plug-in electric vehicle sales have tripled so far in 2012, with plug-in hybrids in the driver’s seat and battery electric vehicles holding steady.

Chevy Volt PHEV sales have been impressive, increasing by about a factor of four so far over the same 8 months last year.  In addition, the new plug-in Prius has nearly doubled the sales of the Volt from the same time last year. Together, they are responsible for nearly 20,000 units so far in 2012.

Battery EV options expand

The story for battery EVs is a bit more complicated. If you look only at the most popular BEV, the Nissan Leaf, you might start to raise an alarm. Leaf sales in the U.S. are down 31% compared to the same 8 months in 2011.

But the Leaf now faces competition from five other pure electric cars (see figure). Total BEV sales are actually about the same as they were last year, assuming modest growth from Tesla and Coda. The increased competition with flat sales almost makes the market look crowded as the new entrants appear to be cannibalizing the space that was held almost exclusively by the Leaf last year.

You can’t spin this as “good” news for BEVs, but I’m also not convinced it is bad news. BEVs face greater barriers than HEVs or PHEVs. Right or wrong, a stigma has been created about range anxiety, there’s not enough workplace charging infrastructure out there yet, some manufacturers aren’t doing the best job marketing their BEVs, consumers in key markets are having a hard time getting access to low electricity rates for nighttime charging, and costs still need to come down further. And if that were not enough, there has been negative publicity driven by politics, limited vehicle availability from some automakers, and a tough economy.

At the end of the day, I’d say that BEVs are just getting warmed up but they need more help to thrive.

Plug-ins are doing well, but don’t be blinded by unrealistic hype

Overall these numbers are encouraging. A near tripling in plug-in EV sales means a lot more batteries are being made, which will help drive down costs and/or allow for greater range. (There are already rumors of a 2013 Leaf with either longer ranger or lower cost.) The increased sales also mean that many more people are saving money on gas while becoming familiar with this new technology, an essential step to transition EVs from the early adopter market to the mainstream.

But I have to close with an important caveat. Despite the time I took to put these numbers together, I want to encourage you not to read too much into any of them.

Realistically, it is going to take at least a decade (and possibly more) for the plug-in market to shake out. I’d consider a national EV sales share of 5 percent in 10 years to be a huge success, but from all the excitement that surrounds the launch of a new EV, you’d think that was a pittance.

The real problem may be that automakers and others tend to hype new EV products by predicting revolutionary sales, when we should instead set the more realistic expectation that this is about market evolution.

So, what do you think? Do these numbers tell YOU anything about plug-ins? And what needs to be done to help this important technology become a success?

Steve Bantz, a special soul. May he rest in peace.

Steve was a remarkable person. He cared so passionately about the people and the world around him that he spent the week in DC to work for UCS, returning to be home with his wife in Afton, VA only on the weekends (a commute of about 3 hours each way).

Steve joined us to work on biofuels. Before Steve, we’d dabbled, but did not have the capacity to dive in with much depth. Steve helped us open the door wide on a difficult issue that has only gotten trickier since. He was a talented engineer who dove into the numbers and helped us all better understand the technology and its issues. He also had an impressive knack for visualizing concepts. In working on a report he would sift through photos, cartoons, or easy-to-read graphics that made the science explainable—always with a big smile on his face as he quested to find just the right one.

We at UCS will always be indebted to him for his contributions. And I will always be indebted to him because of how he helped me open my mind with his work and with stories of his life, his travels, his wonderful wife, and his farm.

After UCS, Steve shared his passion and knowledge by teaching science and engineering to middle and high school students before eventually returning to work as an engineer.

Though his loss brings darkness, Steve’s memory, like his life, brings light.

____________________________________________

Photo used with permission from Steve’s Facebook page.

Cutting Car Carbon Emissions in Half: A Triumph By The People

Last year, the Obama administration proposed new rules that would double the fuel economy of new cars and light trucks and cut their global warming pollution in half by 2025. The year before that, the administration finalized standards that will get the ball rolling by cutting new vehicle global warming pollution 25% by 2016. Together, these policies will reduce global warming pollution by some 640 million metric tons in 2030—the equivalent of shutting down nearly 140 average-size coal-fired power plants for a year. They will also save Americans $150 billion in 2030 alone, after covering the cost of the fuel efficient technology. When it comes to benefits for the people, it is hard for any single government action to get cooler and smarter than that!

Nearly 150 years ago President Lincoln summed up better than anyone the kind of nation we must work to protect—the kind of nation that can overcome any challenge.

The newest round of standards is expected to be finalized this summer. I’m not going to count my chickens before they hatch, but unless oil interests and others do some back room sabotage, this will be a triumph of government relying on the best science to make decisions in the best interest of the people.

But it will also be a triumph of efforts by the people. During the first round of standards, thousands of people wrote to the administration supporting efforts to cut global warming pollution from vehicles. After the second round was proposed, over 280,000 people weighed in with the administration to support doubling fuel economy. Hundreds also packed hearing rooms to make sure their voices were heard in Detroit, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Many also wrote letters to the editor of their local or national paper calling for better cars and less oil use.

