Category Archives: Cars and Pollution

Good News for America: Cleaner, More Efficient Trucks that Protect Our Environment and Strengthen Our Economy

Source: Flickr/MoDOT Photos

Source: Flickr/MoDOT Photos

2014 is shaping up to be a great year for truck equipment manufacturers. Sales through October are running 20% higher than their 2013 levels. It’s a banner year that continues to pick-up steam. 2015 is looking even stronger, with forecasts suggesting it will be the 3rd strongest year ever for truck sales. There are several factors driving this market. Higher fuel efficiency is top among them.

This point was brought home recently by the lead transportation analyst for investment firm Stifel, who noted that “the superior fuel efficiency of the newer engines” was a key in getting fleets to buy new trucks now.

The CEO of Daimler Trucks, the leading producer of class 8 trucks for the U.S. market, acknowledged recently that their most efficient engine and transmission combination was “already sold out for 2014” and that the “demand is beyond their expectations.”

It’s not just Daimler that is having a good year.

2014 is a banner year for truck sales; and 2014 trucks are the most efficient ever.  2014 trucks are the most efficient ever because of smart, well-design federal policy.  This is the first year of the 2014-2018 heavy truck efficiency standards that will:

  • reduce CO2 emissions by about 270million metric tons,
  • save about 530 million barrels of oil over the life of vehicles built between 2014 – 2018,
  • provide $49 billion in net program benefits.

The 2014-2018 heavy truck fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas program demonstrates that climate policy benefits businesses, our economy, and human health, while also cutting harmful climate pollution.

Or, as Martin Daum, president and CEO of Daimler Trucks North America noted, these standards “are very good examples of regulations that work well.”

In its first year of existence, the 2014-2018 fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas program is boosting sales for manufacturers, reducing operating costs for fleets, and cutting climate pollution for all of us. It is clear that well-designed federal standards can foster the innovation necessary to bring more efficient and lower emitting trucks to market.   That is very good news, because we have an opportunity to further improve and strengthen these standards – creating more economic and environmental benefits in the process.  For this, we all can be thankful.

This post originally appeared on our EDF + Business blog.

Also posted in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy| Comments closed

"Risky Business" stands out in growing sea of climate reports

Receding beach on North Carolina's Outer Banks. Source: FEMA/Tim Burkitt

(This blog originally appeared on EDF Voices)

This blog post was co-authored by Jonathan Camuzeaux.

Put Republican Hank Paulson, Independent Mike Bloomberg, and Democrat Tom Steyer together, and out comes one of the more unusual – and unusually impactful – climate reports.

This year alone has seen a couple of IPCC tomes, an entry by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the most recent U.S. National Climate Assessment.

The latest, Risky Business, stands apart for a number of reasons, and it’s timely with the nation debating proposed, first-ever limits on greenhouse gas emissions from nearly 500 power plants.

Tri-partisan coalition tackles climate change

The report is significant, first, because we have a tri-partisan group spanning George W. Bush’s treasury secretary Paulson, former mayor of New York Bloomberg, and environmentalist investor Steyer – all joining forces to get a message through.

That list of names alone should make one sit up and listen.

Last time a similar coalition came together was in the dog days of 2009, when Senators Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, and John Kerry were drafting the to-date last viable (and ultimately unsuccessful) Senate climate bill.

Global warming is hitting home

Next, Risky Business is important because it shows how climate change is hitting home. No real surprise there for anyone paying attention to globally rising temperatures, but the full report goes into much more granular details than most, focusing on impacts at county, state and regional levels.

Risky Business employs the latest econometric techniques to come up with numbers that should surprise even the most hardened climate hawks and wake up those still untouched by reality. Crop yield losses, for example, could go as high as 50 to 70 percent (!) in some Midwestern and Southern states, absent agricultural adaptation.

The report is also replete with references to heat strokes, sky-rocketing electricity demand for air conditioning, and major losses from damages to properties up and down our ever-receding coast lines.

Not precisely uplifting material, yet this report does a better job than most in laying it all out.

