Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Big Problems with California's CO2 Standard
Earlier this week President Obama instructed the EPA to determine whether it should grant California a waiver to set its own CO2 standards for cars. It's a hugely controversial issue, and one that's fraught with major problems for the auto industry.
First off, cars and trucks account for only 18% of total CO2 emissions in the United States. Yet it's the automotive industry that's in the cross-hairs, and California's rules are designed to "hold the automaker's feet to the fire." But even if it eliminated all automotive CO2, that still leaves 80% of other man-made sources untouched.
Besides, California's standard will merely bring the federal standard forward by four years. What's the big rush? Even more importantly, California only accounts for 1% of global CO2 emissions. So is it really fixing anything? And above all else, whatever reduction the state achieves will be immediately replenished by CO2 and other green house gasses blowing in from India, China and other points in Asia.
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.
This is California dreaming! Right now only one car can meet that 43 mpg standard and that's the Toyota Prius. Even the Honda Civic hybrid falls short. Not one truck even comes close to the standard. And remember, that standard is what the entire fleet has to average.
So you're telling me the entire fleet will be completely retooled to meet that standard by 2016? In two design cycles? I'm telling you it ain't gonna happen. It's not a question of foot-dragging or a lack of technology, or even a question of money. It simply is not physically possible to change the fleet over in that time frame. Even meeting the federal CAFE standard by 2020 will be a stretch.
Detroit isn't the only one fighting this, by the way. Toyota, Honda and Nissan are opposed to the California standard. That's telling. Those companies already meet stricter CO2 standards in Europe and Japan. But fuel prices, driving habits and customer requirements are far different in the USA and not even the big Japanese car companies see how they can meet the California standard by the 2016 deadline.
You'd hear more squawking from the Europeans except that they're exempt. Any automaker selling fewer than 60,000 vehicles in the state doesn't have to meet the standard, even though this gives giant corporations like the VW Group, the BMW Group and Daimler a free ride.
Automakers will be forced to restrict their California fleet to vehicles that can meet those numbers. Yes, they will be able to allot a small number of full-size trucks and big cars to sell in the state, but once the law of supply-and-demand kicks in, the price for them will climb steeply. Drivers may find it more attractive to keep the vehicles they have rather than buy new ones, which defeats the effort to reduce CO2. Drivers close enough to the state line may decide it's easier to buy a new car next door and drive it home. How will that be policed?
Forget about those "Vehicle Locators" that dealers use, if the exact car you want can't be sold in your state. And pity the auction houses that are going to have to determine if auctioned cars can be legally transferred to the wrong state.
I predict that once consumers learn how limited their choices are, they're going to hit the roof. Environmentalists beware! You're setting up the system to generate a big public backlash against CO2 legislation.
Those who want to fight global warming would be better served coming up with a comprehensive national plan that actually works, rather than picking on the car companies to score political points.
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Now follow Autoline on Twitter for ongoing updates every day!
Autoline Daily
Earlier this week President Obama instructed the EPA to determine whether it should grant California a waiver to set its own CO2 standards for cars. It's a hugely controversial issue, and one that's fraught with major problems for the auto industry.First off, cars and trucks account for only 18% of total CO2 emissions in the United States. Yet it's the automotive industry that's in the cross-hairs, and California's rules are designed to "hold the automaker's feet to the fire." But even if it eliminated all automotive CO2, that still leaves 80% of other man-made sources untouched.
Besides, California's standard will merely bring the federal standard forward by four years. What's the big rush? Even more importantly, California only accounts for 1% of global CO2 emissions. So is it really fixing anything? And above all else, whatever reduction the state achieves will be immediately replenished by CO2 and other green house gasses blowing in from India, China and other points in Asia.
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers.
"By 2020 cars will have to average about 49 mpg, trucks will have to average 33 mpg."
You can't blame the state for trying, but you can blame it for trying something that's unworkable. California set a CO2 standard that requires a fleet average of 35 mpg by 2016. But that translates into an average of roughly 43 mpg for cars and 26 mpg for trucks. By 2020 cars will have to average about 49 mpg, trucks will have to average 33 mpg.This is California dreaming! Right now only one car can meet that 43 mpg standard and that's the Toyota Prius. Even the Honda Civic hybrid falls short. Not one truck even comes close to the standard. And remember, that standard is what the entire fleet has to average.
