Cash for Clunkers extension should be scrapped

         I am in favor of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.  I believe that carbon emissions from human behavior are warming the planet and will cause drastic climate changes in years to come.  I want our car-centric society to move towards a reliance on public transit and smart growth communities.  I want people to reduce, reuse, and recycle in order to mitigate their footprint on the environment.

         But I am absolutely opposed to the extension of the Cash for Clunkers program.

         On Friday, the House added $2 billion to the program which has run out of money months before its November deadline—after many people doubted whether the original $1 billion would be spent entirely.  The original law was tolerable, in that it provided some economic stimulus, allowed people to purchase more environmentally-friendly cars, and gave hope that the ailing auto industry would somehow benefit from a bump in demand.

         It’s no longer cute anymore.  All this law does is subsidize manufacturers and dealers—one of the most egregious forms of protectionism, in that all states have laws to mandate transactions through dealerships.  In reality, we should be moving toward a “demand-pull” model in which consumers can order their cars directly from the plant, reducing excess inventory and eliminating the middlemen who can take advantage of non-savvy buyers.

         Furthermore, with such a limited definition of what a “clunker” is and the modest fuel efficiency standards that a new vehicle must meet, it is doubtful whether this bill will be a boon to the environment.  Given that it takes a good deal of carbon to manufacture a new car (about 6.7 tons, by one analysis) and that a new car need only receive at maximum 28 mpg—which is only slightly above the corporate average fuel economy—for the purchaser to receive the full $4,500 rebate, it will take about four years for the driver to “repay” the carbon cost of the new car.  That isn’t a bad thing, but in four years we will hopefully be looking at hybrid and electric cars with even greater fuel efficiency at a more reasonable price.  So in that sense, it might be more beneficial to hold onto one’s car a little longer.

         Another way in which this act caters to the auto industry is that there is no provision for used cars.  All traded-in clunkers must be scrapped.  The $4,500 credit cannot be administered to charities or recyclers if car owners were to donate their clunker.  And many people who are driving heavy-emissions vehicles may not be in the position to afford new ones, in which case a mere $4,500 would not help them to finance a new purchase.

         To add insult to injury, the $2 billion extension is being diverted from the stimulus bill’s loan guarantee program for renewable energy projects.  That is an awful misuse of resources given that many states estimate that blackouts will occur in the next few years if grid capacity is not increased.  Plus, urban development and transit expansion will need clean energy sources to maximize effectiveness.  And need I mention the national security imperative of having a network of transmission to our homes and businesses that does not require kowtowing to petro-dictators overseas?

         We need to help our struggling auto industry to reinvent itself; we also need more fuel efficient cars.  What we don’t need is a half-life support/half-token gesture to environmentalists when this money could be used more effectively for other purposes.

Climate change legislation: barely enough commitment to make a difference

            Considering that the last administration treated global warming as a dubious, economy-killing figment of liberals’ imaginations, the climate change bill now winding through Congress (having been goaded into fruition by President Obama) is a welcome dose of reality to environmentalists.

            The ideal piece of legislation would find a way to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions—either by taxing a harmful activity or by making the price reflect the full market value once the amount of pollution on the globe is factored into production costs.  The incentive would be to invest in less harmful forms of energy, whereby doing the right thing would not be cost-inhibitive.  Mass producing renewable energy is more expensive in the short run simply because the technology is newer and more inefficient than it would be had we more extensively conducted research and development over the past few decades.

            But simply making fossil fuel energy suddenly more expensive because the social costs are being factored in for the first time is not an effective argument to make to a country that is suffering from a recession, treats higher taxes as political poison, and has deeply entrenched coal and oil interests.  That latter point has been made abundantly clear, as 85 percent of allowances to pollute that are supposed to be auctioned off under a cap-and-trade system (which reduced sulfur dioxide levels when enacted in the 1990s) will be given away to the energy industries.  Plus, the target of reduction has been moved to 17 percent of 2005 levels, versus 20 percent, to occur in 2020—a compromise that Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) helped bring about to assist the coal companies of Virginia.

            I do worry a little about the effect of carbon caps on industries, as companies could face higher operational costs that would cause worker layoffs.  However, I would hope that the same congressmen who are seeking to protect the employers/campaign contributors of their constituencies would be stumbling over themselves to pass policies that promote the creation of new R&D for and operation of renewable energy industries in their districts.  That is why I wonder if tax rebates to consumers to counter higher energy costs imposed on fossil-fuel based companies under new regulation would have any promotional effect for cleaner energy.  If companies can raise rates to pay the government, then the government compensates consumers, all that occurs is a meaningless transfer of wealth, no?

