California Emissions Target Hands Task to Industry
01-12-2007, 09:14 AM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
California Emissions Target Hands Task to Industry
from the Wall Street Journal
By JEFFREY BALL - January 12, 2007
By JEFFREY BALL - January 12, 2007
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to require a 10% cut in the carbon content of its transportation fuels embodies a strategy to combat global warming that is likely to become more common around the world.
Instead of mandating the rollout of specific technologies, such as electric cars or ethanol pumps, California has set an emissions-related target and says it will leave it up to industry to figure out how to meet it.
In doing so, it is taking a political gamble: that the hands-off approach will unleash fights of economic self-interest among various industries -- fights that will, in the end, force industry to support a broad, economywide cap on carbon emissions. The broader the effort, the cheaper it is likely to be for any given company to cut its carbon emissions.
Gov. Schwarzenegger this week said he plans to issue an executive order calling for the state to reduce the carbon intensity of passenger-vehicle fuels 10% by 2020. The state expects that will translate into replacing 20% of California's on-road gasoline consumption with lower-carbon fuels. That would more than triple the amount of alternative fuels consumed on California roads today, the state says. Today, the vast majority of alternative transportation fuel in California, as across the U.S., is corn-based ethanol that is blended with conventional gasoline.
Central to California's plan is the creation of a market in which fuel producers can reduce their cost of compliance by buying and selling carbon "credits." Under the plan, transportation fuel sold in California will be subject to a ceiling on the amount of carbon it can emit per unit of energy it contains. The limit will take into account the carbon produced throughout the fuel's entire "life cycle": from the making of the fuel to its consumption in a car or truck.
That means California is pushing not just for any alternative fuels, but for those that are the most energy-efficient. That makes certain types of ethanol, for instance, more attractive than others.
Though the details have yet to be worked out, producers whose fuel has a lower carbon content than the standard will have excess emission credits they can sell on a market. Those whose fuel is too high in carbon will have to buy extra credits.
Oil producers Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips expressed support for the broad intent of the new California rule. The industry increasingly has concluded it will get slapped with some sort of carbon cap, and, based on the broad outlines it has seen so far, it thinks California's approach is as flexible an offer as the industry's likely to get. "The good news is it's not picking winners and losers," says Joe Sparano, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, the oil industry's Sacramento-based trade group. The group itself hasn't taken a position.
Because it faces its own carbon rule, the oil industry in California is likelier to support such policies throughout the country. While stressing his organization doesn't endorse a national global-warming-emission cap, Mr. Sparano said a national emissions-trading market would be beneficial "so that California companies are not unfairly disadvantaged."
For its own competitive reasons, the auto industry is talking even more bullishly about California's push for lower-carbon fuels. Auto makers already face a California mandate to reduce global-warming emissions from the cars and trucks they sell in the state by roughly 30% by 2016 -- a law the industry has sued to block, arguing it amounts to a state effort to regulate automotive fuel economy, which is barred by federal law.
Yet the auto industry is under mounting pressure to reduce the oil consumption of its fleet. So, over the past year, it has promised to ramp up its production of versions of its conventional vehicles that have been tweaked so they can run mostly on ethanol. For auto makers, the California low-carbon-fuels rule is a welcome way to ensure an increased supply of ethanol for those vehicles.
General Motors Corp. hasn't taken an official position on the California low-carbon-fuel rule, said David Barthmuss, a GM spokesman. But, he noted, when Gov. Schwarzenegger's office asked GM what the auto maker thought about the fuels rule, "we told them we think fuels like this are very important to the vehicles and technologies we're putting on the road right now."
The fact that the oil and auto industries, each for their own reasons, are endorsing the notion of applying emissions regulations broadly across the economy highlights the divide-and-conquer strategy at the heart of California's approach. Said Hal Harvey, director of the environment program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and a close adviser to California officials in coming up with the fuels plan: "When you have two giant, politically powerful industries aiming their arrows at each other, it's possible to get things done."
Instead of mandating the rollout of specific technologies, such as electric cars or ethanol pumps, California has set an emissions-related target and says it will leave it up to industry to figure out how to meet it.