Making Government Work for Us

These are exactly the kind of things we’re encouraging everyone to do as part of our practical advice on low-carbon living. Cooler Smarter is a guide to personal action, challenging you to cut your carbon emissions 20 percent this year, but personal action comes in many more forms. That’s why the last third of the book is dedicated to tips on how you can multiply the impact of your choices by the hundreds, thousands, and millions by getting involved in your community, your workplace, and your government.

Never talked to your neighbors or uncle about ways to cut back on energy use? We can help you think through how to reach them in the ways that will motivate change. Never written a letter to the editor on solutions to climate change, we’ve got tips for you. And if you’ve never engaged your representatives or other members of government on the urgency of climate change and benefits of climate solutions, Cooler Smarter  can help you be part of a climate victory like the one we’re getting on clean cars.

You may be frustrated by policymaker inaction on climate change, but America is still a country grounded in the principle of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We’ve got to work hard every day to get closer to that ideal and a key part of that is making sure that our voices are heard when it comes to climate change. And when that chorus gets loud enough, we will change the world for the better.

____________________________________

Photo Credit: Artist is Elihu Vedder (1836–1923). Photographed 2007 by Carol Highsmith (1946–)

The book’s lead author guest blogged about the 21 tons of greenhouse gas emissions the average American is responsible for emitting each year. And if you look at this figure in his blog, you will see that personal transportation stands out at 28 percent of that total, more than any other category. As you will see below, the biggest-by-far portion of that comes from our daily driving.

Auto Emissions: The Pac-Man Principle

To understand why our daily driving is such a big part of our personal carbon emissions, you just have to look at a few numbers. (Geek alert, my love affair with numbers continues.)

• There are about 240 million cars and light trucks on U.S. roads—that’s one for every person who has a license.
• Those vehicles are driven 2.7 TRILLION miles a year—enough to make more than 14,000 round-trip voyages to the sun.
• The average auto gets just over 20 miles to the gallon (mpg) at 25.7 pounds of heat-trapping emissions to produce, deliver, and burn a gallon of gas.
  

  David’s 80’s-video-game-inspired Pac-Man Principle: American’s average car and light truck emissions effectively gobble up all other forms of personal transportation.

• Combined, that is 3.3 trillion pounds, or nearly 1.7 billion tons of heat-trapping emissions!

Our autos are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than the entire economies of all but four nations in the world.** In comparison, the next largest personal transportation source is air travel. But at only 0.37 trillion miles a year for vacations and visiting friends and relatives, personal air travel just can’t compete with daily driving.

Where do all these numbers lead us? Well, if you take a look at the pie chart to the right, and if you played a lot of video games in the 80s as I did, it leads to the Pac-Man Principle: Americans’ average transportation emissions are dominated by our cars and light trucks, which effectively swallow up all other forms of personal transportation.

Get on the Road to Your 20 Percent Carbon Reduction Today

Some of you may be stunned by our guzzling ways. Others might find this all too obvious. So, now what?

Well, no matter which camp you fall into, the next time you buy a vehicle, boost your mpg. If you are not in the market this year, don’t worry, your time will come—most Americans switch autos about once every five years. Meanwhile, tune up your car, pump up your tires, and avoid aggressive driving and you could save more than $500 on gas in a year. Carpool, take the train, or bike to work once a week and you can save more than $200 a year. And together, just these steps can cut your total annual carbon emissions 5-10 percent.

If you want to learn more about what you can do to cut your personal transportation emissions, or what else can deliver a big bang for your buck when it comes to meeting our 20 percent challenge, check out the book. And if you are waiting for it to arrive in the mail, start right away with our website that shows you 20 personalized ways to start cutting your carbon footprint by 20 percent over the next 20 days.

**NOTE: International emissions data can be found here, but that data is in metric tons of carbon, so you have to convert the 1.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide for our cars and light trucks into metric tons of carbon. To do so, multiply by both the conversion factor of 0.907 metric tons per ton and the atomic mass of carbon (12) and then divide by the atomic mass of CO2 (44) . You should get about 0.412 billion tons of carbon (412,000 thousand metric tons of carbon).

This is part of a series on Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living.

Take the 20% challenge at CoolerSmarter.org

 

All of the authors on the team will be blogging about our findings in the coming weeks but, to start off, I’m turning this space over to our colleague and the book’s lead author, Seth Shulman. Seth has already written five books on the politics and history of science and innovation and their effects on our lives. Read on to learn about what we found and what this latest book meant to him.

Global Warming: Do Individual Choices Matter?

Seth Shulman, senior staff writer, Union of Concerned Scientists

If you had asked me that question just a year ago, I probably would have expressed skepticism. I have covered climate change as a science journalist for more than two decades and care deeply about the issue. But I’ve always thought of it as problem to be solved on the national or international level. So, like many people, I have spent a lot of time dismayed that our leaders haven’t been taking action commensurate with what is suggested by the latest scientific evidence, but relatively little time thinking about what I might do about the problem in my own life, thinking—wrongly, it turns out—that my actions were too inconsequential to make much of a difference.

But then my colleagues at the Union of Concerned Scientists asked me to join a project they had already been working on for some time: an in-depth examination of the most effective steps individuals can take to combat global warming. The project has profoundly changed the way I think about the issue. It has opened my eyes to just how easy it is for most Americans like me to make some simple changes to use energy more efficiently and thereby significantly lower our emissions. What’s more, it has shown me what a surprisingly big difference these changes can make when adopted widely.