Financial markets can teach us a climate lesson

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Risky Business gets the framing exactly right: Climate change is replete with deep-seated risks and uncertainties.

In spite of all that we know about the science, there’s lots more that we don’t. And none of that means that climate change isn’t bad. As the report makes clear, what we don’t know could potentially be much worse.

Climate change, in the end, is all about risk management.

Few are better equipped to face up to that reality than the trio spearheading the effort; Paulson, Bloomberg and Steyer have made their careers (and fortunes) in the financial sector. In fact, as United States Treasury secretary between 2006 and 2009, Paulson was perhaps closest of anyone to the latest, global example of what happens when risks get ignored.

We cannot – must not – ignore risk when it comes to something as global as global warming. After all, for climate, much like for financial markets, it’s not over ‘til the fat tail zings.

Also posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Economics, Extreme Weather, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health, Jobs, News, Policy| Comments closed

Saving Billions While Cutting Climate Pollution

More fuel efficient, lower emission heavy trucks are good for business, good for consumers, and good for combating climate change. By deploying existing and emerging technologies to improve truck efficiency, the U.S. can save billions in fuel expenses while cutting harmful climate pollutions by millions of tons.

EDF is calling on the Obama Administration to set new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy trucks that cut fuel consumption by 40 percent compared to 2010 levels. These standards would apply for freight trucks and heavy-duty work trucks, such as box delivery trucks, bucket trucks, beverage delivery trucks and refuse trucks.

Analysis by leading environmental and energy efficiency advocates, including EDF, demonstrates that bold heavy truck standards are technically feasible and will be effective in cutting oil consumption and climate pollution.

Strong standards will be good for American business and consumers too.

EDF and Ceres examined how strong standards would affect the cost of moving freight by trucks. The results are unequivocal — strong standards will save companies money.

For example, an owner of a new tractor-trailer unit stands to save between $21,000  and $36,000 during the first year the truck is in service.

By 2030, the combination of both phases of standards will cut fuel use by 1.4 million barrels per day and reduce carbon pollution by 270 million metric tons, compared to the fuel use and emissions that would occur without fuel efficiency improvements.

Companies stand to save nearly $8 billion dollars in 2030 too, as the cost-per-mile to move freight will decrease by $0.07 a mile as a result of the second phase rules alone.

By 2040, these savings could grow to $25 billion annually, as the net effect of the second phase of the standard alone could be to reduce the per-mile cost of moving freight by 21 cents.

Our finding of significant financial benefits of strong fuel efficiency and GHG standards is consistent in magnitude with previous analysis. A recent report by the Consumer Federation of America looked at similar Phase 2 standards and found net savings of $250 to consumers, rising to $400 per household in 2035 as fuel prices and transportation services increase.

With such savings at hand, a natural question is why do we need new standards in the first place? We need new standards because well-designed federal standards foster the innovation necessary to bring more efficient and lower emitting trucks to market.

Strong standards break down barriers that keep technologies from moving from the test track to the assembly line.

Manufacturers need to be confident in market demand in order to develop and launch efficiency improvements. Strong standards give them the certainty they need.

Fleets are often weary of investing in advanced technologies; as such capital investments could put them at a disadvantage if fuel prices drop suddenly, like they did in 2008. For-hire trucking fleets also directly pass on a large percentage of their fuel bill through fuel surcharges to their customers, thus distorting the economic incentive to invest in efficiency.

Manufacturers and fleets can benefit significantly from strong standards. As the EDF analysis demonstrates, manufacturers will have a market for more valuable equipment; while fleets will achieve significant overall savings.

In fact, this is just the type of impact we are seeing from the first phase of heavy trucks standards, which went into effect at the start of this year. Fleets and Manufacturers are praising the rule and new, cost-effect offerings have come onto the market.

Moving forward on strong heavy-truck efficiency and emissions standards is a step that our country needs to take.

Also posted in News| Comments closed

EPA Hands Over the Keys with Clean Power Plan, California Already on Cruise Control

EPA’s Clean Power Plan, proposed today, is a roadmap for cutting dangerous pollution from power plants, and as with any map, there are many roads to follow. For this journey, states are in the driver’s seat and can steer themselves in the direction most beneficial to their people and to the state’s economy, as long as they show EPA they are staying on the map and ultimately reaching the final destination.

