<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Roland Hwang's Blog: Curbing Pollution</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhwang/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhwang/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/rhwang//70</id>
   <updated>2008-04-07T19:24:58Z</updated>
   
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Enterprise 1.52</generator>

<entry>
   <title>California Air Resources Board ZEV decision puts us on the road to solving global warming</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhwang/california_air_resources_board_2.html" />
   <id>tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/rhwang//70.1107</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-28T22:20:23Z</published>
   <updated>2008-04-07T19:24:58Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[This election season, the issue of &ldquo;just words&rdquo; has been hotly debated. Do words like &ldquo;zero emissions&rdquo; matter when it comes to solving pollution problems? Of course. But equally as important are the facts. To the environment, &ldquo;zero emissions&rdquo; are...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>Roland Hwang</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="Curbing Pollution" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Moving Beyond Oil" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Solving Global Warming" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="1350" label="CARB" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="308" label="cars" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="1900" label="electriccars" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="15" label="globalwarming" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="1909" label="PHEVs" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="94" label="pluginhybrids" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="299" label="vehicles" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="1907" label="ZEVs" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhwang/">
      <![CDATA[<p>This election season, the issue of &ldquo;just words&rdquo; has been hotly debated. Do words like &ldquo;zero emissions&rdquo; matter when it comes to solving pollution problems? Of course. But equally as important are the facts. To the environment, &ldquo;zero emissions&rdquo; are just words unless we have the clean cars on the road.</p><p>Perhaps this was the question on minds of the Board members when the <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr032708b.htm">California Air Resources Board</a> (&ldquo;Air Board&rdquo;) voted last Thursday (3/27) to change its landmark <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevprog.htm">Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) program</a>. Originally conceived of in 1990, the California ZEV program has morphed over time from just an electric car mandate to incorporate a broad spectrum of clean, advanced technology vehicles, such as hybrids. 2008 required another tune up based on the opinion of the Air Board&rsquo;s <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevreview/panel_executive_summary.pdf">own independent technology review panel</a> which said that fuel cells cars are not ready for mass commercialization.</p><p>But the Air Board adroitly recognized that reducing the number of fuel cell cars does not necessarily mean weakening the program. While they reduced the number of fuel cell vehicles required from 25,000 to 7500 in the 2012 to 2014 period, for every fuel cell vehicle reduced, they required automakers to produce over <em>three times more <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/energy/plugin.pdf">plug-in hybrid vehicles</a></em>. &nbsp;That is, they reduced the fuel cell requirement by 17,500 cars, but strengthened the program by requiring 58,000 plug-in hybrids. That&rsquo;s a net gain of 40,500 zero emission technology cars on the road. And since over a dozen other states either have the California Low Emission and ZEV programs or are in the process of adopting them, these numbers could be multiplied by a factor three for the nation as a whole.</p><p>While it&rsquo;s true that plug-in hybrids are not truly zero emissions, they will also be affordable and have broad market appeal. This makes them very attractive to consumers which in turn means more clean vehicles on the road. More clean vehicles on the road means less smog emissions, global warming pollution, and oil consumption. Assuming that using hydrogen or electricity to replace gasoline gets from 50 to 80 percent greenhouse gas reductions and plug-in hybrid reduces emissions by 40 to 50 percent, then the change actually produces <em>70 to 340 &nbsp;percent more global warming pollution reductions across the fleet</em>. This is about <em>70,000 to 150,000 additional metric tons of carbon dioxide</em> in 2014 alone. </p><p>Our <a href="http://www.epri-reports.org/">joint analysis</a> clearly shows that plug in hybrid vehicles coupled with a cleaner electricity grid can be a key part of our strategy to cut global warming pollution by 80 percent by 2050, the level which scientists tell us is necessary to avert dangerous global warming. Scientists also tell us we can&rsquo;t wait any longer to start reducing global warming pollution. That means we can&rsquo;t wait for the perfect solution. We have to get as many zero emission technology vehicles on the road as soon as possible. That&rsquo;s why plug in hybrids, which face no infrastructure hurdle and just one technical challenge (a reliable affordable battery), is one of our best hopes in the next decade for a massive scale up of clean vehicle technologies.