So you're telling me the entire fleet will be completely retooled to meet that standard by 2016? In two design cycles? I'm telling you it ain't gonna happen. It's not a question of foot-dragging or a lack of technology, or even a question of money. It simply is not physically possible to change the fleet over in that time frame. Even meeting the federal CAFE standard by 2020 will be a stretch.
Detroit isn't the only one fighting this, by the way. Toyota, Honda and Nissan are opposed to the California standard. That's telling. Those companies already meet stricter CO2 standards in Europe and Japan. But fuel prices, driving habits and customer requirements are far different in the USA and not even the big Japanese car companies see how they can meet the California standard by the 2016 deadline.
You'd hear more squawking from the Europeans except that they're exempt. Any automaker selling fewer than 60,000 vehicles in the state doesn't have to meet the standard, even though this gives giant corporations like the VW Group, the BMW Group and Daimler a free ride.
"It simply is not physically possible to change the fleet over in that time frame."
Technology is riding to the rescue, but it takes time to ramp it up. Electric cars and plug-ins will help immensely, but they're not going to be available in large numbers by 2016. Diesels are unlikely to sell well as long as diesel fuel is priced above gasoline. CNG has never caught on, despite big subsidies from the state. That means automakers will have to severely limit what they can sell in California and in the other states that plan to adopt its CO2 standard. (As of this writing: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.)Automakers will be forced to restrict their California fleet to vehicles that can meet those numbers. Yes, they will be able to allot a small number of full-size trucks and big cars to sell in the state, but once the law of supply-and-demand kicks in, the price for them will climb steeply. Drivers may find it more attractive to keep the vehicles they have rather than buy new ones, which defeats the effort to reduce CO2. Drivers close enough to the state line may decide it's easier to buy a new car next door and drive it home. How will that be policed?
Forget about those "Vehicle Locators" that dealers use, if the exact car you want can't be sold in your state. And pity the auction houses that are going to have to determine if auctioned cars can be legally transferred to the wrong state.
I predict that once consumers learn how limited their choices are, they're going to hit the roof. Environmentalists beware! You're setting up the system to generate a big public backlash against CO2 legislation.
Those who want to fight global warming would be better served coming up with a comprehensive national plan that actually works, rather than picking on the car companies to score political points.
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Now follow Autoline on Twitter for ongoing updates every day!
Autoline Daily
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
Tim 7:48PM (1/30/2009)
"Any automaker selling fewer than 60,000 vehicles in the state doesn't have to meet the standard, even though this gives giant corporations like the VW Group, the BMW Group and Daimler a free ride"
Chrysler your problem is solved...
Reply
klpojopj 8:36PM (1/30/2009)
How about selling cars generates revenue. Those polluting factories get to pollute more making new seats, steel, etc. for all those "clean" new cars!
Your shooting yourself in the foot!
James 7:32PM (1/30/2009)
Hmmmm... never saw this coming!
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisahoax
Oh wait, yes, I did.
Reply
Yaroukh 7:47PM (1/30/2009)
i hope these voices will get louder and louder
i'm sick of the co2 comedy
Temple 8:30PM (1/30/2009)
The reason it matters is that California is the nation's biggest car market, by California setting a C02 standard it essentially requires all automaker's to meet that standard. Yes, California is only 1% of C02 emissions globally, but it has impact on how much emissions are being produce in all cars nationally.
Also, remember, every percent counts. Remember, a single Ford F-150 XL driven 20k miles a year produces over 24,000lbs (~11 metric tons) of CO2 each year.
While I would agree that exemptions for smaller makers and the demands need to become more practical. The new Prius will be 50mpg, and the the Insight has is expected to be around $18,500 and be 43 mpg, not to mention the Ford Fusion Hybrid is rated at 41 mpg. And these cars available now; the technology is possible especially when you are thinking several model cycles and over a half a decade of time still left to go.
If we had been more aggressive in the 90s, and we've promoted more fuel efficient cars on the road by now, we wouldn't have had all these oil problems that have shifted geopolitical alliances and have funded US enemies like Iran and Hugo Chevez.