            The bill needs strict, funded mandates—governors should develop plans to derive at least 17 percent of their state’s energy from renewable sources by 2020, with the ability to apply for federal grants to in-state start-up firms.  Once sufficient alternatives to fossil fuel energy become available, consumers ought not to be shielded from the higher costs of pollution.  In fact, while the idea is not to harm poorer people by increasing their energy costs (if anything, rebates should only be handed out to those qualified for Medicaid, Medicare, or unemployment insurance), middle and upper-class people should be goaded into reducing their energy usage.  Advertising campaigns about turning off lights and using less water are cute, but they are also true.  Not all energy-saving methods are as grand as buying a hybrid; simply doing the little things, and doing them often, will add up.

            The excuse given for why high reductions cannot occur quickly is that it is questionable whether the growing industrial economies of India and China will also comply with global emissions requirements, giving them an unfair advantage in production if they do not.  Yet China has already has already asked the U.S. to make much more earnest requirements in order to take climate change proposals seriously, so why not engage them on the matter?  They are our vital negotiating partner on North Korea and economic stabilization, and as long as the world economy is retooling, their role should be defined as well.

            That something must be done to curb harmful greenhouse emissions is not only realistic, but it is also something this Congress has thankfully been willing to address.  Unfortunately, they have masked short term commitment by claiming to protect their constituents, but in reality handing over the keys to the fossil fuel industries.  True enough, by 2050 83 percent of emissions are supposed to have been cut.  But long term goals are useless if politicians aren’t willing to make short term commitments.  Perhaps once the renewable energy lobby gains enough clout, then serious change will occur.

Why driving a car can still be energy-efficient

            A crumbling auto industry, a growing environmental consciousness, congestion in major cities, the sociopolitical cost of importing foreign oil, and a progressive attitude towards land use policies are all converging to generate the expansive question: how should our lifestyles change in order to make the most efficient use of our resources?

            Last week, a report was published by the University of California-Berkeley that examined the environmental impact and energy use of different modes of transportation.  However, the study did not simply measure the emissions of singular vehicles, but rather computed the amount of energy required to build, maintain, and operate entire systems of transportation.  For example, in looking at the airline industry we can identify different sectors of energy use: active operation (cruising, taking off, landing), inactive operation (idling on the runway, taxiing), and non-operational components (construction, maintenance, airports, parking lots, jet fuel delivery).

            The data are important for establishing equivalency.  From the study: “an SUV (which is one of the worst energy performers) with 2 passengers…is equivalent to a bus with 8 passengers.  Similarly, CA HRT (heavy rail transit) with 120 passengers (27% occupancy…) is equivalent to a midsize aircraft with 105 passengers (75% occupancy).”  Now, these figures are averaged not only for a fixed period of operation (as in one day, or scheduled operation over an entire route) but are also averaged over the lifetime of the vehicle in question, including its support structure.

            So, given the energy use for an entire transportation system, we can deduce that while diesel-powered trains may have lower overall emissions per passenger-mile than jumbo jets, the construction of track and all aspects related to stations use significantly more energy than airport and runway construction (which makes sense, because planes have no infrastructure needs in the air).  The best way to reduce emissions for rail transit is to make stations more energy efficient or use less energy-intensive inputs in track construction.  However, the way to reduce emissions for automobiles and airplanes is to improve the combustion process of the vehicles themselves via biofuels or hybrids.

 

            That some modes of transit are not as “green” as one would expect is not particularly shocking—a less-fragmented energy comparison can be found here—but some questions are left unanswered.  For instance, when a community is built up around a light rail stop which ties together retail, housing, and human services (with the anticipation of minimizing vehicular traffic), would that not lower the overall energy usage of that particular geographic area?  In which case, how do we factor that into the lifetime emissions of light rail?

            Furthermore, if an SUV with two passengers equals a bus with eight passengers, it would make mathematical sense to cut bus routes with low-ridership and encourage carpooling.  However, would it make political sense if the bus route is providing a needed social service to poor neighborhoods where the residents cannot afford vehicles?