Reduce Your Carbon Emissions 20% This Year

Our new book, Cooler Smarter: Practical Steps for Low-Carbon Living, has just been published by Island Press, the result of UCS’s two years of research on the subject by a crack team that included climate scientists, technical experts, and economists. The book challenges each of us, no matter what our circumstances, to reduce our emissions by 20 percent in the coming year—an achievable and meaningful first step—and it offers a menu of strategies to get the job done. (We’ve even developed a website that you can use to reduce your footprint by 20 percent.)

Cooler Smarter is chock full of information including some surprises about which of our actions matter most (many details about those to come). To get the answers, our experts painstakingly tracked both the direct and indirect emissions resulting from every dollar spent by U.S. consumers, analyzing the climate impact of our decisions on hundreds of topics from home insulation to diet. But let me start by sharing the big picture results.

Your Carbon Emissions and What Matters Most

The average American is responsible for emitting a whopping 21 tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. To give that number some perspective, that’s more for each one of us than an average car would emit driving around the world at the equator.

The average American is responsible for 21 tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide split between five major categories.

On a per capita basis, Americans emit almost four times more carbon dioxide than the global average, and twice as much as citizens do in places like France or Japan with a standard of living similar to our own. That’s a lot of carbon. But here’s the good news: There’s no question Americans can use energy more efficiently—without breaking much of a sweat. Many of the suggestions in Cooler Smarter will save you money, others are great long-term investments, and some will even improve your health. And they are easier to implement than you might think.

The figure to the right shows the breakdown of the Average American’s emissions into five major categories which pretty much boil down to: the car you drive, the way you heat and cool your home, the electricity you use, the food you eat, and the stuff you buy.

You Can Make a Real Difference

If you are skeptical that changes in these categories can make a difference (as I once was) consider this: If everyone in the country cut their overall emissions by just 20 percent, it would be like shuttering 200 of the nation’s 600 coal fired power plants. Let me say that again: It would be like saying goodbye to ONE THIRD of our nation’s most-polluting sources of energy which could make an enormous difference to global warming.

But I’ll give you another example of the kind of difference these changes can make that’s a lot more personal. Among my many former wasteful habits, I used to leave the laser printer in my home office turned on 24/7, again figuring that it didn’t make much of a difference. Cooler Smarter has taught me that just hitting that single “off button” on that single one of my many gadgets will save me more than $130 per year on my electric bill. It’s just one of many easy changes I’ve already made on my path to a 20 percent reduction in my emissions that are actually helping my wallet and the planet at the same time.

Cooler Smarter gives you the tools you need to lower your emissions in each of the categories above and also offers techniques to help you inspire your friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers to do the same. Individual action alone can never replace the need to press for changes on the state, national, and international levels. But our leaders won’t be compelled to change unless we as citizens show them we value a low-carbon future and take action in our own lives. In other words, I’ve rekindled my understanding that on this issue, like so many others, we need to work for change from the bottom up and the top down. You can learn more, use our tools to help you reduce your emissions by 20 percent—and pick up a copy of the book —by visiting our website www.coolersmarter.org.

Seth Shulman is senior staff writer at UCS, a 2011 Guggenheim Fellow, and co-author of Cooler Smarter.

According to the Huffington Post, “The automaker told the Heartland Institute last week that it won’t be making further donations, spokesman Greg Martin said.”

On March 7th, GM CEO Dan Akerson said his company would reevaluate their financial support for the Heartland Institute. Now we know that they are choosing to walk away from an organization that has been seeking to undermine public confidence in the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is driving disruptive changes in our climate.

Given the bad PR their past funding of Heartland created, who knows, maybe Akerson even got in a Chevy and quickly drove away from the climate deniers.

The Changing Face of Climate Change at GM

Yes, you can argue that giving GM credit for this move is setting a low bar, but it is an important step in the right direction. As my colleague Michelle Robinson has noted, we’ve been looking for signs that GM is leaving behind the legacy of former VP Bob “global warming is a crock of $#!t” Lutz, who seemed to be the face of GM on climate change.

In fact, dropping funding for Heartland is just one in a series of steps GM has taken. Their CEO took another big step to distance GM from its climate denying past during his March 7^th interview when Akerson said that he “believes” in global warming. Sadly, in the same interview, Akerson noted that several GM executives chided him for admitting this in public. But change has to start somewhere, and the top is a pretty good place.

More Work on the Road Ahead

Clearly, there’s a lot more work to be done at GM. And they are not the only one. Businesses big and small will have to deal with the consequences of a changing climate and they must be part of the effort to put solutions in place.

Keeping that in mind, today’s news is good news in the effort to ensure that corporations, policymakers, and the public make decisions based on the best available science. With GM’s actions, we’re one step closer to a time when we can look back at efforts to discredit climate science the same way we now view the tobacco industry’s efforts to spread doubt about the overwhelming science on the dangers of smoking.

$4 dollars per gallon is the new gas price reality, so let's do something about it.

And when faced with a new reality, you’ve got two choices: bury your head in the sand or do something about it. I hope you choose the latter, so here are some tips to make it easier. None are heavy lifts and if you follow them, you could save hundreds of dollars a year at the pump.

