I just shot a show with three leading environmentalists in California, all with the idea of getting into their heads and figuring out where the next round of CO2 regulations is headed. After all, as goes California, so goes the nation-and ultimately the world.What the California environmental lobby wants are cars that get somewhere between 70 and 100 miles per gallon. Though they're open to all alternatives, they're especially fixated on plug-in hybrids, because they see them as the fastest way to dramatically cut CO2 emissions.
Automakers that think they're going to have a hard enough time meeting the new CAFE law of 35 mpg by 2018 better brace for impact. These environmentalists merely see that as a first step. After that, they plan to push for big cuts in CO2, and they plan to push hard.
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers. Follow the jump to continue reading this week's editorial.
I spoke with Roland Hwang, Vehicles Policy Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council; Dr. Mark Bernstein, Managing Director of USC's Energy Institute; and Dr. James Lents, President of the International Sustainable Systems Research Center. That interview will run soon on Autoline Detroit.
Actually, they prefer pure electric cars. But the last time California mandated EVs in the early 1990s, it was a complete disaster. GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda and Nissan all offered electrics, but practically nobody bought them. GM alone probably lost a billion dollars on its EV-1 program, and all it got in return was a movie blaming it for killing the electric car.
With today's soaring gas prices, maybe the public is ready for cars with limited range, but back then they sure weren't. And that's where plug-ins come in.
By being able to run in pure-electric mode, plug-ins can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. And when the batteries run out of juice, no problem, you've still got an engine to keep you going.
Interestingly, Dr. Lentz from the ISSRC says that nearly half the commuters in Los Angeles have a daily commute of less than 20 miles. He says that even a plug-in with a 15-mile EV range can make a big difference. That sure caught my attention because automakers are knocking their brains out trying to develop lithium-ion batteries that can provide a 40 or 50 mile range. Sounds like they could shoot for a shorter range and use half the batteries at half the cost. Or use nickel-metal hydride batteries instead. In fact, Toyota recently announced it has a road-ready plug-in using nickel-metal hydride batteries.
One of the points we discussed on the show is whether the grid can take millions of plug-ins charging up. These guys say it can. They point out that the peak load is between noon and 4 PM and that we could actually use plug-ins to feed juice back into the grid at that time, and then charge them back up during off-peak hours.
And they say that even if we use coal-fired generating plants to provide the electricity it still results in a net reduction of CO2 compared to having all those cars running on gasoline.
In fact, their preference is to have plug-ins with engines that run on cellulosic ethanol. That results in one of the biggest CO2 cuts of all.
I'm still skeptical that climate change is man-made. And I'm not the only one. In fact, I'm in some pretty good company. But I also realize that as far as the public debate goes, this train has left the station. Like it or not, the regulations are on the books and more are on the way.
From a regulatory, marketing, and public relations standpoint, automakers have got to dramatically cut CO2. Toyota won the first round by absolutely dominating the hybrid market. But for now the second round is still a jump-ball. And it will be fascinating to watch the car companies fight for the high ground with plug-ins.
###
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 7:00AM on Speed and 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Last week's show: "Short People"
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
epilonious @ Apr 7th 2008 2:37PM
"Actually, they prefer pure electric cars. But the last time California mandated EVs in the early 1990s, it was a complete disaster. GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda and Nissan all offered electrics, but practically nobody bought them. GM alone probably lost a billion dollars on its EV-1 program, and all it got in return was a movie blaming it for killing the electric car."
Probably the best summary of that whole fiasco. Ever.
The Other Bob @ Apr 7th 2008 5:09PM
"Probably the best summary of that whole fiasco. Ever. "
Exactly.
sol @ Apr 7th 2008 3:46PM
It is becoming rapidly apparent that I am being priced out of any opportunity to purchase a new car or even a reasonbly low mileage late model car. I will have company to the tune of millions of people. Conceivably people will be hanging on to their older cars for much longer than has been the case. I do not see progress in this scenario.
Mike @ Apr 7th 2008 3:53PM
Most of the greenies aren't interested in actual progress. They just fixate on one specific target and beat said target to death. Then when it's not fashionable to go after that target any longer, they just choose another.
I just wonder how much damage will be done to the auto industry before the focus moves elsewhere this time.
The Other Bob @ Apr 7th 2008 5:09PM
Mike: "Most of the greenies aren't interested in actual progress. They just fixate on one specific target and beat said target to death."
Yup.
Cars in the U.S. emit only 1.5% of the worlds CO2 and we are driving more and more cars. A "cut" in auto emissions will not have a measurable effect on the world's CO2 emissions.
dan spalinger @ Apr 7th 2008 3:52PM
I guess McElroy missed the part where California and the rest of the states with their own air pollution boards were overrulled by the courts...CARB is dead, and so are the enviro's in their attempts to mandate STATE by STATE rules...it has to be done on a national level or not at all...and given that the U.S. is a smaller and smaller part of the world's auto population...it won't make one bit of difference what the greenies here say or do...
RobAFromNC @ Apr 7th 2008 3:54PM
I hope what happens is California, stays in California...
Matt @ Apr 7th 2008 4:18PM
"RobAFromNC:
I hope what happens is California, stays in California..."
I agree. Commiefornia is the biggest reason why we don't have 50+ MPG diesel cars running around.
psarhjinian @ Apr 7th 2008 5:29PM
@Rob
So they can keep their federal tax dollars, then? Good.
balabok @ Apr 9th 2008 5:03AM
We disenfranchised peeps in Cali call it the "PRK". The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia. We fly a flag with a "red star" a "bear".
