Rant: If we were serious about cutting vehicle emissions

"cuts_off_prius" (cutsoffprius) 10/11/2016 at 00:51 • Filed to: None

3

25

This climate change stuff is getting real (and has been) and we are heading to disaster if we keep this up.

I originally wrote this for another car forum with more of the environmentally conscience demographic, but I thought it was also relevant here:

If we were serious about cutting emissions, we would harmonize FMVSS/CMVSS/EPA with UN-ECE UNIVERSAL standards. We Americans and Canadians simply do not have access to the ultra efficient passenger cars and their drivetrains across the pond due to our unnecessary market protection regulations. Even if we made responsible car buying decisions, the same cars simply don’t hold a candle to what is offered across the pond. Want a base Ford Fusion? Stuck with an archaic 2.5l NA I-4 gasoline engine. Meanwhile in the UK for the same car, Ford Mondeo, in base trim you get to choose from 1.0T Ecoboost, 1.5T Ecoboost, 1.5 TDCi diesel, and 2.0 TDCi diesel. Multiply this with hundreds of models and you have quite a descrepancy with emissions between the two places. And this is for the reasonable consumers who buy what fits their needs, not even counting the hordes of light truck (SUVs, crossovers, vans) buyers (which account for about 2/3 of the market). It all adds up!

In this regard, I hope that TTIP deal goes through...

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

U.S. vehicle CO2 emissions still almost double Europe and Japan
Darren QuickDarren QuickJune 21st, 2010

Despite ongoing efforts to wean itself off the teat of foreign oil, the U.S. car market is still almost twice as polluting as Europe and Japan. This new finding from automotive data provider, JATO Dynamics, comes despite the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) – better known as “cash for clunkers” – program that replaced over 690,000 vehicles on the roads with more fuel-efficient models and the fact that American consumers are significantly more inclined to adopt Hybrid technology than Europeans. Then why is it so?

JATO’s study of the U.S. light vehicle market in the first quarter of 2010 reveals that the market’s average CO2 output is 268.5 g/km. In order to reflect like-for-like comparison with car markets in other global regions, excluding pick-up trucks, full size vans and small commercial vehicles, the figure falls to 255.6 g/km. This figure compares very unfavorably to Japan (130.8 g/km) and Europe’s five biggest markets, which average 140.3 g/km.

All markets improved marginally when compared to the full-year average in 2009 with Japan’s CO2 output down 0.4 g/km, the USA down 1.0 g/km and Europe improving most significantly with a 4.3 g/km reduction in the year-to-date.

“It is still clear that American consumers need to undergo a fundamental re-think of their vehicle buying preferences, but the past period of economic upheaval is likely to have meant that other domestic issues have taken consumer’s priority”, says David Mitchell, President of JATO Americas. “The blame can’t just lie with consumers though, the OEM product offering in the US still does little to promote alternatives to the large engine capacity gasoline vehicles which still dominate the market.”

Gasoline, diesel and Hybrid cars

However, Americans consumers have taken a shine to Hybrids such as the
Toyota Prius. Hybrids enjoy a 2.3 percent market share in the U.S., while in Europe it is still only 0.5 percent. Not surprisingly though, Japan leads the way with 10.1 percent of market share going to Hybrids.
While they mightn’t have embraced Hybrids as much as Americans, Europeans have been able to reduce their CO2 emissions thanks to the rising popularity of diesel, a fuel which has a 48.9 percent market share in Europe. Conversely, Japan has a tiny diesel share of only 0.11 percent, but its highly congested roads make very small and economical gasoline cars a popular choice. Currently, the U.S. market is dominated by gasoline which has 81.9 percent market share, with only 1.7 percent being diesel.

Fuel too cheap?

JATO sees cost as a major factor in the difference between the popularity of different fuels and fuel technologies in different countries. The price of gasoline still remains comparatively low in the U.S. when compared to other global markets where its rising prices have been one of the key influences for change. Of the vehicles sold in the U.S. 33.9 percent fall within a 15-20 mpg consumption bracket, compared with only 0.63 percent in Japan and just 0.29 percent in Europe.
Carrot or stick?

JATO says varying CO2-based taxation regimes that reward or penalize certain technologies can also play a part in regional variances. Japan’s high-technology driven economy favors new technologies such as Hybrid and electric vehicles, while European vehicle “scrappage” schemes have contributed significantly to the introduction of a large number of low polluting, fuel-efficient small cars – something that “cash for clunkers” didn’t do to the same effect.

There is a lot to gain from harmonizing regs, according to this lengthy policy brief: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

In regards to emissions (bolded mine):

For example, the European Union is moving toward

a greenhouse gas emissions standard of 95 grams/kilometer

(60.6 miles per gallon equivalent) for 95 percent of vehicles by

2020 and the United States is moving toward an average level

of 163 grams/mile (54.5 miles per gallon equivalent) by 2025. It may be in the producer’s interest to make one car for both

markets that meets the 60.6 miles per gallon threshold.2

A clear hierarchy in these regulations favors low emissions. As a result,

environmental regulations can create a race to the top, where

an automobile that meets the highest standard on various emissions

tests is marketable in both economies.