Steps to Cut Your Pain at the Pump

There’s no magic fix that will make gas cheaper overnight, but you can save money by using less. We’ve put together a three-course menu of different ways you can start saving gas. Buying the highest fuel economy car that meets your needs is always an essential strategy, but besides that, here are the top recommendations in each category:

Before you hit the road, make sure your car is in peak condition.

• Follow the maintenance schedule in your owner’s manual, though don’t fall for scams that push you to change your oil too often.
• Pump up your tires. You’d hate riding a bicycle with nearly flat tires, right? Well, your wallet hates paying more at the pump because you’re driving with underinflated tires.

Once you are behind the wheel, think about your pocketbook before you put the pedal to the metal.

• A green light does not signal the start of a race. Avoid unnecessary rapid acceleration and slow down. Dropping from 75 mph to 65 on the highway can cut your fuel use up to 20 percent. It could save a life too, so set your cruise control at no more than 65 mph.

Help drive the clean car revolution.

• Look for convenient ways to drive less. Stop for the milk on the way home instead of making a special trip, carpool once a week, and try to walk, bike or take transit more often.

That’s Real Money

These are all real solutions that can help you save real money. Let’s look at a quick example (geek alert, I couldn’t help but run some numbers).

You are driving 30 miles a day (U.S. average), so let’s assume your vehicle is well tuned and you drive moderately and at the speed limit with half your miles on the highway at about 33 miles per gallon and half in the city at 21 miles per gallon. If your vehicle is poorly tuned, you don’t keep your tires fully inflated, and you speed a lot, we’re talking 24 mpg highway and 17 mpg city.

• Average vehicle, speeding, poor maintenance: $2,400 a year at $4 per gallon.
• Average vehicle, speed limit, well maintained: $1,850 a year at $4 per gallon.

So, right there, keeping your car well-tuned, your tires pumped up, and avoiding very aggressive driving can save you about $550 a year. Now, once a week switch from driving to carpooling, biking, or taking the train and you save another $250 a year, for a total of $800 a year less pain at the pump—that’s equivalent to cutting gas prices to $2.67 per gallon!

Get Mad and Get Even

So, if you are frustrated with high gas prices, do something about it.  Start putting our tips to work. Even if you are not a very aggressive driver and keep your vehicle well-tuned, steps like slowing down, carpooling once a week, and keeping your tires inflated will save you a few hundred dollars a year.

And if you are still mad about high gas prices after learning about how you can fight back, let your local paper know. We’re making it easy for you to write a letter to the editor. Tell them about what you are going to do to save gas and help us push for a national plan to help everyone cut their projected oil and gasoline use in half in the next 20 years.

This ad for the 1912 Cadillac Touring Edition highlighted the advantage of the first electric starter motor.

For example, in 1912 the electric starter motor was first sold, overcoming  a major flaw in gasoline engines. This marked the first “death” of electric cars at the hands of their gasoline competition. GM recently celebrated a centennial of electric starter motor sales, and it made me think: will history repeat itself or can electric cars win out this time?

How the Electric Starter Saved the Gasoline Engine

The modern day dominance of the gasoline-powered car would not be possible without a whole host of inventions and discoveries (the internal combustion engine, large oil resources, the federally funded highway system, etc.), but it would be hard to deny the role played by the starter motor in helping to beat out the competition of the day: battery electric cars and steam-powered cars.

According to Greg Wallace, the director of the General Motors Heritage Center, who was quoted in GM’s release, “Hand cranking was the No. 1 injury risk in those early days of the automobile.” The problem was that hand cranking risked a broken arm or other injuries if you were not able to crank it far enough to start the engine.

The internal combustion engine works by burning a compressed mixture of fuel and air. But, since compressed air is not stored on board the vehicle, you had to do the initial compressing with the hand crank. Once the engine got running, it would compress the air itself as part of its four stroke cycle. But if you did not complete the initial compression yourself, the hand crank would snap back like a spring as the air tried to decompress.

The First Death of Electric Cars

Electric cars, on the other hand, had no such problem. You could just hop in and drive away. Just as today, electric cars were quieter, cleaner, and smoother than gasoline cars. As a result, electric cars were even more popular than gasoline cars for a time.

But, gasoline car developments did not stand still. Electric car production peaked in 1912, the same year that the starter motor was introduced. A decade earlier, the modern oil industry took shape with the discovery of oil in Spindletop, Texas leading to a significant increase in the availability of gasoline. You could also go farther on a tank of gas than on batteries, and when you did run out of gas, you just had to pour more in. Electricity, on the other hand, was not available everywhere as it is today and took time to recharge a battery. When it came to power and durability, the batteries of 1912 paled in comparison to the high-tech marvels in the modern electric car. With all of those factors in play, the starter motor was a straw that helped break the back of electric cars 100 years ago.

The Modern Day Starter Motor, Trying to Keep Up with Electric Cars

Electric cars have been reborn and faded away a few times since that first “death,” and today they are making a strong comeback. The modern market kicked off with the battery-electric Nissan Leaf and the plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt. Their combined sales were about 18,000 in 2011, which was not even a full year of sales. That’s double the sales of the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius hybrids in 2000, their first full year of sales.