In doing so, it is taking a political gamble: that the hands-off approach will unleash fights of economic self-interest among various industries -- fights that will, in the end, force industry to support a broad, economywide cap on carbon emissions. The broader the effort, the cheaper it is likely to be for any given company to cut its carbon emissions.
Gov. Schwarzenegger this week said he plans to issue an executive order calling for the state to reduce the carbon intensity of passenger-vehicle fuels 10% by 2020. The state expects that will translate into replacing 20% of California's on-road gasoline consumption with lower-carbon fuels. That would more than triple the amount of alternative fuels consumed on California roads today, the state says. Today, the vast majority of alternative transportation fuel in California, as across the U.S., is corn-based ethanol that is blended with conventional gasoline.
Central to California's plan is the creation of a market in which fuel producers can reduce their cost of compliance by buying and selling carbon "credits." Under the plan, transportation fuel sold in California will be subject to a ceiling on the amount of carbon it can emit per unit of energy it contains. The limit will take into account the carbon produced throughout the fuel's entire "life cycle": from the making of the fuel to its consumption in a car or truck.
That means California is pushing not just for any alternative fuels, but for those that are the most energy-efficient. That makes certain types of ethanol, for instance, more attractive than others.
Though the details have yet to be worked out, producers whose fuel has a lower carbon content than the standard will have excess emission credits they can sell on a market. Those whose fuel is too high in carbon will have to buy extra credits.
Oil producers Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips expressed support for the broad intent of the new California rule. The industry increasingly has concluded it will get slapped with some sort of carbon cap, and, based on the broad outlines it has seen so far, it thinks California's approach is as flexible an offer as the industry's likely to get. "The good news is it's not picking winners and losers," says Joe Sparano, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, the oil industry's Sacramento-based trade group. The group itself hasn't taken a position.
Because it faces its own carbon rule, the oil industry in California is likelier to support such policies throughout the country. While stressing his organization doesn't endorse a national global-warming-emission cap, Mr. Sparano said a national emissions-trading market would be beneficial "so that California companies are not unfairly disadvantaged."
For its own competitive reasons, the auto industry is talking even more bullishly about California's push for lower-carbon fuels. Auto makers already face a California mandate to reduce global-warming emissions from the cars and trucks they sell in the state by roughly 30% by 2016 -- a law the industry has sued to block, arguing it amounts to a state effort to regulate automotive fuel economy, which is barred by federal law.
Yet the auto industry is under mounting pressure to reduce the oil consumption of its fleet. So, over the past year, it has promised to ramp up its production of versions of its conventional vehicles that have been tweaked so they can run mostly on ethanol. For auto makers, the California low-carbon-fuels rule is a welcome way to ensure an increased supply of ethanol for those vehicles.
General Motors Corp. hasn't taken an official position on the California low-carbon-fuel rule, said David Barthmuss, a GM spokesman. But, he noted, when Gov. Schwarzenegger's office asked GM what the auto maker thought about the fuels rule, "we told them we think fuels like this are very important to the vehicles and technologies we're putting on the road right now."
The fact that the oil and auto industries, each for their own reasons, are endorsing the notion of applying emissions regulations broadly across the economy highlights the divide-and-conquer strategy at the heart of California's approach. Said Hal Harvey, director of the environment program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and a close adviser to California officials in coming up with the fuels plan: "When you have two giant, politically powerful industries aiming their arrows at each other, it's possible to get things done."
01-12-2007, 09:16 AM
#2
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,943
I’ve said many times on this board that for people who love cars; this is a great time to be alive (regardless of the specific object of a person’s passion). Starting about 1974 or so, you could pretty much count on the fact that the next model year performance car would have less HP/Tq than the model it was replacing and that was almost 100% due to ever stringent air quality restrictions…it’s only been in the past 10 years or so, mostly with the advent of new technology (computer technology and otherwise) that automakers have been able to product both clean and truly high performance engines.
I have nothign against “clean air” but I do hope that new regulations coming down the road, be they from California or DC, don’t take us back to “ever declining performance” days of the not so distant past or put a huge financial burden on U.S. Industry to the point it forces even more industry off-shore where such regulations don't exist.