Now, I’m not for banning anything and I know there are people out there with legitimate uses for their Suburbans, etc. But we should have more choices as consumers in this regard and I wouldn’t mind if we incentivise buying habits for more efficient vehicles somehow without hurting the consumer too much.

Edit: Just noticed the irony of my username.

beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 01:02

8

serious about cutting emissions?

drive less. Governments should encourage infrastructure that allows workers to live closer to work, ride-share, walk, ride or take public transport or even with high-speed internet bandwidth to work from home on some or many days of the week.

I know it’s not a solution for everyone. But it’s a solution for many.

cuts_off_prius > beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard 10/11/2016 at 01:06

0

This too! All of the above.

Berang > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 01:07

0

If we were serious we would just stop letting companies sell big, stupid vehicles, and sidestepping regulations.

Birddog > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 01:10

2

Nobody will be serious about cutting emissions as long as money can be made or political fame can be had by doing so. Pollution is big buisness.

For Sweden > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 01:25

2

If we wanted to get serious, we would bring EU NOx emissions standards down to USA levels, and end any scrapage schemes .

cuts_off_prius > For Sweden 10/11/2016 at 01:30

0

Yes to these as well. Less NOx is good for congested cities and people with cardiorespiratory issues. Keeping our cars on the road a bit longer also helps a lot.

TheHondaBro > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 03:07

0

Don’t worry, my car has a Low Emissions Vehicle sticker, so I’m goood.

CRider > Berang 10/11/2016 at 03:38

0

What counts as a big, stupid vehicle? Should we all be forced to ride Groms everywhere? (I’m not entirely opposed to that idea btw)

Sam > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 05:58

1

We will only do anything once people actually start dying and losing their homes. As Birddog said, pollution in big business. These are the same people that used leaded gas, knowing full well it was going to start harming people, but kept going until they were ordered to stop because of the lead poisonings in children

Aaron M - MasoFiST > beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard 10/11/2016 at 06:19

0

This also helps with electricity and heating emissions, too...smarter infrastructure allows for denser cities, which in turn allows for more efficient use of energy for heating, cooling and lighting.

yamahog > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 06:51

2

I’m so serious about climate change that I decided not to have children. Pretty sure that offsets anything else I do _

*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP*

random001 > yamahog 10/11/2016 at 06:57

0

.....ummm.....

yamahog > random001 10/11/2016 at 07:08

1

(ok I really just don’t want kids but the environmental benefits are real)

Carbon Emissions, A Comparison

Below are a few examples of how much carbon dioxide (in metric tons) is saved over a lifetime (80 years) by a typical American for certain actions, including not having one child.

Increase car’s fuel economy from 20 to 30 mpg: 148

Reduce miles driven from 231 to 155 per week: 147

Replace single-glazed windows with energy-efficient windows: 121

Replace ten 75-watt incandescent bulbs with 25-watt energy-efficient lights: 36

Replace old refrigerator with energy-efficient model: 19

Recycle newspapers, magazines, glass, plastic, aluminum and steel cans: 17

Reduce number of children by one (with emissions fixed at 2005 per-capita values): 9,441 [emphasis mine]

Source: “Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals” by Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax

random001 > yamahog 10/11/2016 at 07:11

1

I have a 19 months old and a 1 month old. I can vouch for the amount of emissions they give off...

They sure are cute, though.

Edit: Also, I don’t begrudge you your decision. I was in that camp for a great many years. Things changed for me, but stay strong Yama!

yamahog > random001 10/11/2016 at 08:11

0

Lol no worries :)

bhtooefr > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 08:33

1

I’m all for harmonizing safety regulations with UNECE standards. I’m also for introducing the L7e class to the US, as basically a 4-wheel motorcycle with a 90 km/h (56 mph) speed limit, with effectively no safety regulations. We already have the FMVSS 500 class, which is similar in concept to L6e, except for allowing much more weight.

Emissions regulations, though? At least right now, the Euro standards and test procedures have been conclusively proven to be woefully inadequate by Dieselgate (there’s automakers cheating worse than VW, nowadays, they’re just doing it in a completely legal way, whereas VW wasn’t), and local pollution is also a huge concern, that is killing people today.

Make a diesel actually comply, and it’s no longer cost effective outside of the premium/luxury space. And, no, that doesn’t mean that we should just damn it all and pollute locally to reduce CO2... because, well, I’ll get to that. Basically, we don’t need to pollute locally to reduce CO2.

And, note what I said about the test procedures. None of the four base Mondeo engines that you mentioned is of a type that is honest on the European tests - ignoring the diesels, the EcoBoosts (and, we do get the 1.5T in the US Fusion) will get massively inflated fuel economy results, and also have sky-high particulate emissions. As test procedures and regulations get better, fuel economy claims will get a lot less ridiculous, and gasoline particulate filters will be necessary on DI turbo gas engines, hurting fuel economy and reliability.

Basically, that 2.5 liter in the Fusion isn’t as bad as it seems. Average fuel economy for MY2015 (to ensure cars have gone through a winter) is 26.0 MPG across 14 vehicles, versus 27.1 MPG across 21 vehicles for the 1.5T, while improving local emissions. And, you don’t want the 1.0T in that thing...