Of course, electric cars still have hurdles to overcome, and the gasoline engine is not standing still. A modern version of the starter motor is again playing a key role in the evolution of the internal combustion engine in its century old battle with the electric car. GM, through its Buick line, is now selling a technology they call “eAssist.”   That same technology is also called a “belt alternator starter” because it is basically a beefed up alternator that can also operate as a high-power starter motor. In fact, it is so powerful that the engine shuts off at stop lights to avoid wasting fuel and can then turn on before you move your foot from the brake to the gas pedal. It can also provide other functions typically included in hybrids (regenerative braking and helping accelerate the car).

The Century of the Electric Car?

So, will this modern day starter motor yet again beat back the challenge of the electric car? It will certainly help cut down on gasoline use and will be a key technology on the way to more than doubling new car fuel economy by 2025.

But this is 2012, not 1912. Oil is getting more expensive, harder to get, and dirtier. At the same time, we need to cut global warming pollution from cars by 80 percent or more by 2050 to help avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Given the challenges we face, nearly all major stakeholders, including automakers, government agencies, and energy and climate experts agree that a large-scale market for electric-drive vehicles is essential for reaching long-term global warming and oil reduction goals.**

They can’t do it alone, but with the right support and more progress on the technology, electric cars can be an essential part of a revolution that cuts our oil dependence in half in 20 years and nearly eliminates oil use and global warming pollution from the cars we drive by 2050.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.

**For example, see Figure 13 in the ARB analysis, 2050 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis: Staff Modeling in Support of the Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation, 2009. Also, see Exhibit 6 from the 2010 McKinsey study, A Portfolio of Power-Trains for Europe, a Fact-Based Analysis: The Role of Battery Electric Vehicles, Plug-In Hybrids and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, that included participation from a wide variety of automakers and other industries. And, see the International Energy Agency’s 2011 report, Technology Roadmap Electric and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles.

__________________________________________________________________

Image Credit: General Motors

The subtle joys of owning a hybrid

My colleague enjoys her hybrid on many levels, especially the lack of engine noise, pollution, and gas guzzling when stopped in traffic. Her dog, Hazel, enjoys the roomy back seat.

The first story, which inspired this blog post, comes from a co-worker who just happened to email me recently about the more subtle joys of owning a hybrid.  I think her words speak for themselves:

“As I sit here waiting for the drawbridge to let the tanker into the harbor, I especially love my Prius. While every other car spews exhaust–so I can’t open my window–my car sits perfectly still, engine off, but at the ready to spring into action. I can’t understand why anyone would be opposed to clean car technology… No brainer!!!!”

I can’t help but wonder at the potential irony. There she was, stuck in traffic, but instead of being frustrated, she was able to enjoy the benefits of owning a car with cool technology—while stuck, her car made no engine noise, produced no pollution, and guzzled no gas. If the tanker was delivering gasoline or heating oil, then she was inconveniently stuck due to our oil dependence, yet her very efforts to cut down on that dependence helped relieve her potential frustration.

Hybrid cars and national security

I heard the second story on a flight out of Washington, DC last week. I was tip-tap-typing away on my laptop when the gentleman next to me asked what I did. After hearing my answer, he quickly shared that he was on his third hybrid, shifting from a Toyota Prius, to a Toyota Camry Hybrid, and finally to a Nissan Altima Hybrid. He wanted the bigger space of the Camry over the Prius, then switched automakers.

I probed a bit more and found out that he works in the defense industry. You don’t need to be following the latest on world tensions over Iranian oil (though you should) to guess that there’s a connection between his work on national security and his car choice. As it stands, we’re sending nearly $1 billion a day to other countries to import oil, many of whom are either unfriendly or are directly or indirectly destabilizing world energy markets and politics. Driving a hybrid or electric car is a great way to save fuel, cutting our vulnerability to world oil markets and the countries that control them.

What’s your story?

So, what about you? Do you own a hybrid? Did you take a step even further and buy an all-electric car? Or are you still waiting for that high-tech car of your dreams?

Either way, we want to hear your story: what you like (or don’t) about your car, why you bought it, and what you are doing to cut our oil use, reduce pollution, save money, and improve our energy security. Let us know in the comments section below.

And, to learn more about hybrids and electric cars, check out our Model E website with blueprints for the future of electric car powertrains along with an honest look at their promise and pitfalls.

_____________________________________________________

In fact, just last month, 161 scientists and engineers in California alone signed an open letter in support of the state’s efforts to reduce heat-trapping emissions from cars and trucks.  And these scientists and engineers are themselves just a representative sample of the broad consensus on climate science and the availability of solutions.

161 California scientists and engineers call for action in the state on clean cars and global warming. And they are but a sample of the broad consensus on the problem and the availability of solutions.

Denying the Facts Does Not Change Them

Peter Frumhoff, the chief scientist for our climate campaign, already cited a variety of resources in his blog post on the WSJ piece that set the record straight on climate science and the economics of addressing the problem. The California scientists and engineers relied on their own work as well as many of the same resources and boiled it down this way:

“The causes and risks of climate change are clear and well documented.”

“Cars, trucks, and other mobile sources account for nearly 40 percent of these [heat-trapping] emissions in California.”

“The longer we wait to bring down emissions, the harder and more costly it will be to limit climate change impacts and to adapt to those that cannot be avoided.”

“We already have the solutions and technology to start significantly reducing emissions.”