</p><p>Zero means zero. Those are important words. But equally important are the facts. More clean vehicles mean less pollution.&nbsp; To meet California&rsquo;s ambitious global warming targets, California needs to match its strong words with the right actions. By requiring plug-in hybrids, the Air Board has done just that. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Two Science articles make it clear why we need California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhwang/two_science_articles_make_it_c_1.html" />
   <id>tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2008:/blogs/rhwang//70.952</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-08T22:56:31Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-18T19:49:05Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[Yesterday, my colleague, Nathanael Greene,&nbsp;blogged on the implications of two articles that appeared&nbsp;in Science Magazine that highlight the risks of expanding biofuels without the proper standards and safeguards. As&nbsp;Nathanael correctly points out the issue of carbon emissions from land use...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>Roland Hwang</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="Curbing Pollution" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Moving Beyond Oil" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Solving Global Warming" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhwang/">
      <![CDATA[<p>Yesterday, my colleague, <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/two_science_articles_make_the.html">Nathanael Greene</a>,&nbsp;blogged on the implications of two articles that appeared&nbsp;in <em><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/current.dtl">Science Magazine</a></em> that highlight the risks of expanding biofuels without the proper standards and safeguards. As&nbsp;Nathanael correctly points out the issue of carbon emissions from land use conversion is real and must be addressed. We urgently need to put into place the necessary greenhouse gas standards and environmental safeguards to steer the market to &quot;green biofuels&quot;, such as those made from such as those made from certain waste materials. California&#39;s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, because it is based on the full fuel cycle of carbon emissions, is a critical piece of establishing these safeguards.&nbsp;The California&nbsp;Air Resources Board clearly must incorporate the greenhouse gas impacts of indirect land use conversion into its Low Carbon Fuel Standard.&nbsp;</p><p>It&#39;s important to understand that not all biofuels are created equal. Just like electricity can be produced from dirty sources like coal or clean sources like photovoltaics, biofuels too can be made in dramatically different fashions.&nbsp; Biofuels that are grown on crop-land in an unsustainable manner have much greater environmental challenges than, say,&nbsp;those made from other sources, such as some agricultural and municipal wastes. These sources, with the proper safeguards, can be much better for the environment because they do not compete with agricultural land, thereby avoiding the the carbon debt associated with land conversion. The problem is that without the right rules established by the government, the market will choose what is <em>currently</em> easier and cheaper to produce (and unfortunately less sustainable).&nbsp;</p><p>There are two critical activities occurring now that can steer biofuels in the right direction. <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/two_science_articles_make_the.html">Nathanael</a> blogged about the critical importance of the federal government, in this case specifically the US EPA, to implement the Renewable Fuel Standard with the proper greenhouse gas standards and environmental safeguards. </p><p>At least equally as important is for California to move expeditiously and intelligently forward on its proposed new regulation, the world&rsquo;s first <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm">Low Carbon Fuel Standard</a>. Biofuels will happen with or without California&#39;s regulations, but California can be a key factor in determining what kind of biofuels we get. Just like it has catalyzed the development of a whole host of cleaner technologies, such as 3-way catalytic converters and low sulfur gasoline, California has the opportunity to catalyze the development of &quot;green&quot; biofuels. To do so, it is clear California must include the impacts of direct and indirect land use conversion in its lifecycle accounting, as well as put into place any other environmental safeguards that are needed.</p><p>For the last four decades, California has played a leadership role when it comes to setting pollution standards that are&nbsp;scientifically sound, as well as&nbsp;environmentally sensible and necessary, even in the face of stiff industry opposition. With adoption of a strong Low Carbon Fuel Standard, California can once again reprise its role as an environmental leader. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>