As usual, California got off to a head start, explored the territory, blazed a lot of new trails, and left a number of clues on how states can transition to a lower carbon future, and California’s successes are one proven, potential model for other states to follow. The state’s legacy of clean energy and energy efficiency progress is a big reason the White House and EPA could roll out the most significant national climate change action in U.S. history.

Way back in the mid-1970s, when Governor Jerry Brown did his first tour of duty, California pioneered what remains one of the most effective tools for cutting pollution and saving money:  energy efficiency. The state’s efficiency standards, largely aimed at buildings and appliances, have saved Californians $74 billion and avoided the construction of more than 30 power plants. All those energy savings have translated into California residential electricity bills that are 25% lower than the national average.  What’s more, California produces twice as much economic output per kilowatt hour of electricity usage as the national average.

While energy efficiency has done yeoman’s work pulling costs down, reducing the need for dirty energy, and supercharging the state’s clean energy economy, California has also brought bold approaches to cleaning up its power supply. The California Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires 33% of all electricity sold in California to come from renewable sources by 2020, the most aggressive of the 29 states with RPS measures on the books.

In 2006, California enacted Senate Bill 1368, a groundbreaking law that set the nation’s first greenhouse gas emissions standard for power plants, a forerunner of EPA’s Clean Power Plan announced today. The same year, the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) instituted a statewide limit on greenhouse gas emissions, requiring California to return to 1990 levels by 2020. Power plants are capped under AB 32’s successful cap-and-trade program, another precedent that set the table for EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which establishes a national limit on power plant pollution for the first time. This robust suite of policies resulted in California cutting carbon pollution from in-state and imported electricity by 16% between 2005 and 2010-2012.

Given this track record, it’s no surprise that Californians strongly support pollution limits on power plants. According to the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) 2013 survey, 76% of Californians support “stricter emissions limits on power plants,” and 65% of survey respondents say that California should act immediately to cut emissions and not wait for the economy to improve, a record-high level of support. The survey also shows that Californians believe the economy will improve because of strong environmental regulations, and that you don’t have to have one or the other. Data corroborating this view continues to pile up:  the state now has its lowest unemployment rate since 2008 even with increasingly stringent environmental policies.

California is proof positive that states can fashion creative policies that improve their environmental and economic bottom line, and that’s exactly what will be needed to make EPA’s Clean Power Plan a durable and resounding success. California’s roadmap includes a variety of alternative routes, giving other states a chance to adopt or adapt them to meet the needs of their own unique journeys toward a healthier future.

This post first appeared on our California Dream 2.0 blog.

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy| Comments closed

New EPA rule for dirty power plants fuels strange debate

Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution in the United States.

In the downside-up Alice in Wonderland world of Congress, we are about to begin a debate about whether unlimited pollution is a good thing.

It will be triggered by the Obama administration's historic announcement today that for the first time, America’s fossil-fueled power plants will not be allowed to release limitless amounts of carbon pollution – a policy that will improve the chances our children and grandchildren will have a safe and healthy future.

No one, of course, will stand up and say they love pollution.

But you're about to hear elected officials and industry lobbyists talk very loudly about the calamity that will occur if we impose any restriction at all on carbon pollution from power plants.

Learn how you can support carbon limits

Never mind that power plants are the largest source of this pollution, or that they cause major damage to our environment and our health. And don’t worry that up until now, there have been no national limits on them at all.

According to these folks, unless we allow companies to pollute as much as they want, we will face catastrophe.

Pollution is bad – period

The new rule from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would establish standards for carbon pollution from existing power plants, just as they have standards for soot and mercury and other pollutants. The rule is based on decades of science, and will be proposed under authority granted by Congress through the Clean Air Act.