Solving the Problem Will Be Good for Public Health and the Economy

The letter from the California scientists and engineers was delivered to the California Air Resources Board (ARB) on the day before it unanimously voted to adopt strong global warming pollution standards, smog standards, electric car standards, and hydrogen infrastructure requirements. It was also delivered to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which are setting national standards that will cut heat-trapping emissions from new cars and light trucks in half by 2025.

California’s package of initiatives will save residents $22 billion through 2025, according to ARB analysis. By 2025, the program will create 21,000 new jobs across the state as consumers spend less on gasoline and shift that money to more productive parts of the economy. Individual consumers will save $4,000 over the life of the typical car sold in 2025, even after paying for clean car technology. The added cost of the technology improvements would be fully recovered from fuel savings within the first three years of owning the vehicle.

Ignoring the Problem Won’t Make it Go Away

At UCS we strongly believe that the scientists and engineers who wrote the WSJ piece have every right to state their personal opinions, but the facts simply are not on their side.

Making matters worse, the implications of following their advice to effectively ignore the problem of global warming are dangerous. Climate change threatens our health and our welfare, and you can already see the impacts around the nation and the world.

If we instead listen to the California scientists and engineers (and many others), if we face up to the facts on climate change and get moving on the solutions, we can get on a path to slow, and eventually stop, global warming while saving consumers and businesses a lot of money.

To learn more, check our our Climate 2030 Blueprint which demonstrates how Americans can save $464 billion in 2030 alone from smart solutions to climate change.

And if you are a scientist, engineer, or economist working on the problems and solutions associated with climate change, please lend your voice to the debate and sign up with us.

Melting glaciers are a disturbing part of global warming, but a thawing of the auto industry’s opposition to clean car standards is more than welcome.

But, last week I was in Los Angeles to testify in front of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) about their package of advanced clean car standards, and I got to see first-hand a completely different kind of climate change. If you will pardon my stretching the pun to the limit, I saw the results of a global warming of attitudes on the part of automakers, a willingness to step up and support California’s strong standards that will require cleaner gasoline cars and over 1 million electric cars in California through 2025. In sharp contrast, representatives of the oil industry threatened to sue the state over a portion of the requirements.

Worldwide Auto Industry Supports California’s Clean Car Standards

Representatives from automaker after automaker—whether their headquarters were in the U.S., Japan, Germany, or South Korea—stood up in front of the ARB and declared their support for strong global warming pollution standards, smog standards, electric car standards, and hydrogen infrastructure requirements. This stands in sharp contrast to the last decade when automakers were suing California and other states to try to stop these kinds of standards from being implemented. And this is nothing like automaker efforts to argue to the U.S. Supreme Court that regulators had no legal right to protect public health and welfare by setting global warming pollution standards (the Supreme Court rejected those arguments).

Automakers did voice their concerns with some of the provisions. And, of course, automaker support did not come without a price. As was noted by the ARB chair at the hearing, Detroit-based automakers got a big break on global warming pollution standards for pickups and other vehicles that qualify as “trucks” and some Japan-based automakers got a big break on their electric car requirements. We still think these provisions should be fixed, but that should not diminish the historic nature of strong clean car standards being supported by the auto industry for the first time.

This is the kind of climate change we need.

Oil Industry Representatives Threaten Lawsuit

Unlike the auto industry, the oil industry’s attitude has not thawed. They still seem more than willing to stay stuck in the 20^th century, keeping Americans addicted to oil despite opportunities to make a profit elsewhere.

Oil industry representatives threatened to sue California over a provision that would require them to invest in infrastructure to supply hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles if nobody else does. The ARB expects to see about 10,000 hydrogen fuel cell cars on California roads by 2018, and as many as 170,000 by 2025 as a result of the clean car standards. Analysis by Energy Independence Now indicates that oil companies can make a profit from selling hydrogen after just a few years. Thus, all that oil companies are being asked to do is to invest about $4 million dollars during the first two years of the program in something that can deliver a long term return on their investment—that’s just one half hour of the annual profits of the top three U.S. oil companies (see biofuels link below for background on oil industry profits). And they don’t even have to make the investment if someone else does.

This unwillingness to step up on global warming, to invest in America’s future, is not news from the oil industry. We’ve seen it on biofuels and tar sands, just to name a few. But it has to change. The clock is ticking on global warming, unhealthy air, and America’s oil addiction. Just as we’ve said of electric utilities, oil companies need to follow the lead of the auto industry and shift from being a part of the problem to becoming part of the solution.

We’ve got a plan that would require oil companies to step up alongside of the many others who are intertwined in America’s oil addiction. Check out our work and keep your eyes open for more to come this spring and summer.

__________________________________________________

Photo credit: iStockphoto.com

Iran/U.S. Tensions Driving Up Oil Prices

Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz helped drive up oil prices due to its role as the key Middle Eastern oil shipping lane.

Last year, it was the Arab Spring, especially the shutdown of oil supplies from Libya, that helped cause oil and gasoline price spikes. This year it could be Iran, which recently threatened to close off the Strait of Hormuz, the key waterway for shipping oil out of the Persian Gulf. They backed off that threat but have since taken a variety of other aggressive steps, including warning a U.S. aircraft carrier to stay out of the Persian Gulf.

Whether you follow Middle East issues or not, you should care about this news because it is at least part of the reason oil prices are back over $100 per barrel yet again.

