It's Not Just about Hybrids: Three Tips for the Car Industry
- Frances Beinecke
- President of NRDC, New York City
- Blog | About
- Posted May 23, 2008 in Moving Beyond Oil , Solving Global Warming
I am a proud Prius owner, and I love my car. But the news this week reminded me that it is not enough for automakers to offer a small handful of fuel efficient models. Instead, the industry has to confront the reality that America needs an energy transformation and car makers have a critical role to play in that process.
For years now, U.S. automakers have been delaying the inevitable. Instead of unleashing their engineers to create cleaner cars, they have deployed their lawyers to fight regulation. When first California and then 17 other states tried to exercise their right to reduce global warming emissions from vehicles, automakers dashed to court and tried to block them.
But this week, their efforts were clearly running out of gas. The first indicator came on Monday, when House investigators revealed the White House interference likely played a role in the EPA’s December decision to deny California the right to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from cars. (Read my colleague David Doniger’s analysis of these findings in the Washington Post.)
The second indicator came on Wednesday when the Senate Environment and Public Works committee passed a bill requiring President Bush to endorse California’s right to regulate global warming pollution from cars.
So what does this mean for U.S. automakers? I recently sat down with a correspondent from a GM website and told him the three things I think his and other car companies need to do to confront a carbon-constrained future. You can view our conversation online, but here are the three steps.
1. Make Cleaner Products.The 18 states that want to regulate global warming pollution from cars make up 45 percent of the U.S. market. If American automakers can’t satisfy that demand, their business model will be thrown even farther into reverse than it already is. The past two years have brought promising announcements about more efficient, consumer-friendly small and mid-sized cars, but we need to see better products coming off the assembly line, especially plug-in hybrids.
2. Weigh In about What Kind of Fuel Cars UseIt’s great that Detroit is finally designing better models, but all car makers should be a part of the debate about where the fuel comes from. Biofuels are promising, but we have to figure out how to resolves the food/fuel conflict and the environmental impacts of producing biofuels. There is a right way to grow fuels and a wrong way, and car makers should participate in getting American on the best path.
3. Offer Options to Get Consumers Out of CarsI know this sounds radical: car makers thinking about mass transit. But they should start viewing themselves as transportation companies that move people from place to place. Cars will remain a central part of that, but automakers could also help to shape--instead of fight--America’s efforts to enhance public transit and support smart growth.
Every time I get behind the wheel of my Prius, I feel like I am driving a global warming solution. I am grateful that Toyota made this car available, but it is not enough.
The scale of global warming is so enormous that it is no longer sufficient for car makers to offer better designs. They have to participate in all three parts of the debate. Creating a cleaner energy future is not an incremental process. It is a revolutionary, transformative one. We need leaders in the auto industry to help jumpstart it.
Here's my conversation with GM's Matt Kelly:
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Philippe Boucher — May 23 2008 06:16 PM
Thank you for blogging :)
I really appreciate your efforts and the efforts of all nrdc bloggers.
As for the attitude of car makers toward electric cars I was until recently quite negative and pessimistic because I felt most of them were still very reluctant, especially GM and Ford, companies that had crushed their electric vehicles rather than sell them to the people who begged them to be able to keep them :(
I am still not sure that the people in Detroit gets it (they still deny against the evidence they killed their EV1s) but recent news show that other automakers are -finally- taking electric cars seriously: BMW announced they'll offer electric cars and so did Nissan/Renault's CEO in a very interesting speech. And of course new car makers, like Tesla are showing the way. The fact more and more people are biking, walking and using public transportation is also encouraging.
One of my daughter's favorite blogs is about biking in style in Copenhagen. Very inspiring.
Earl Killian — May 24 2008 09:52 AM
On point number 3, let's remember that mass transit by itself is not enough in the U.S. We need to clean up mass transit too. Two people in a Prius is 121 g CO2e / passenger-mile. Amtrak is 180 g CO2 / passenger-mile, or 49% more. The TGV would be something like 53 g CO2e / passenger-mile; it beats even 4 people in a Prius. We need to electrify our rail systems (like the TGV) to cut their emissions and to enable them to run on renewable energy. Making them fast like the TGV wouldn't hurt either.
(We also need to move freight from trucks to rail.)
Hydrogen is not the answer: a 50 mi/kgH2 FCV gets 238 g CO2/mi using NREL's estimate of GHG emissions from making H2 from natural gas, compared to the 242 for the Prius. Are we supposed to wait decades for FCVs for a lousy 4 g/mi?
David Chaves — May 25 2008 10:45 PM
I think you are on the right track. I wrote a similar blog about this myself. At some point someone is going to have to do something different about this problem. It's not just the pollution, but also the crippling of the economy due to the high price of gasoline and transportation. The pot is going to boil over sooner rather than later.
Rick Hemsath — May 26 2008 11:49 AM
To Earl,
Your comment:
"Hydrogen is not the answer: a 50 mi/kgH2 FCV gets 238 g CO2/mi using NREL's estimate of GHG emissions from making H2 from natural gas, compared to the 242 for the Prius. Are we supposed to wait decades for FCVs for a lousy 4 g/mi?"
I am glad to see some folks talking about this as a possible solution I have been following on and off the HHO motor since the mid 90's and it would seem some progress has been made. The good news is that not only are the car manufactures Honda, BMW, GM and others getting on the wagon. BUT.....
There are a lot of folks that have working conversion kits available to either make your current car a hybrid or to full convert your car over to run on water.
Here is an article I wrote Really summarizing whats available and some of the origins of the water powered car. ----> http://www.octafrog.com/?p=25
It includes some other uses currently being done for water power. HHO
I hope this will encourage you.
Rick
Rick Hemsath — May 26 2008 12:20 PM
Sorry for making another post but after watching you interview with the gentleman from GM it occurred to me that perhaps your organization might look into some of these Hybrid and FULL conversion kits from gas to water power that are available and do a documentary. I suppose there are some frauds out there so I would geuss you would have to look into who might be legitimate and who are not.
Here are 2 different guys that apparently have done just that. (converted their car into full water power. HHO) Maybe you can find them.
Apparently one of them has passed all saftey and emision standards. HHO doesn't really pollute...
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j7d-FJ7TQk
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKM4pb9Oxrg
There are others that have videos such as one guy who powers his lawnmower and so on.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a documentary blasting the air waves....
Good Luck
Rick
Paula Thornton — May 27 2008 12:43 PM
I'd suggest that people become more educated before applying their 'current' knowledge to situations, but the problem is that some of the best information is somewhat 'hidden' from view.
The DOE has multiple 'private' labs doing research -- has for decades. Biofuels can make sense if created from the materials disposed of (wheat, straw = biomass), but not as part of a mass system, but to provide for the farmers themselves. It's the manufacturing/distribution model that causes inefficiencies.
Hydrogen would make perfect sense as a fuel if it were the byproduct that came out for free from newer nuclear designs.
Rick Hemsath — May 28 2008 01:03 AM
Hello Paula,
I don't understand your comment,
"Hydrogen would make perfect sense as a fuel if it were the byproduct that came out for free from newer nuclear designs."
Water is the sole required product and is the end resulting product. Water is being used to convert water into fuel right now by average citizens. Full water conversion not just Hybrids?
Rick