LOWER EMISSION ACCOMPLISHED: New federal standards in the U.S. will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks and boost fuel efficiency.
Image: © iStockphoto.com/egdigital
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The nation's first mandatory attempt to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions is now a fact—and it will show up in a driveway near you in 2012.
The new policy, aimed at combating climate change, will curb the greenhouse gases spewing from car and truck tailpipes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DoT) released rules that set limits on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed and accelerate an increase in overall fuel efficiency to 14.5 kilometers per liter (34.1 miles per gallon) by 2016. Cars and trucks on the road today get an average of roughly 10.6 kpl (25 mpg) and the new rules would cover roughly 60 percent of U.S. vehicles.
"These are the first regulations to cover greenhouse gases in the U.S., these for autos," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said during a press conference announcing the new rule. "The emission reductions from these changes will clean up the air we breathe, especially in urban areas…, [and] it is a victory for our planet and everyone who knows we must take action today and not push the challenge of climate change onto the next generation."
The new rules will be phased in starting in 2012 and require a roughly 5 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions, along with a boost in fuel efficiency every year thereafter. By 2016, a manufacturer's full spread of vehicles for sale must emit an average of no more than 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile (5.5. ounces per kilometer), down from an average of 400 grams per mile today. Ultimately, the EPA estimates that the rules will reduce CO2 emissions by nearly one billion metric tons, or roughly equivalent to taking 30 million cars and light trucks off the roads.
In addition, the new rules will save gas. The government agencies estimate that the program will save as much $190 billion in fuel costs and conserve roughly 1.8 billion barrels of oil. "Putting more fuel-efficient cars on the road isn't just a great way to save the environment. It's a great way for Americans to save money at the pump," said DoT administrator Ray LaHood at the press conference. "The price of gas isn't going to go down, it's going to go up."
Of course, that comes at a cost. The agencies estimate the rules will add roughly $950 to the price of a new car or truck in 2016 and cost industry $52 billion to implement. But Jackson notes that car buyers will save that much in fuel costs in three years, if they buy the vehicle outright.
In addition to improving the efficiency of gasoline-powered internal combustion engines through technologies such as direct injection, variable valve timing and turbocharging, the plan rests on giving a boost to electric-powered automobiles, such as the Nissan Leaf or Chevrolet Volt, according to officials at the DoT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. "Electric vehicles get counted as if they get zero emissions," Jackson noted. "We all know that's not entirely true because when you plug in there's emissions associated with the electricity you're using."
Nevertheless, greenhouse gas regulations for electricity-producing power plants will not come before 2011, Jackson said, but next year large power plants will be required to address greenhouse gas emissions in applying for permits. "Only a small number of sources will be immediately impacted," she added. "I don't have a date to announce for you [when those rules will be announced.] Certainly, it needs to come out as soon as possible."
Regardless, the Obama administration would prefer to see legislation to address climate change and energy from the U.S. Congress, rather than the EPA taking action. The House of Representatives has already passed a bill that would cut national greenhouse gas emissions by 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, whereas the Senate is currently drafting several competing bills. And the U.S. has signed on to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, a nonbinding agreement to hold global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. The new regulations would cut greenhouse emissions by one billion metric tons over four years, but the U.S. emits roughly seven billion metric tons of greenhouse gases annually.
"This is a victory for drivers who, by 2016, will get 35 miles per gallon, spend less on fuel and send less of their dollars overseas," Jackson said, although the new rules still leave the U.S. behind Europe, Japan and China in terms of the timing or strength of fuel efficiency standards. Added LaHood: "All sales of automobiles are leading in the direction of more fuel-efficient autos."
See what we're tweeting about
32 Comments
Add CommentAt last the USA seems to be entering the scientific era. Nice to see the use of kilometres, litres and grams as opposed to the length of some ancient king's foot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust perhaps the American people will follow, hopefully before we become extinct.
scientific earthling - I'm sure it'll be so much more aesthetically comforting for scientists to know that we're using 'better' measurements, but at what cost and what real benefit for American society?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't this is a high cost luxury item when we're running out of food and burning the furniture?
This rule is so good for next generations. As the most advanced nation, in my opinion, admittedly, Ameriacan should play an more important role to reduct emissions and boost fuel efficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho knows is it possible to convert oxygen into the energy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho knows is it possible to convert oxygen to energy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really want this new rules will actually take actions. Sincerely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisstoo, why don't you tell others and help our world to survive longer?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't wait to see a considerably smaller number of silly pickup trucks making noise and/or idling about senselessly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is good to insert metric translations in stories, both to help international readers, and to help US readers become familiar with metric units.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne minor adjustment: The metric equivalent of 250 grams/mile is 150 grams/kilometer (not 5.5 ounces/kilometer)
@sci earthling - Are you suggesting that the metric system is "more scientific" than the Imperial system? Science depends on the method rather than the measurement system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot meaning to veer off TOO far on a tangent, but the "Inch - Foot" measurement system does have some advantages.