MJK @ Apr 7th 2008 3:58PM
California is the scene of rolling blackouts and such correct? So how will plug in Hybrids be any help in this department? And "they will be plugged in at night" argument does not cut the mustard for me. The answer to all our problems...jet packs.
BLASTOFF @ Apr 7th 2008 5:23PM
Jet packs! Now we are talking. I watched a guy on TOP GEAR with a jet pack strapped on, and he exceded 100 mph on roller blades while racing the Hamster driving an Aston Martin. The Hamster won, but so what.
Eric @ Apr 7th 2008 7:52PM
Sooner or later it's my hope that politicians will realize that simply creating a government mandate will not make a technology feasible or marketable. The most frustrating part of all this is that it does not really matter what lengths car manufacturers go to reduce emissions - ultimately environmental interests won't be satisfied. As this article points out, even IF they are able to hit the 40 mpg mark by 2020, environmentalists will want more. And I for one have no interest in a vehicle with a 50 mile range.
Scott @ Apr 7th 2008 8:16PM
Those who are red in the middle have painted themselves green and slithered through the back door to haunt us as "environmentalists". And they are going to save the earth by controlling the temp of the planet? You can't make this stuff up.
It would all be laughable until you realize these fascists are winning, and will be deciding what you drive/don't drive for many years to come.
The automobile is an enormous part of our economy, and especially bothersome to the 'greenies' is the freedom it represents and provides (economic and otherwise). Controlling the production, sale and use of such an important tool is a boon to communists (sorry, greenies) everywhere.
Just remember this isn't about the environment. There is absolutely no pleasing these people. Wretched ideologies don't die, they just get repackaged.
Mike @ Apr 13th 2008 8:25AM
"Those who are red in the middle have painted themselves green and slithered through the back door to haunt us as "environmentalists". And they are going to save the earth by controlling the temp of the planet? You can't make this stuff up.
It would all be laughable until you realize these fascists are winning, and will be deciding what you drive/don't drive for many years to come.
The automobile is an enormous part of our economy, and especially bothersome to the 'greenies' is the freedom it represents and provides (economic and otherwise). Controlling the production, sale and use of such an important tool is a boon to communists (sorry, greenies) everywhere.
Just remember this isn't about the environment. There is absolutely no pleasing these people. Wretched ideologies don't die, they just get repackaged."
Absolutely!! There are those who seem to believe that the only good society is a controlled society. Social Engineering (with all its offshoots) reared its ugly head with the demise of communism. Coincidence - I think not.
Rob @ Apr 7th 2008 10:42PM
The continue to focus on CO2 emissions from autos and ignore the fact that most emissions of greenhouse gases are from electricity production. So what do the loonies in Cali do? Try and force everyone to use more electricity. Yes the state of the rolling summertime brownouts. But these false environmentalist dont care. They will just import more electricity from a neighboring state and talk about how much their actions have reduced greenhouse gas emissions. If global warming was a truely preventable, legitamate threat I would think they would focus on green electricity production. That transition would be far easier and seemless compared with more auto regulations. It would have a much greater effect on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Its obvious the liberal environmentalists do not care about the impact of global warming. They are only interested in political power. They are tired of being beat by republicans in elections so they reform campaign finance to reduce contributions from large profitable companies (big oil anyone?). Then they ignore the global demand for oil (like India and China) and blame $3.50 gas solely on republicans and 'greedy' oil companies. Using this reasoning they convince people to vote for them. They sold the idea that republicans conspired against them to profit from the big bad oil industry and destroyed the planet in the process. Its just Hollywood BS. Hopefully the country will realize this before voting for the likes of Obama. He's like a contract with big letters on top and pages of fine print behind it. The big letters read "I have never and will never take money from oil companies". Buried in the fine print it reads "but I will take 'individual'contributions from the CEOs of these companies". I would much rather vote for someone that I at least know what I'm gonna get. After all Hillary herself has even said Obama doesnt have enough experience. If that rings true, which appearently it does for about half of democrats, Mccain trumps both of the 2 TERM democratic senators.
Avinash machado @ Apr 8th 2008 6:07AM
I think the correct spelling is EnivonMENTAList.
Tom Davy @ Apr 8th 2008 7:21AM
When plug in electric cars are a reality, how will we collect 'road taxes'? Will we have a separate meter in the garage or what?
erevman @ Apr 15th 2008 8:04PM
John McElroy “GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda and Nissan all offered electrics, but practically nobody bought them.”
I am sure you meant to say “leased” because all EVs at that time were lease-only. No one could buy them. But, John, if they were as unpopular as you say, why did everyone have to wait for months to get one? Why were no EVs languishing on dealer lots? Truth is that every EV had a leaser waiting for it before it even came off the assembly line! They couldn’t make them fast enough to keep up with demand!
John McElroy “GM alone probably lost a billion dollars”
Really? Didn’t the federal government pay almost all of the research? Didn’t the high lease price cover almost all of the production cost? If they had continued to lease the cars instead of crushing them they would have made a killing. The EV1 alone was making over $4 million per year in leasing revenue. With that much money coming in from only 1100 vehicles why would GM crush them?
John, I have been watching your show on TV for a few years now and I have to say you are about the most apposed person to EVs I have seen that is not getting a check directly from oil are car companies. I think it is a discredit to autobloggreen that they would allow someone like you to write for them.
Tom Martin @ Apr 21st 2008 7:56AM
I don't understand why GM destoryed the EV-1, rather than sell them. Probably could have received $20K/car--even though I suspect that cost $100K to build. Maybe it would have been too expensive to stock parts for the EV-1.
In any case, GM should have explained its rationale for not offering used EV-1's for sale.