Conversely, hybridize, and you can run a damn simple port-injected NA engine, run it in Atkinson cycle, get diesel-class peak thermal efficiency, keep it near that peak at all times, and get regenerative braking too. And, sticking with the Fusion, that thing has a hybrid variant (it has drawbacks, the battery packaging is dreadful), and MY2015 is at 43.1 MPG, across 117 vehicles. (And, why is hybrid and diesel seen as mutually exclusive? Even a simple diesel already cost more, enough so that hybridization wasn’t considered cost effective with it.)

Variable Atkinson-cycle technologies like Mazda’s using on SkyActiv-G, and Toyota’s using on VVT-iW engines, can help even without hybridization (although all of the SkyActiv-G engines, and all of the VVT-iW engines, are direct injection (and one of each is turbo), and have some particulate issues as a result). Note that 2015 Mazda6 2.5s are at 30.5 MPG, for a vehicle in the same class as the Fusion, with a 2.5 liter direct injected, naturally aspirated 4-cylinder, with wide-authority VVT to run Atkinson-cycle at part load.

Cylinder deactivation is another way to help.

(All fuel economy numbers from Fuelly.)

Now, one thing that I’d like to see is... if a vehicle gets safety, emissions, or fuel economy exemptions for being a work vehicle (read: trucks), it should require a CDL. It’s not banned, it just requires a higher standard of driving. That’ll also stop automakers from classifying CUVs as trucks, which is currently allowing them to be lazier about CUV fuel economy (because they’re graded on the truck standards, not the car standards), as well as allowing them to be lazier about pickup fuel economy (because the CUVs are bringing their truck average up).

RutRut > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 10:06

0

If we were serious about cutting emissions we would stop obsessing over the light duty/passenger market. The statistic is the 15 largest shipping vessels output more pollution than all cars in the world combined:

http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182

Let’s talk about medium and heavy duty trucks (my engineering background) where there are no mileage requirements, more laxed emissions standards, and tons of vehicles under 7mpg. I understand that everyone loves to regulate LD/Passenger because it is the highest volume of vehicles but it ignores a lot of the picture.

DynamicWeight > beardsbynelly - Rikerbeard 10/11/2016 at 11:44

0

This is what I do, I just bought a truck that gets terrible mileage, but I ride my bike to work everyday! The truck is just for fun trips.

Berang > CRider 10/11/2016 at 13:54

0

I would be perfectly happy with a groms for clunkers program.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 15:55

1

“We Americans and Canadians simply do not have access to the ultra efficient passenger cars”

That’s not true. The most efficient cars are BEVs like the Nissan Leaf and Teslas. And the next most efficient are hybrids like the Prius.

And we get all of those.

If we are really serious about climate change, we will:

Ditch the coal power plants (already happening in many places in North America)

Implement carbon limits on the airline industry ( starting to happen )

Implement a carbon tax and/or a cap and trade system (Already happening in some places)

Promote energy efficient options (already happening in many places directly or indirectly)

Need to tax energy inefficient options more heavily

And for energy efficient options, I’m not talking just about cars. This applies to other things like HVAC systems, appliances, lighting and other stuff as well.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > yamahog 10/11/2016 at 15:59

0

“*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP*”

Was that your harley davidson or did you just rip out a massive fart due to eating some burritos from a dodgy Mexican place?

cuts_off_prius > Manwich - now Keto-Friendly 10/11/2016 at 22:11

0

That’s not true. The most efficient cars are BEVs like the Nissan Leaf and Teslas. And the next most efficient are hybrids like the Prius.

And we get all of those.

I was referring to all the ultra efficient cars sold across the pond if you read the rest of my sentence. Such cars as the Renaults that get 50 MPG US or better in the real world (ex: http://www.fuelly.com/car/renault/clio/2013/Draigflag/297870 ).

Regarding EVs, the European market has way more electric models to choose from (also due to the fact they have more brands and models).

We do have ultra efficent cars available, but just not as much as they do and we don’t have nearly as many incentives to drive efficient cars besides the government tax credit for EVs. Meanwhile, the EU market averages nearly half of our market’s CO2 emissions. This is most likely due to higher fuel prices and CO2 tax brackets (i.e. the more efficient your car, the less taxes you pay). Here, there is no penalty for driving a 6.2l V8 Escalade besides using more fuel, except for the gas guzzler tax which applies to cars (not light trucks) that get less than a certain combined MPG.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > cuts_off_prius 10/11/2016 at 22:20

0

What I’m getting at is the supposedly ultra efficient euro cars aren’t any more efficient than some of what we can buy here.

And if Europe has more selection of BEVs, all the best ones are also available here.

Nauraushaun > cuts_off_prius 10/12/2016 at 02:22

0

I think there are reasons Americans don’t get smaller engines like that. They like powerful cars and do a lot of highway driving. If they had 1.0 litre economy cars, I don’t think anyone would buy them.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > cuts_off_prius 10/13/2016 at 18:41

1

Americans wont change till $5.00 gas returns.