Sea Urchin 9:18PM (1/30/2009)
Temple, California is NOT just nations biggest car market. California ALONE is 8th largest economy in the world, it has an economy that is bigger than Canada, has more people than Canada. Once you add all other states that want to join California on this you will realize that as far as population this will cover majority of people in USA.
John, God Bless him, but John's show is called Autoline Detroit. Detroit is a dead city and John still clngs to that old mentality. This is NEW age, people want everything. Size, power, utility, fuel economy all in one package. Look at Iphone, Ipod, Blackberry storm, Honda Civic.............that's what they offer, everything a consumer wants and consumer is willing to pay higher price for that.
John however is stuck in old Detroit, every article John rights is about killing CAFE or bailing someone out, it is not about cars anymore its simply about protecting auto industry. Maybe John needs to read on Charles Darwin.
Big Rocket 10:27PM (1/30/2009)
@Sea Urchin: I don't think it is fair to criticize John McElroy's anti-CAFE stance just because he lives in MI, as much as it would be unfair for someone to criticize another person's pro-CAFE stance just because this person lives in CA. Having said that, I find great fault with the high degree of misleading spin in John McElroy's article, which borders on propaganda. Here is an example: "whatever reduction the state [California] achieves [with CAFE] will be immediately replenished by CO2 and other green house gasses blowing in from India, China and other points in Asia."
Simple algebra tells us: X + Y > Y, where X = in-state CO2, and Y = foreign CO2. In plain English, even when foreign pollution is a factor, implementing CAFE is still the better solution than the status quo, as far as CO2 levels are concerned.
But the worst spin in the article comes from devoting the majority of the discussion to CO2 and global warming, which is a red-herring in disguise. It might surprise some in the anti-CAFE crowd to learn not all CAFE supporters believe in global warming, global climate change, the correlation between CO2 and temperate increase, An Inconvenient Truth, etc. Some of us support CAFE because it would reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil, which means not being held hostage by big oil-producing regions such as the Middle East or Russia. And some of us support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by driving fuel efficient vehicles, which is a lot more than just waving the flag.
Hernan 10:46PM (1/30/2009)
STFU. What about states rights? Does that only apply when rednecks want 50 caliber guns and mormons want to oultaw abortion?
California, because of its topography is succeptable to smog in the north and the south. If they want to limit CO2 it is their right.
And for those that hate California, it is the engine of innovation and growth for the country and has been for decades. The POS you are typing on right now was not engineered in North Dakota.
Lad 12:21AM (1/31/2009)
Don't miss the point that in order to meet California's GHG requirements, ICE cars must meet a higher CAFE requirement at a earlier date...that's why the Bush EPA/auto industry balked.
AZZO45b 12:31AM (1/31/2009)
CA doesn't have its tough CO2 standards to influence the rest of the USA... it has them due to its terrain & population density. These two factors have created smog that even CA sunshine can't cut through.
kballs 1:26AM (1/31/2009)
Actually the 18% number is totally inaccurate when referring to California, it is a country wide average. In Cali, about 40% of CO2 emissions come from cars and light trucks alone (not including big rigs, trains, ships, etc., which would bump the number closer to 60%). When you consider Cali is 2nd (behind Texas) in total CO2 emissions, the 40% number actually means a LOT of total tons of CO2 emissions. The supposed "1% of total global CO2 emissions" would actually be approximately the total reduction in emissions if they were allowed to regulate CO2 for cars and light trucks in Cali (the total amount of CO2 emitted in Cali from all sources is about 2% of the world's CO2 emissions).
Yes, 1% is a small reduction, but the effects get spread to [at least] 15 other states (48% of the USA's population, then probably the rest as the carmakers usually want to just meet the 1 strictest standard), technology trickles down globally, and you end up with pretty large reductions.
Cali is also not just trying to regular CO2 from cars, they have begun putting caps in place to regulate factories, power plants, construction, etc.
John could have done 10 minutes of research on google before typing... or are these half-truths intentional?