It is binary in nature, at least for small measures - halves, quarters, etc. ate all power of 2 based. This is a simple, intuitive concept to understand. Half of the next largest measure is easier to understand that a tenth of it. Any "computer person" will feel right at home with the familiar progression - 2, 4, 8, etc.
The system breaks down because it does not carry this when moving to larger measures - yards, miles, etc.
Great we are now going to have smaller, more complicated, more expensive, less safe, less useful cars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards
Joe Dokes
Smaller equals more complicated? - Ridiculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore expensive? - Hummers cost more *in many ways) than an Escort. - Risiculous.
Less Safe? - SUV's are involved in many more FATAL accidents than cars. Remove BIG SUV's == improved safety.
And maybe I gut enough funds to develop the technique of "tapping" power out of the aether, like a Flying Saucer does and what was (probably) used by Tesla, when he drove his electric Pierce Arrow Car in 1931.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Great we are now going to have smaller, more complicated, more expensive, less safe, less useful cars. " - Joe Dokes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've never understood the fixation that American Dorkes have with their cars. They are such whack jobs thta they purcase prodcuts to clean their tires.
Do they ever purchase a product to clean the bottoms of their shoes?
Anyhow... The era of disasterous influence of American idiocy on the world is coming to an end, and we can all begin to laugh at the bufoons as their klepto/creapo nation collapses around them.
The American Conservatives will probably promise to repeal the new efficiency standards as they have promised to repeal the new laws providing universal health care to Americans once they are re-elected.
In a democratic system of government, the people get the government they deserve.
"Smaller equals more complicated? - Ridiculous." cansise
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrupt U.S. Auto makers have long resisted electric vehicles because they know full whell that once you go electric, there is greatly reduced barriers to competition. Barriers that they have long counted on to limit serious competition with their products from smaller companies.
It takes some real engineering effort to build an more efficient engine than the crap that the American Auto sector produces.
But that is only if you stick with gasoline as the fuel source.
Once you go electric, then the power train becomes a commodity item And then to the rest of the vehicle.
jtdwyer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have lived and worked in the USA, granted a long time ago. In our maintenance departments we maintained both a metric and an imperial set of tools. Our manufacturing plants were American, British, German and of Japanese manufacture. We also had to cope with drawings in feet and inches as well as metric measurements, we often paid the price when errors resulted. A classic example was an engineer evaluating a project informing management that a new oven would fit into an existing factory, the oven was 10 meters long not 10 ft long.
When it comes to food and water, who is to blame for uncontrolled reproduction? Who asks people to go forth and multiply? The world needs to adopt China's population control measures, not by force but by taking away family benefits for excessive births. Here in Australia we could restrict the $5000.00 baby bonus to two children as well, further restrict paid paternity/maternity leave to a maximum of two children, six months salary for no work, well would you not keep on having babies?
The world Homo sapien population is a bubble. Just like the financial one, it too will burst. What sort of stimulus package will they implement? World-wide food rationing?
Candide:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me first say I read a lot of your comments, and I find you more rational than a lot of the others.
A unit of measure is a standard against which a measurement is made. Science does not depend on the unit used as long as the same units are used consistently.
It does not matter if your unit is based on the size of your big toe or something else, but when the entire world chooses and uses a particular unit why would you want to make life difficult for your own people by using a different unit. If you are American you should be glad that your currency is the standard used worldwide.
I have worked in many countries. In every non-English speaking country, I have always heard the complaint, if only I could speak English I would be better off, and the people complaining were spot on, they would have been better off, since English is the global Lingua Franca.
As far as using halves, quarters and one-eights is concerned you can do it just as well with any system of measure. Half a meter is a perfectly good descriptor and is used all the time here in Auz.
If you really want to go with a natural system lets dump the decimal system and go Hex. I would love it.
The fuel eff measure here are moot as in 2016 gas prices will be $8-10/gal in today's $. The only thing is will the US gov get it in taxes to pay down the debt, help switch to far more eff transport,energy use or it goes to Iran, Russia, oil dictators and we go broke in oil wars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI drive my EV's every day that get 250 and 600mpg equivalent for my 2 seat EV sportwagon and Harley size MC trike. These cost about 25% of a similar ICE to run.