            The study also fails to mention that even though an equivalency may be found between a car and a train, it is always more energy efficient to take the train, simply because of the fact that the train will run regardless of whether you are on board; the aggregate of many people choosing to drive will drastically increase emissions.  However, the same logic can also apply to cars: it is better to ride with someone who would have driven regardless, rather than take a separate car.

            Finally, there is a tiny statistic buried within the greenhouse gas discussion: while San Francisco’s light rail system uses more energy than that of Boston, Boston’s light rail emits more greenhouse gases.  Why?  Because a greater portion of the San Francisco system’s energy comes from non-fossil fuel sources (51% versus Boston’s 18%).  The importance?  While the goal should be to use less energy, the source of energy rather than the quantity used could be as effective in cutting emissions.

            The lessons from this type of study are as follows: first, it is important to look at the biggest source of emissions in the entire support system for a mode of transportation in order to address inefficiencies.  Second, when the recession ends and oil use starts to increase again, overall emissions could still be decreased through targeted efforts to increase carpooling and off-peak transit use.  It may put greater strain on infrastructure to have more people crowding onto buses and train platforms during rush hour, but more evenly-spaced passenger loads would help improve longevity of the support system.  Lastly, there is no “green” form of transit when we look at the total inputs required to operate the various modes of transportation—there are simply least-harmful options.

            In a day or two, we’ll look at the other component of the energy agenda—the administration’s effort to lower emissions by cap-and-trade fiat.

America’s auto industry: too big and failing

            Poor GM.  The company has fallen from its position as top carmaker to a bankrupt government corporation today.  Since the 1950s, its market share has dropped from fifty to twenty percent and it employs fewer than one hundred thousand workers.  This is the latest tragedy in the continuing decline of America’s declining manufacturing sector, and legitimates the perils of free trade and the reactionary “Buy American” protective measures.

         On the political front, opponents of all things socialist fear that the Obama administration has tried to nationalize the banks, is trying to nationalize healthcare, and has already nationalized our carmakers.  Politicians say that they don’t want General Motors to be run by the government; but on the other hand, Congress is using their newfound clout to pressure GM and Chrysler not to close dealerships in their respective constituencies, even though the closures are part of a larger strategy to consolidate, streamline, and restructure the industry.

         I certainly abhor the fact that so many workers who could count on seemingly-secure jobs and generous benefits will face uncertain prospects in those areas of the country where other manufacturing has already folded.  However, that does not change the fact that the American auto industry was stubborn, inefficient, and smug in thinking that only the affinity Americans feel towards our industry would protect it against better-constructed, fuel efficient, trendy cars from overseas.

         Cars, to me, are mainly utilitarian and I do not bestow any particular status symbol on American-built autos.  Thanks for the memories, GM, but the new megacorporations of this country are found in retail, like Wal-Mart and Target.  And besides, does this country even need a world-class auto industry anymore?  We may not be able to compete with zero-defect Japanese production, but we still lead in other sectors, like defense contracting, biomedical research, and information technology.  Not to mention that we export our culture to all corners of the globe—the Chinese are eating at McDonald’s and the Iranians are waging a presidential campaign on Facebook, for example.

         Furthermore, we have the highest per capita GDP of any country in the world.  We’re rich; and rich people demand services.  Thus, it isn’t altogether bad that our traditional manufacturing base is slipping.

         But we have the opportunity to change that.  People are slow to alter their behavior in the absence of selective incentives.  Why should I care about global warming if it costs more to buy a hybrid car?  And why should I buy a hybrid car if gas prices are low?  To fulfill some of President Obama’s long-term agenda items, the government will need to take a few gutsy steps.  They will need to gradually but drastically raise the gas tax while gradually lowering the amount of permissible emissions from vehicles and power plants.  They will have to apply the proceeds from those taxes to public transportation, which has to increase fares whenever gas prices rise (even though more people will crowd onto buses and trains) because many systems receive funding through that mechanism.

         Congress will have to subsidize measures such as California’s recently-approved high-speed rail network—laughed off as a multibillion dollar boondoggle in a state whose finances are in disarray, but would ultimately provide new jobs and reduce emissions.  And they may also have to subsidize GM as the money-losing Volt car is produced, until economies of scale kick in.  Most importantly, they need to subsidize research and development of inexpensive modes of renewable energy production.

