It struck me that the successful transition to this new, cleaner diesel fuel is one of the most uncovered environmental stories out there.
But it’s a real success story.
Here’s the story: in late 2000, then-President Bill Clinton signed an EPA rule that required oil refiners to cut the sulfur levels in their highway diesel fuel (i.e., all diesel fuel used by trucks, buses and cars) from 500 parts-per-million to 15 parts-per-million. This 97 percent cut would eliminate sulfate-based soot pollution overnight, and would open the door to advanced catalysts and soot filters that would reduce particulate emissions and nitrogen oxides from new diesel engines by more than 90 percent. More recently, EPA rules have adapted this approach to farm, construction, industrial and other nonroad equipment, and to locomotive and marine diesel engines.
(A quick primer on why this matters: Soot particles trigger asthma emergencies, bronchitis, cancer, heart attacks and tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. Nitrogen oxides are a key component of acid rain, summertime smog, and even contribute to more particles in the air. Both the black carbon core of a diesel soot particle and the nitrogen oxides are contributing to global warming’s impacts too).
Of course, environmentalists were thrilled, and the various oil and trucking industry groups were alarmed.
As we’ve often heard from industry, these changes would drive up prices, hurt consumers, and wreak havoc throughout the industry in unforeseen ways.
But the reality turned out to be much different: the anticipated price hikes due to the transition to ULSD never happened (yes, diesel prices are sky-high, but that’s principally because of high refinery margins and the escalating price of a barrel of petroleum, not because of the cleaner diesel fuel).
So, what’s the reality?
Industry had four years to gradually phase in ULSD, yet almost all diesel fuel (well over 90 percent) switched right away. The price differential between LSD and ULSD (where you can find the dirtier fuel) is meaningless in almost every case.
Today, according to the folks at Travel Centers of America, who track retail diesel prices in all of the states where they sell fuel, the differential between these two fuels is 3/10 of one cent in almost every station they have. At more than $4/gallon, I’d say this is a pretty meaningless differential.
The bottom line: the transition to cleaner, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel has been a mostly-uncovered success story. Today’s diesel fuel is cleaner than it’s ever been, and at no noticeable incremental cost to the old, dirtier diesel fuel.
And that’s a story worth telling.
]]>
Uugghhh.
I haven’t been on such a losing side since I worked on Walter Mondale’s campaign staff in 1984.
I am not going to join the blame game, as easy as it would be to do so. As Switchboard readers (and my NRDC colleagues) may know by now, that’s not how I play the game.
Rather, I will point out that I cannot think of a major environmental issue in New York that was resolved in a single year. It took seven years to convince the MTA to clean up their buses; more than one City Council speaker had to oversee the revamping of the City’s solid waste plan once the Fresh Kills landfill was slated for closure; and safeguarding the NYC watershed is an ongoing venture that won’t ever be fully completed. And so on.
So, I will use a sports analogy to point out that this is just the first inning of a game that will continue in various City and State forums for some time.
The game, of course, is ensuring a sustainable city for the future.
The goal of this game to ensure that we are ready for the one million new residents of New York City—and the three million new members of our region—who will live here by 2030. This includes ensuring that we figure out how to reduce congestion so the City and the region work better, whether we’re measuring “better” through the lens of elbow room on the subway, the cleanliness of our buses, getting a seat on the morning train from Lynbrook or Yonkers, or our region’s ability to handle the ever-increasing pressures of growing goods movement through our port and the demand for on-time deliveries throughout the City and the region.
Another goal of this game is also to figure out how to handle all of these people and all of these goods, while also reducing air pollution to levels that are safe enough to breathe, every day of the year. Yes, every day.
Of course, another goal of this game is to find a fair, equitable and sustainable way of financing the billions of transit and other transportation investments that will be necessary to build and maintain all of what’s needed to create a sustainable city and region for the future.
And, last but certainly not least, another goal of this game is to create sustainability models that will be adaptable to other big cities in the U.S.—and around the world—so all of our cities are more sustainable in the long run (I’m actually writing this from Beijing, where particulate levels are often six times those in Manhattan.).
This game is not about a single vote on a single bill about congestion pricing.
We lost a few runs in the first inning. But this game ain’t over. And the goal of this game is too important to give up after just the first inning.
Stay tuned.
]]>Here's the news that struck my eye today: At the Detroit Auto Show, where automakers come to show their vision of the future, the folks at Corvette said that a redesigned Corvette, expected to arrive in showrooms in 2012, could be lighter and smaller than today’s ‘vette.
In the “everything is turning green” camp, Corvette exec Tom Wallace said that he doesn’t think they’ll design a “700-hp Corvette,” but that “what’s going to be more important is fuel economy, carbon footprint and green.”
Of course, in the “not everything has changed” camp, they also announced that the 2009 Corvette ZR1 will have a top speed of more than 200 mph.
]]>I live in New York, and much of my work is here too. Even when I’m working with EPA on national fuels and vehicle policies, I’m thinking about how they will play here on Broadway. Today, I posted my wish list on the Gotham Gazette, which Switchboard readers may recognize as my alter-site on the web, since I write a monthly environment column there. (Yes, you can subscribe, and it’s free!)