My European 2007 car already gets 34mpg. My next car will be much more efficient. At least America is making a start. You are still far behind us Europeans with your clunky engines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the median future of the automobile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CAnq5DyNG0
It is great that we are trying to save natural energy resources which are rapidly declining, as without energy we cannot cope with climate change, but we should remember that one large container ship emits as much CO2 as 50 million vehicles and 15 of these ships emit as much as all the vehicles in the world. What are our Governments doing about this I wonder? If every CO2 emitting vehicle was eliminated it would only save 2.47 parts per million out of the total 386 parts per million that we currently have, which would be overtaken within 18 months by the 1.7 ppm increase every year from human and animal respiration. With over 6 billion people and the animals farmed to feed them, we don't stand a chance of reducing CO2. There will be 9 billion people by 2050. On top of this China are increasing their car ownership by 1.3 million per month (Sept 2009 registrations)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's wonderful that the government is finally recognizing the truth about electric vehicles and their emissions. Most of the benefits that derive from electric vehicles come from them being light weight, aerodynamic and efficient. Put a quite small internal combustion engine in them and they will still be all of that and competitive in fuel and emissions. Though I admit they won't be as "cool".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Watkins,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd just like to point out that respiration does not increase CO2 content in the atmosphere. The carbon that is part of breath has only recently be removed from the atmosphere by plants. The net effect is zero.
Your math is a bit off. Let's say that a car that gets 35 mpg is traveling at 70 mph; that's in the ballpark of what is typical. It is using 2 gallons per hour. I'm not sure what the actual figure is, but I'm thinking that a container ship probably consumes less than 100 million gallons of fuel per hour.
Progress? Most cars in England got 40 miles per gallon back in the sixties!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best way to reduce CO2 emissions is for people to buy electric bicycles and use them whenever the weather is clement.
At just one cent per mile, just think how much better off you will be...
"Progress? Most cars in England got 40 miles per gallon back in the sixties!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYa, well Americans - as a groupoid - are pretty stupid, and are trained from an early age to perpetuate that ignorance by ignoring reason and reality.
John McCarthy at Stanford University calls them "Ear Flaps". Although he was never quite bright enough to realize how common his "new invention" has become in the collapsing American State. Faux news anyone?
I'm with JerryD above who no doubt understands peak oil will cause oil price rises that will mandate *far* more efficiency than any silly, tinkering, half-hearted measures taken by Congress. Because of the "you first" mindset the nations of the world seem to have regarding curbing CO2 emissions the only hope is peak oil, peak gas, and peak coal (which could be earlier than people think). Once depletion of these resources starts and the price rises investors will finally get the message that investing in fuel arrangements that have no future is a really bad idea, and hopefully the new money will be drawn into more *economically* sustainable investments like Better Place's battery swap EV.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, it seems it will take the selfishness of economics to make these changes for us.
Another point: Which will be more devastating? Peak fossil fuels, or climate change?
Even if we burnt all the conventional fossil fuels it would only push us through to 460-480ppm CO2 (with variables from the various natural feedbacks). That might delight anyone working off old IPCC models, but horrify anyone who has been keeping up with the real climate science which says we shouldn't have gone past 350ppm.
Yet here we are, only a few years off peak oil, and we're not prepared for it at all... it's a 20 to 30 year project. Good luck America (and my homeland of Australia!), as we're going to need it!
Heres one solution : Put a small tax on energy sources and redistribute the money to buy 5,000,000 biomass pyrolysis units for third world farmers. That will reduce atmospheric CO2 noticeably. Secondly, apply another small tax to build decarbonisation plant near all oil and gas wells.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimple, technologically feasable and economically viable.
Why search elsewhere when an answer already exists?
<i>decarbonisation plant</i>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is this, and how much does it cost? Why not just move our transport systems to electricity to prepare for peak oil anyway (by building fast rail, which in distances over 800-1000km can work out about the same as a plane trip when one counts checking in and baggage collection times).
Peak oil is coming anyway, so oil will soon begin to deplete at a regular amount per year. This will damage the world economy so much that I'm assuming a lot of new construction projects, new car purchases, etc will all be cancelled, and the world will start to use less Co2.
Eventually we'll transition to electric transport as no other liquid fuel sources are as cheap or as abundant as oil. And electricity can come from local wind farms, nuclear power plants, hydro, solar PV, solar thermal, tidal, wave, geothermal, etc.... even coal for a bit longer (not preferred!)
If I ran the world I'd take every green dollar and push it towards converting our transport, mining, agriculture and construction systems and getting them off oil! We do NOT want the Carter Doctrine to throw us into a world of REAL oil wars. Even a smaller nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India might fix global warming for us, but what a way to do it! Billions would starve in the (relatively limited) global dimming afterwards. Now if larger nuclear powers went at it head to head over the remaining oil... that would 'fix' overpopulation AND global warming AND resource constraints for us for good I reckon! There would be hardly anyone left to sell plasma screen TV's to. ;-)
Eclipse : Biomass Pyrolisation Plant is on the market, after 10 years of research and development. See www.eprida.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrocarbon decarbonisation plant also uses Pyrolysis to convert crude oil or methane gas into coke and hydrogen, but still needs R&D funding as it is a more recent application. But it should be ready long before CCS from CO2, and be economically viable and non-polluting.
nice to hear this, it will help the coming generation to enjoy the nice environment ( by baraka willy komba, East Africa, Tanzania +255712667226 find me for more info even friend ship
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisya its nice , we prepare for coming generation on this!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this