Some Wall Street traders are already betting that oil prices could soon rise to between $110 and $130 per barrel due to tensions between Iran and the U.S. and possible strikes in Nigeria, another major oil exporter. At that level, the U.S. will again be sending more than $1 billion every day to other countries to pay for petroleum imports.

The last time oil prices hit that range, in spring 2011 and spring/summer 2008, we were paying $4 per gallon for gasoline.

Instability in the Middle East Has Driven World Oil Markets for Decades

Sadly, this is more of the same that we’ve seen for the last 40 years. As this New York Times graphic illustrates, most of the oil price spikes we’ve experienced since the early 1970s have been tied to wars, instability, and tension in the greater Middle East. This region produces about 40 percent of the crude oil that fuels economies around the world every day. As a result, any supply disruption, or even a hint thereof, can set oil markets on edge.

This is a problem that will only get worse over time because countries in the greater Middle East control over 60 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. So, as other countries start to run out, it will get easier and easier for countries like Iran to disrupt the world oil market. Consumers, and the U.S. economy as a whole, will continue to be harmed by oil price spikes until we dramatically cut our oil dependence.

Help Curb our Addiction

Now, the question is: what are you going to do with this latest reminder of the depth of our dependence on oil? We’ve got a plan to cut projected U.S. oil dependence in half by 2030. You’ll be hearing more about it in the coming months, but for now, you can put a plan of your own into action. Here are a few suggestions:

• As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, you should take direct action. You can still make a New Year’s resolution to buy a hybrid or electric car, carpool more often, or perhaps bike or walk to work or when you are on trip.
• You can also make sure President Obama follows through and finalizes strong fuel economy and global warming pollution standards for cars and trucks. Let him know you want cleaner cars to help cut our oil addiction.
• Finally, if you’re not in the market for a new car, follow these tips to make sure you use the one you’ve got more efficiently.

We won’t end our addiction to oil overnight, but the latest turmoil in the Middle East should serve as a stern reminder that we’ve got to start weaning ourselves now.

______________________________________

photo credit: eutrophication&hypoxia, edited by UCS to add labels.

California is clearly on the right track. They are driving the future of the automobile away from its polluting past towards a dramatically cleaner future. And as I wrote before, California deserves special recognition for their broad role in ensuring the federal global warming pollution standards are as strong as they are.

A Good Program Can Still Have Warts

But just because they are moving in the right direction, that does not mean they’ve got everything right. As we’ve noted, the ARB needs to boost their Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) requirements by at least 30 percent in order to give the California the best chance to get on track meet the state’s public health and climate goals.

Making matters worse, the ARB has proposed a provision that would allow automakers to get out of 40 percent of their requirements during the first four years of the strengthened program (2018-2021). That’s almost 200,000 fewer electric cars in California alone, just as the industry is expected to kick into high gear. And what do automakers have to do to cut their requirements by 40 percent? They have to over comply with federal global warming pollution requirements by less than 1 percent! Forty to one is a pretty bad exchange rate.

The ZEV Program Is About the Next Forty Years, Not Just Four

Proponents of this raw deal will likely point out that it goes away after 2021, so car companies will still have to ramp up electric car production as proposed from 2022 to 2025. But this argument ignores the history of automaker attempts to weaken the ZEV program over the past two decades.

The ZEV program, along with the global warming pollution standards, will be reviewed in about five years or so. The auto industry has a great track record of using reviews like these to weaken standards, so the requirements in the later years are already at risk. If automakers are allowed to cut electric car sales by 40 percent, they are likely to cut their investments in the technology. And if they do that, they could end up arguing that the jump in sales during the last four years is prohibitive, and that much-needed ramp-up in the latter years may never happen.

Risking Too Much

If automakers take advantage of this provision and successfully argue to weaken the program several years down the road, California will have little chance to reach an 80 percent reduction in global warming pollution by 2050. Why? Because ARB’s own analysis shows (see Figure 1 here), electric cars are a huge part of meeting that goal.

Creating all of that risk in return for just a one percent improvement in vehicle global warming pollution for four years is simply not worth it. The ARB should eliminate this provision.

So, I’m happy to hear when policymakers take some time off and relax by going on a nice fishing trip. After all, they’ve got a tough and important job: doing the people’s business. On the other hand, fishing should be off limits when policymakers are supposed to be doing that important job.

Chairman Issa sent a letter to 15 automakers fishing for controversy over vehicle pollution standards developed by federal and California regulators and supported automakers, unions, national security and consumer groups, and environmental organizations.

Despite that, Congressman Issa, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. Congress, launched a fishing expedition at the end of November in his latest attempt to stir up controversy over fuel economy and global warming pollution standards. On November 28^th, Chairman Issa sent an 11 page letter to all of the automakers who’ve signed on to efforts by the administration and California to set a single set of standards to nearly double new car fuel economy and cut new car global warming pollution in half by 2025.

Now, let me be clear, I’m a strong supporter of the power of Congress to investigate important issues on behalf of the American people.

But this is nothing of the sort. This is a fishing expedition, plain and simple.

Anatomy of a Fishing Expedition

Chairman Issa’s letter contains 18 questions or requests for information, 61 sub-requests/questions, 10 sub-sub-requests/questions, and an additional four pages of instructions and definitions (yes, I did count them all). With that many lines in the waters of 15 automakers, I guess the Chairman is hoping he’ll get a couple of nibbles here or there.