John 7:13AM (1/31/2009)
Other than Yarouhk, it doesn't look like any of the others responding to James' post bothered to read the articles James pointed to. Go read them and see if you are not also convinced that Global Warming and the CO2 agenda is a TOTAL SCAM.
Like the author (John Coleman) I too am discussed with the financial impact the Global Warming scammers are having on my life, and I am concerned that they will take down the legitimate environmental issues with them.
Excuse me now while I go and shovel the record amount of snow out of my driveway.
AZZO45b 9:26AM (1/31/2009)
John, Get real... Global Warming types have never said their "science" would keep you from shoveling snow. If you live in the northeast or the midwest snow is a consistent winter sight.
Explain why locations that should be sub zero are 40-50 degrees WARMER. Explain why places through the south have winter cold snaps while their snow belt neighbors have spring-like 50 degree weather. Explain why the Gulf of Mexico is 5-6 degrees warmer. Cat. 5 hurricanes used to be stretched out over decades... now it seems yearly.
Yes, weather can bring freak occurrences to both warm & cold locations... but recent records have been showing consistent trends. Your "CO2 is B.S. friends" bring up what scientists said in past eras to disprove new data. Who cares what scientists of the PAST believed. Some once thought the world was flat & we have long since moved past those theories. Point is, I'll trust modern technology & science over the small minority.
I'm disgusted by big industry buying science to prove their existence. Big Tobacco funded "cigs don't cause cancer' & Big Oil has BILLIONS of reasons to fund science debunking CO2 Science.
Greenies might be extreme... Anti CO2 crowd as well... truth might be in the middle, but to dismiss one group entirely... is just plain ignorant.
byronkirkham 12:50PM (1/31/2009)
Hold on did anybody actually read this:
"California set a CO2 standard that requires a fleet average of 35 mpg by 2016." (YES) But that translates into an average of roughly 43 mpg for cars and 26 mpg for trucks. By 2020 cars will have to average about 49 mpg, trucks will have to average 33 mpg." (NO IT DOESN'T!!!!)
That is pure spin and has obviously misled most here. That assumes that the ratio of trucks and cars sold stays the same. If the number of trucks sold drops to where it belongs (
John 4:46AM (2/01/2009)
AZZO45b,
Lighten up. The point of my post was not about the joke re shoveling snow. It was about the documents provided by John Coleman. Take the trouble to read them and review the websites he lists and only then see if you are still willing to buy into the lies about CO2 as spewed out by the Global Warming fans.
There are two sides to this story and I for one have had my eyes opened by Coleman and will not swallow anymore of Gore's BS.
If you want to spend any of your time trying to convince me that CO2 is anything but a small factor in the atmosphere and a mostly beneficial one at that, then show me some real scientific facts that prove Gore is right and Coleman is wrong. And if you haven't read all of the Coleman articles, then don't waste my time with a response.
I'm waiting.
Samus Aran 7:47PM (1/30/2009)
Thank you, Mr. McElroy for re-affirming why I will never live in that vast wasteland of idiocy called "California". OMG, that state sucks.
Also, bomb Hollywood.
Reply
Big Rocket 10:00PM (1/30/2009)
@Samus Aran:
Following your logic: If more stringent environmental regulations suck, then the opposite must rock. If California is awful, then a place with less environmental regulations must be awesome. Just so you know, such a place actually exists, with little to no environmental regulations. It's called China. And, if you ever decide to carry out your terrorist threats to bomb CA for its environmental stance, don't forget about AZ, CO, CT, FL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, UT, VT and WA. That's over 1/3 of all 50 states in the country you are hating on. Are you sure you don't want to move to China instead?
Samus Aran 11:13PM (1/30/2009)
@Rocket
Wow. Your 'Logic' is contrived and simply laughable.
You must be a Californian.
Twit.
Big Rocket 11:40PM (1/30/2009)
It all boils down to logic (even supposing it is flawed) versus terrorist threats + name calling. You are a discredit to fellow critics of CAFE regulations.
Samus Aran 12:09AM (1/31/2009)
Terrorist threats? Are you actually taking my little jab at the armpit of the US seriously?
Funny.
Don't take yourself so seriously, Rocketman.
As for name-calling, well, A duck is a duck and you are a twit.