More importantly, it’s based on two pieces of basic common sense:

  1. When there is no limit on pollution, you get a lot of pollution.
  2. Pollution is bad.

It doesn’t seem to reassure the unlimited pollution crowd that every past effort to reduce air pollution has resulted in a net benefit for our economy as well as for our health. In fact, the benefits of most EPA Clean Air Act rules outweigh the costs by 30 to 1.

But as reliably as a humid summer in Washington, critics of the law will wildly over-estimate the cost of complying with new pollution reduction rules.

The impacts of unlimited pollution are scary, as outlined in two recent scientific reports that outline the situation globallyand in the United States. Kids will have more asthma attacks, storms will be more destructive, drought more severe, and lots of other dangerous problems.

Compare that future to one in which we have reasonable limits on carbon pollution. They won’t solve all of our problems, but they are a significant step forward. The new EPA rule will kick-start a transition to a clean-energy and low-carbon future, which will lead to economic and health benefits for everyone.

So next time someone tells you that limits on carbon emissions are a bad idea, ask if he (or she) thinks unlimited pollution is a responsible policy – and watch the person change the subject in a hurry.

It’s how these conversations usually end.

This blog first appeared on EDF Voices

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions| Comments closed

Soot Pollution Limits Unanimously Upheld in Court, Continuing Clean Air Victory Streak

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) particulate matter (soot) pollution standard, ruling that EPA’s decision to strengthen the standard in 2012 was firmly grounded in science and the law. The ruling also upheld EPA’s new requirement that states install air quality monitors near heavy traffic roads, where soot pollution levels can spike. The court’s decision is the latest in a string of legal victories for critical health protections on air pollution.

When fossil fuels are burned in an automobile or power plant, they release soot pollution, very fine, ashy particles less than one tenth the width of a human hair. These particles are so small that the air can carry them for long distances. When inhaled, soot particles penetrate deep into the lungs, where they can cross into the bloodstream via the path normally taken by inhaled oxygen. Exposure to soot pollution can inflame and alter our blood vessels, cutting off the oxygen supply to our heart and brain, leading to a heart attack, stroke, or other serious cardiac event.

The Clean Air Act mandates that EPA revisit its standards on criteria air pollutants – like soot – every five years, so that clean air standards can keep pace with the latest understanding of health science. Since EPA established its 2006 soot standard, hundreds of scientific studies have shown that particle pollution could cause adverse health effects—even in cities that met EPA’s established limits. Based on this information, in 2012, EPA strengthened its soot pollution standard to protect public health. Furthermore, EPA called for states to implement roadside air quality monitors to ensure the standards would likewise protect individuals exposed to significant near-road emissions.

The National Association of Manufacturers and the Utility Air Resources group, a coalition of large power companies and coal companies, filed legal challenges to EPA’s new soot standards, arguing that the 2006 standard was sufficient to protect public health. But the science doesn’t lie. In the D.C. Circuit Court’s unanimous decision, Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote:

Here, we can be brief: Petitioners have not identified any way in which EPA jumped the rails of reasonableness in examining the science. EPA offered reasoned explanations for how it approached and weighed the evidence, and why the scientific evidence supported revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

EPA was reasonable in their interpretation of the science—the polluting companies, on the other hand, could not present a credible argument against the updated soot pollution standards, or the need for roadside air quality monitors.

This important victory is critical to protect our families and communities from harmful soot pollution, and it is clear that EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act stands up to both legal and scientific scrutiny.

This post was adapted from EDF’s Texas Clean Air Matters Blog

Also posted in Clean Air Act, Health| Comments closed
  • About this blog

    Expert to expert commentary on the science, law and economics of climate change.

  • Categories

  • Get blog posts by email

    Subscribe via RSS

  • Meet The Bloggers

    Megan CeronskyMegan Ceronsky
    Attorney

    Nat KeohaneNat Keohane
    Vice President for International Climate

    Ilissa Ocko
    High Meadows Fellow, Office of Chief Scientist

    Peter Zalzal
    Staff Attorney

    Gernot Wagner
    Senior Economist

    Graham McCahan
    Attorney

    Mandy Warner
    Climate & Air Policy Specialist

    Pamela Campos
    Attorney

    Kritee
    High Meadows Scientist