But it’s worth reprising it here too…
So, as we head into the new year, here is my list of wishes for New York’s environment.
PlaNYC 2030
Mayor Bloomberg ’s incredibly ambitious PlaNYC 2030 proposal of 127 different housing, transportation, energy, open space and other initiatives offers a fine starting point. Most of the goodies in it don’t require state legislative approval to move forward.
But the cornerstone of the plan is congestion pricing -- charging $8 to drive a car into the business district of Manhattan during the workweek. Implementing this system will be important to reduce traffic, improve air quality and raise funds for critical transit infrastructure investments throughout the region.
And, if it works here, congestion pricing is likely to be adopted in other cities that are struggling with increased traffic and unmet infrastructure needs. Congestion pricing, though, does require approval in the State Capitol as well as by the City Council.
My 2008 wish: The city and Albany should make their compromises and enact a congestion pricing plan that raises even more net revenue for transit improvements than the mayor’s original proposal.
Transit Funding
If New York City gains another million residents, as the 2030 plan anticipates, it will need the transit infrastructure to get them around the city. And that means more than the connecting the Long Island Rail Road to the east side’s Grand Central Terminal (the so-called East Side Access plan), building the Second Avenue Subway and the extending the Number 7 line to the soon-to-be-developed far west side of Manhattan—as important as all three projects are.
We need more service for all five boroughs—service that reflects the development patterns of the future, rather than the commuting patterns that existed decades ago when the original IND and IRT subway systems were built. We also need to fix the chronic under-funding of the system from Albany (we have 84 percent of the state’s transit riders, but get only 63 percent of the state transit funding).
My 2008 wish: In addition to implementing the congestion pricing program, the city and the state should find ways to increase their funding contributions to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s five-year, $32 billion capital program that will be presented next March. And I hope that they do it in a way that doesn’t add more burdens to the already taxed (in more ways than one) straphangers.
E-Waste
Old televisions and computers contain a slew of toxins (including lead, mercury and cadmium) that should never get buried in landfills or burned in incinerators. But the city’s current electronic recycling program requires people to lug their electronics to odd locations on random days. No wonder most New Yorkers throw this stuff in the trash.
My 2008 wish: The city should adopt Intro. 104, the “Electronics Collection, Recycling and Reuse Law,” which would require manufacturers to take certain electronic products back for recycling after consumers are done with them. Not only would this help take toxics out our waste stream, but it also will save money for the city by reducing the burden on the City’s Department of Sanitation and keeping some garbage out of landfills.
Stormwater and Sewage Overflows
Every year, roughly 27 billion gallons of untreated sewage gets mixed with stormwater runoff, and ends up bringing pathogens and other pollution into the city’s waterways. These combined sewer overflows (“CSOs”) put the public’s health at risk, damage our marine ecology, and frequently make our waters unsuitable for recreational activities.
Over the long haul, PlaNYC 2030 boldly aims to remake the urban landscape by keeping sewage and polluted stormwater out of our waters. But, in the short run, we need legislation to help us reach this goal.
My 2008 wish: The City Council should pass three bills (Intros. 628, 629 and 630) that, collectively, would help ensure that future administrations follow through on PlaNYC 2030’s ambitions. Together, the bills call for a sustainable stormwater plan for each of the city's waterways; mandate that new city capital projects use environmentally friendly technology and take stormwater issues into account; and require trees to be planted to help absorb stormwater before it goes into the sewage system.
Jamaica Bay
One of the great things about New York is its proximity to amazing outdoor environments. Here’s a great example: Jamaica Bay, home to the only federal wildlife refuge accessible by subway, sits right under the flight path to Kennedy airport. This gem hosts nearly 20 percent of North America’s bird species each year, along with an amazing array of fish and shellfish. But Jamaica Bay is jeopardized by water pollution — most dangerously, nitrogen pollution from four city wastewater treatment plants.
My wish for 2008: Six years ago, the stars aligned to create an ambitious pollution plan for Long Island Sound. The state Department of Environmental Conservation should adopt a comparable plan to protect Jamaica Bay for generations to come.
And one final wish: As environmentalists and other concerned New Yorkers work for these goal, may we all have a safe, happy, and healthy 2008!
]]>Just when you thought that the biofuels debate was about corn, soy, and palm oil, Jalopnik.com tells us about a Canadian company that is developing a process to convert used diapers to a synthetic diesel. This isn't some urban legend being spread by an out-of-work Jon Stewart writer (although I hope the writers' strike ends quickly so John Oliver can give us his take on this potential "Brown Gold" from the great north).
They hope to use pyrolysis (a chemical breakdown of complex organic materials using great heat, usually in the absence of oxygen) to create a synthetic diesel fuel that will cost a bit under $2.00 per gallon.
Could diapers displace the soy used in Willie Nelson's tour bus ?
I don't know, but this underscores a more serious point: rather than rush to anoint corn, soy, or even Indonesian palm oil as the undisputed king of biofuels, we will be a lot better off if biofuels programs are designed to reward environmental sustainability on a fuel-neutral, technology-neutral basis.
]]>