         This should not be viewed as a diktat from on high to force Americans into giving up their SUVs and Hummers and banish environmental sensitivity.  This is America’s new business model—an abrupt change that should have gradually come into being over the past several decades.  It is the natural progression of technology to switch to lower-cost, higher-benefit paradigms.  Old jobs are destroyed, new industries are created, and the government often has a hand in the conversion.

         The Transcontinental Railroad emerged after the Civil War; the interstate highway system after WWII.  But now, with the emergence of third-world manufacturers and terrorism, we are recognizing the implications of globalization, both good and bad.  To make sure that we get our fair share, we need to update our business model—out with the old and in with the new.

Cycling: the hooptie revolution

            I want to ride my bicycle

            I want to ride my bike.

            I want to ride my bicycle.

            I want to ride it where I like.

            —Queen, 1978

Unless you are five years old, deliver newspapers, or are Lance Armstrong, most of us Americans do not make bicycling an integral part of our lives.  American urban planning lags behind in the creation of dedicated bike lanes and there has plainly been lack of public motivation to consider how cycling will factor into one’s lifestyle as long as gasoline was cheap—a halcyon era never to be seen again.  These issues, coupled with motorist antagonism, render bicycle use as a commuting method out of the mainstream—behind car pooling, walking, using public transportation, and even working from home.   

      Europeans, unsurprisingly live a more bike-centric existence.  In the flat country of Holland, for example, there are twenty million bicycles compared to sixteen million people.  Plus, there is a multilevel bicycle garage erected outside Amsterdam Central train station that houses 2,500 hogs while their owners are traveling, going to work, or, presumably, selling copious amounts of weed to backpacking American college students.

 

    But out of reaction to high gas prices, and recognition of the environmental and health benefits, bicycle and electric bicycle sales are up (by 9 percent in the U.S., 14.6 percent in Europe over the past five years) and Washington, D.C. has even implemented a “bike sharing” program (similar to car sharing), where trendy commuters or energetic tourists can rent one of 120 bikes at ten locations, ride it for an hour, and return it at another site.  While this pales in comparison to the European standard (Paris has 20,000 bikes at 1,450 sites), for the car-centric and transit-crowded District to be in line with progressive cities on the west coast will take more than this—a primarily psychological step towards eco-friendliness.

            Be forewarned, though, that bicycling is a still form of transportation with an oil dependency.  Humans have to burn energy to power the cycles, and agriculture (grown by fertilizers containing oil and natural gas, plowed by tractors burning diesel fuel, and transported by trucks also using diesel) still requires fossil fuels, despite the fact that you don’t have to personally pump it into a tank.  Not to mention that bike trails and roadways (made of asphalt) must be maintained with machines burning oil.  Still, cycling is good for the body and for the spirit, mitigates traffic congestion, and increases the air quality.  Cyclists can even be multimodal to travel greater distances: some transit buses have metal racks on the grille to carry bicycles; and Caltrain, the commuter railroad between San Francisco and San Jose, not only has bike storage at its stations but dedicates railcar space to transporting bicycles.  This is very generous, considering that cyclists do not pay extra to carry their bikes on board, yet seats for paying passengers are being sacrificed.  But in the end, it is just an illustration of how permeated bike use has become as a viable form of transportation in the Bay Area.

      If more communities were walkable/rideable, then the average American might be less intimidated on busy city streets.  Ironically though, it is not just the car that could scare prospective riders.  Hardcore cyclists often weave through traffic, disregard red lights and stop signs, cut off pedestrians, use the wrong side of the road, careen past slow and casual riders, and in general seem to own the road.  If cyclists observe traffic laws and courtesies and not pretend to be zipping along on the Tour de France during the ride home from work, it should be much easier to coexist with automobiles.  That being said, dedicated bike paths would be safer and smoother as well as reinforce a particular city/county’s dedication to greener transit.

      Bicycles are only part of the solution to wean our dependence on oil and deal with the cost of increasing development and an increasing population.  Much like mass transportation, there can be a psychological impediment to bike usage—the distances may seem too far, you might become too tired, it might be too dangerous, you may look ridiculous, a car is more comfortable, etc.  But there are very real physical limitations to bike usage as a result of sprawl and our dedication to personal vehicles; and like mass transportation, if bicycling becomes more accessible (either in crowded cities or in transit-oriented communities) and more trendy, Americans might start to use it in the way that our European counterparts have done for years.