He’s reinforced his chances by designing his questions to require very detailed information about almost every who, what, when, where, why, and how possible: Who participated from the auto industry, government, and other stakeholders. What concessions were made? When and where did meetings take place? Why are fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards different? How did California’s ability to set greenhouse gas standards under the Clean Air Act impact the discussions?

Many of these were already answered as part of previous requests by the Chairman, through testimony before his committee, and by multiple courts in years past, including the Supreme Court. And all of them, of course, are designed to make automakers squirm on the end of a hook.

How Government Should Work

The most frustrating part about this is that the process the administration is going through is exactly the way things should work in Washington. This was not some back-room deal where an industry wrote their own regulations. The administration studied hundreds of technical reports and other information on vehicle technology, consumer behavior, and more. They did peer review of detailed original work on the cost of technologies and fuel economy potential. They sought input from a wide variety of different stakeholders. And, in the end, the administration put the best information to work to develop a program that will help guide the future of clean cars for more than a decade.

Nobody got everything they wanted, but Americans got a proposal supported by automakers, unions, national security and consumer groups, and environmental organizations. Now, that proposal is out for public comment to make sure everyone’s voice is heard, and by next summer it should be finalized based on the latest science and broad input.

We don’t send politicians to Washington to go on fishing expeditions. We send them to our Nation’s Capital to solve difficult problems and get something done. American’s want standards like those proposed. All you have to do is look at the Congressman’s own state. Over 80 percent of Californian’s surveyed support strong greenhouse gas emissions standards, and with good reason, since they will save consumers billions on gasoline, cut our oil addiction, and lower carbon pollution.

So, instead of fighting clean cars and looking for controversy where there is none, Congressman Issa should hang up his fishing pole and support the administration and his own state in their efforts to do the people’s business.

 _____________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Fishing on a Foggy Morning, Oceanside CA Pier by JoelnSouthernCA

A Clean Car Checklist

• Federal fuel economy and global warming pollution standards proposed to double efficiency and cut global warming pollution in half by 2025: √
• California outlines requirements for the sale of more than a million electric cars: √
• California also outlines requirements for cars and trucks to cut smog-forming pollution another 75 percent by 2025: √
• California plans to require refueling infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles as numbers rise under their electric car requirements: √

And because it deserves to be mentioned, the federal standards probably wouldn’t be so strong if not for California’s efforts to lead the way seven years ago when they put regulations in place requiring first-in-the-nation global warming pollution standards for cars.

The Future of the Automobile Shifts into High Gear

I’ve been working on these issues since I started at UCS more than ten years ago. At times it looked like clean cars were going nowhere. We weren’t able to get enough votes in Congress to pass fuel economy legislation and California had weakened their Zero Emission Vehicle requirements.

But things picked up in 2007 when Congress required average fuel economy to hit at least 35 mpg by 2020. Then things really got going in 2009 and 2010 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Highway Transportation Administration, and California got together with automakers to move that 35 mpg target ahead 4 years.

Now, with today’s announcements, it feels like the clean car future is in high gear. No, these standard’s aren’t perfect. We’re going to work to close loopholes (like weak truck standards and ignoring emissions from plugging in electric cars) and to try to get even more electric cars on the road. And lets not forget the need to kickstart the biofuels industry or clean up trucks, planes, trains, and ships (whew!).

But today’s announcements not only set the course for the automobile for the next 14 years, they are going to drive the next century of gasoline and electric car technologies. And that’s a big deal.

As a parent of a toddler, I’ve got no beef with hand sanitizer, and I know I’m not in BMW’s marketing niche (my wife and I own ten-year-old cars and bike to work about half the time), but come on, seriously?

BMW Purif-i hand sanitizer by Susanne Kauffmann Cosmetics. Is there any link to clean cars?

What Does a Hand Sanitizer Have to Do With Cars?

It is hand sanitizer folks, HAND SANITIZER. Hopefully it does minimize the environmental impact of clean hands, but BMW makes cars. Purif-i does nothing about the fact that the average BMW car sold in the U.S. is responsible for more than 6.5 tons of global warming pollution every year, not to mention the smog-forming pollution and toxic particulates. Nor will it help with the fact that the U.S. economy loses about a billion dollars a day due to oil imports when the price hits $100 per barrel—equivalent to about one-half the U.S. trade deficit.

Of course, BMW is not being shy about their motivations here. They clearly mention the term “sustainability marketing” in their press release.  Rather than marketing sustainability, how about marketing cars that are more sustainable?

BMW’s Poor Clean Car Record

Preliminary 2010 numbers from the EPA Fuel Economy Trends Report put BMW’s average car fuel economy nearly 4 miles per gallon behind the industry. And the UCS Hybrid Scorecard finds that BMW’s two hybrids are worst-in-class for environmental improvement and hybrid value.

BMW has some pretty impressive technology and novel fuel saving approaches on the way, but historically they’ve put it to use boosting performance instead of fuel economy or cutting emissions. Hopefully that will change now that they’ve signed on to support the next round of fuel economy and global warming pollution standards currently on the table.

When BMW can boast of an average fuel economy in the 50’s or higher, I’ll stop ribbing them about their latest hand sanitizer. (Though I doubt I’ll ever be able to let this one go from Mercedes.)

__________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: BMW of North America