I have nothign against “clean air” but I do hope that new regulations coming down the road, be they from California or DC, don’t take us back to “ever declining performance” days of the not so distant past or put a huge financial burden on U.S. Industry to the point it forces even more industry off-shore where such regulations don't exist.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; 01-12-2007 at 09:56 AM.
01-12-2007, 10:41 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
I’ve said many times on this board that for people who love cars; this is a great time to be alive (regardless of the specific object of a person’s passion). Starting about 1974 or so, you could pretty much count on the fact that the next model year performance car would have less HP/Tq than the model it was replacing and that was almost 100% due to ever stringent air quality restrictions…it’s only been in the past 10 years or so, mostly with the advent of new technology (computer technology and otherwise) that automakers have been able to product both clean and truly high performance engines.
I have nothign against “clean air” but I do hope that new regulations coming down the road, be they from California or DC, don’t take us back to “ever declining performance” days of the not so distant past or put a huge financial burden on U.S. Industry to the point it forces even more industry off-shore where such regulations don't exist.
I have nothign against “clean air” but I do hope that new regulations coming down the road, be they from California or DC, don’t take us back to “ever declining performance” days of the not so distant past or put a huge financial burden on U.S. Industry to the point it forces even more industry off-shore where such regulations don't exist.
I don't believe we'll see another group of doom & gloom days like we saw from '73 to 77 when performance dropped like a ton of bricks. The level of performance today when you stop and think about it is simply jawdropping, and there isn't anything that's going to drop compression ratios like the lead-free mandate of the early 70s did.
Most cars back then saw a power drop of up to 25% (discounting the change from gross to net horsepower). A drop that big, though very doubtful, would still leave an LS2 engine with significantly more horses than my LT1... and it by no means was a dog by any measurement.
01-13-2007, 01:56 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 858
Mr. Sparano said a national emissions-trading market would be beneficial "so that California companies are not unfairly disadvantaged."
01-13-2007, 04:12 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
I’ve said many times on this board that for people who love cars; this is a great time to be alive (regardless of the specific object of a person’s passion). Starting about 1974 or so, you could pretty much count on the fact that the next model year performance car would have less HP/Tq than the model it was replacing and that was almost 100% due to ever stringent air quality restrictions…it’s only been in the past 10 years or so, mostly with the advent of new technology (computer technology and otherwise) that automakers have been able to product both clean and truly high performance engines.
I have nothign against “clean air” but I do hope that new regulations coming down the road, be they from California or DC, don’t take us back to “ever declining performance” days of the not so distant past or put a huge financial burden on U.S. Industry to the point it forces even more industry off-shore where such regulations don't exist.
I have nothign against “clean air” but I do hope that new regulations coming down the road, be they from California or DC, don’t take us back to “ever declining performance” days of the not so distant past or put a huge financial burden on U.S. Industry to the point it forces even more industry off-shore where such regulations don't exist.
It points out the wisdom of a line of 4 cylinder RWD Pontiac performance cars. If GM does it right, the cars should be capable of 14 second 1/4 miles and still get 25+ MPG in daily urban/suburban commuting -- even better if you drive in rural areas. They should also have great handling due to the layout and be appealing to those of us who have to deal with tight parking spaces on a daily basis.
So far, this Pontiac plan is only rumor, but if it becomes true, it gives me hope that GM will have appealing cars even in a post-500hp world.
Who wouldn't like a 260hp 3200 pound DI turbo RWD sport sedan or coupe?
Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of a 507hp V8 4300 pound monster like the E63, but I ain't gonna be buying one any time soon
01-13-2007, 10:48 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
Fuel economy per unit weight continues to improve every year, which means that improving fuel economy is as simple as decreasing vehicle weight. As mentioned in other threads, this would be far more beneficial than cutting peak horsepower.
Carbon reduction doesn't necessarily mean that engine power will suffer, at least not if car companies can find some means to improve safety other than simply throwing more steel at the problem. I'm hopeful that alternative structural materials can be of some benefit here.
Lighter weight + big power = happy car fans, so let's not put on our sad faces just yet.
Carbon reduction doesn't necessarily mean that engine power will suffer, at least not if car companies can find some means to improve safety other than simply throwing more steel at the problem. I'm hopeful that alternative structural materials can be of some benefit here.
Lighter weight + big power = happy car fans, so let's not put on our sad faces just yet.
01-14-2007, 01:15 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: 1,581
Nothin' like some good old fashioned blackmail. I have no problem with California gimping their own economy by limiting the total amount of work accomplished via their feel-good "carbon credits," but when they try to foist it off on those of us that don't vote socialist, I draw the line. This is double-plus ungood, to use terms familiar to California voters, and anyone thats trying to justify this one may want to think it through...
01-23-2007, 07:50 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 114
well, like it or not, North America is going to have to face the reality of this sooner or later.
four percent of the world's population can't keep pumping out 28 percent of the global CO2 emissions.
there are plenty of good ideas out there to maintain performance standard where they are, or even better, even when the oil supply runs lower or emissions require hydrocarbon use to be limited. this WILL happen somewhere down the road.
i've already driven BMW's liquid hydrogen powered 7-series and it works. it's got about 35kW/litre. The next generation will be direct injection with about 65kW/litre, and there's a direct injection turbo version, with four injections per cycle (hydrogen burns 10 times faster than petrol). It's already on the single cylinder test bench, pumping out 95kW/litre.
four percent of the world's population can't keep pumping out 28 percent of the global CO2 emissions.
there are plenty of good ideas out there to maintain performance standard where they are, or even better, even when the oil supply runs lower or emissions require hydrocarbon use to be limited. this WILL happen somewhere down the road.
i've already driven BMW's liquid hydrogen powered 7-series and it works. it's got about 35kW/litre. The next generation will be direct injection with about 65kW/litre, and there's a direct injection turbo version, with four injections per cycle (hydrogen burns 10 times faster than petrol). It's already on the single cylinder test bench, pumping out 95kW/litre.
01-23-2007, 08:13 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
Add a 2 stage 5.3L hybrid setup to a Camaro and BAMM 35mpg and 320HP
I'm not worried.
Muscle cars are not the gas pigs this time around. Full size SUVs need to look out, but even then vehicles like the Saturn Outlook and GMC Acadia get 26mpg in a 2WD setup.
Just imagine if you could get cars tuned just for E85 and take advantage of 105 octane
I'm not worried.Muscle cars are not the gas pigs this time around. Full size SUVs need to look out, but even then vehicles like the Saturn Outlook and GMC Acadia get 26mpg in a 2WD setup.
Just imagine if you could get cars tuned just for E85 and take advantage of 105 octane
01-23-2007, 10:39 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Btw, I've read that the 1-series may finally be coming to America. I think a 130i with 260hp sounds pretty appealing. I presume you've driven them in Australia? How do they compare to a 330i?
01-24-2007, 11:30 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 114
Canada and California have signed on. And some northeastern states are following. So things are gradually changing.
Btw, I've read that the 1-series may finally be coming to America. I think a 130i with 260hp sounds pretty appealing. I presume you've driven them in Australia? How do they compare to a 330i?
Btw, I've read that the 1-series may finally be coming to America. I think a 130i with 260hp sounds pretty appealing. I presume you've driven them in Australia? How do they compare to a 330i?
it's based on a 3-Series architecture, so feels a lot like a 3, except its ride is firmer and there's a lightness to its responses the 3 doesn't have.
but it's definitely a little sleeper. more strong than super fast.
haven't driven one in Australia, but then, i haven't lived there for a year.
01-24-2007, 05:05 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,801
Any scheme that considers only consumption without respect to the net output is nothing more than income redistribution and an anti-capitalist tool of the far lefters.
01-24-2007, 06:28 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Why not? The thing the tree huggers never mention is that we are the most energy efficient economy in the world. Yes we use 25% of the world's energy, but we produce far MORE than 25% of the world's output. We're using our 25% more resposibly than anybody else is using their %.
Any scheme that considers only consumption without respect to the net output is nothing more than income redistribution and an anti-capitalist tool of the far lefters.
Any scheme that considers only consumption without respect to the net output is nothing more than income redistribution and an anti-capitalist tool of the far lefters.