Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
August 1, 2001, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1893 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
HEADLINE: VEHICLE EMISSIONS
TESTIMONY-BY: JASON MARK, DIRECTOR,
AFFILIATION: CLEAN VEHICLES PROGRAM
BODY: AUGUST 1, 2001
STATEMENT OF: THE
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
BEFORE THE: COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND
PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE
PRESENTED BY: JASON MARK DIRECTOR,
CLEAN VEHICLES PROGRAM
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Jason Mark, and
I direct the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS is
a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens that has been working at the
intersection of science and policy for over 30 years.
I am going to
speak to you today about our continuing struggle to achieve clean air and, in
particular, the importance of improving transportation efficiency in addressing
air pollution and global warming.
The State of Transportation-Related
Air Quality
Despite years of progress, we are far from solving the
transportation-related air quality problem in the United States. 108 million
Americans still live in areas that do not meet federal clean air standards,[1]
and vehicles are a major cause. According to the Environmental Protection
Agency, transportation accounts for roughly half of all emissions that
contribute to ground-level ozone, or smog.[2] In urban areas, motor vehicles are
typically the dominant polluter. For example, one recent government study
estimates that over 90% of the cancer risk from polluted air in the Los Angeles
region comes from cars and trucks.[3] Rising vehicle travel, a changing vehicle
fleet, and the realities of vehicle performance in the real world all pose key
hurdles to achieving acceptable levels of air quality.
Rising Travel.
There are now more vehicles in the United States than licensed drivers. Combined
with increasing travel rates per vehicle, the number of miles that Americans are
driving continues to rise. Vehicle travel is expected to increase nearly 50%
over the next 20 years,[4] a trend that will undo the progress we are currently
making to achieve clean air.
Shifting Markets. SUVs and other light
trucks are allowed to emit up to 2.5 times more smog-forming pollutants than
cars under current tailpipe standards. While this loophole will be phased out by
2009 under EPA's Tier 2 regulations, the fact that light trucks have
historically been held to more lax standards has resulted in the average light
truck on the road today emitting 47% more smog-forming pollutants than the
average car.[5] Nationwide, these loopholes have added 41 million cars worth of
smog-forming pollution in recent years.[6]
Real World Emissions. While
emissions from vehicles are reaching very low levels as measured over government
tests, real world emissions are typically several times higher. For example,
today's average gasoline car emits smog-forming pollution at more than twice the
rate measured during certification testing.[7] Thus, while the auto industry
often claims that their vehicles are over 96% cleaner than three decades ago,
the evidence in the field does not quite bear this out. Similarly, a
$
1 billion clean air settlement in 1998 between diesel engine
makers and the EPA- one resulting from engine makers selling engines that are
estimated to have emitted 28 million cars worth of smog-forming
pollution[8]-reminds us that our big rigs have some distance to travel in
staying clean over their million-mile lifetimes.
Fortunately, new
technologies are available that will take cars and trucks the next step towards
cleaning the air. Gasoline powered vehicles are beginning to enter the market
that are 10 times cleaner than the average. Diesel technology is emerging in
response to new federal standards that will cut pollution from heavy vehicles
ten-fold.
Even cleaner options are moving onto the road. Electric-drive
vehicles, such as battery, hybrid, and fuel cell cars and trucks, promise zero
or near-zero emissions. And new fuels, such as natural gas, are cutting toxic
soot pollution from transit and school buses. Together, this combination of
cleaner fuels and advanced technology will be essential if we are to protect
public health in the 21st century.
The Role of Fuel Consumption
But even as we move to cleaner vehicles, we will continue to be plagued
by emissions associated with the production and delivery of fuels. For example,
the refining and distribution of each gallon of gasoline results in over 6 grams
of smog-forming pollution and nearly 3 grams of toxic pollutants. [9] These
emissions are a direct result of driving-even though they do not come from
vehicle tailpipes-because as we use more fuel, more pollution is created to make
the fuel. As new regulations clean up tailpipes, these so-called upstream
emissions will become the dominant source of vehicle pollution.
The best
strategy for reducing gasoline-related emissions, of course, is to reduce
gasoline use itself. This approach prevents air emissions before they are
created and has the added benefit of addressing one of the most significant
environmental challenges facing the planet: global warming.
Each gallon
of gasoline yields 24 pounds of the greenhouse gases that result in climate
change.[10] Scientists worldwide agree that humans are having a measurable
impact on our climate. And the potential economic and environmental consequences
are severe. Higher temperatures can also increase air pollution. Smog, which
forms in the presence of heat and sunlight, increases with even small
temperature changes. For example, one recent study from the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory suggests that temperature increases in the Los Angeles
region over the next half-century could create 2.7 million cars-worth of
pollution.[11] We believe there is a strong policy case, then, for giving EPA
the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Of course, climate change is a global issue, since emissions anywhere in
the world have an impact on our climate. But US cars and trucks alone emit more
global warming pollution than all but three countries in the world[12]-so any
global effort to reduce the threat of climate change must address vehicles on
American roads.
Technological Opportunities Fortunately, technologies
exist that can address fuel use from the vehicle fleet. The Union of Concerned
Scientists and the Center for Auto Safety recently published an analysis
outlining a safe and economically sound path to boosting automotive efficiency.
[13] Using existing technologies-such as variable-valve engines, multi-speed or
continuously variable transmissions, and weight savings -we estimate that
passenger vehicles could reach an average of 40 miles per gallon over the next
ten years, up from today's average of 24 mpg. The greenhouse gas savings would
be equivalent to taking nearly 60 million cars off the road by 2012. And, by
using less fuel, we would save 440 million pounds of smog-forming pollution and
200 million pounds of toxics annually from refining and distributing gasoline.
Boosting fuel economy to 40 mpg is also the environmentally responsible
strategy to addressing our oil dependence. In ten years, we would save more oil
than is economically recoverable from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in
over 50 years. And consumers would save $
16 billion per year by
2012 through lower costs at the pump.
The National Academy of Sciences
recently completed its much- anticipated evaluation of fuel economy technology.
Their results confirm that technology can cost-effectively boost the fuel
economy of our vehicles. Using a subset of the technologies that we have
evaluated, the NAS estimates that light trucks could reach 28-30 mpg at a cost
of $
1,200-1,300, and cars 34-37 mpg at a cost of
$
600-650. We believe that, for an additional investment of
$
600-700 per vehicle, we could reach a fleet average of 40 mpg
while saving drivers $
3,000-5,000 at the pump over the life of
their vehicle.
Policy Priorities
I want to make one final point
about the role of policies in achieving environmental goals. UCS strongly
supports incentives programs that encourage industry to deliver cleaner, more
efficient vehicles. We have worked closely with several automakers to develop
tax credits for advanced vehicles, embodied in the CLEAR Act that several
members of this committee have supported. As the Senate takes up this important
legislation, we urge you to maintain the environmental provisions that guarantee
credits will flow to vehicles that are both efficient and clean. We also urge
you to consider incentives for cleaner trucks and buses, such as legislation
recently introduced in the House that would provide federal grants to school
districts that replace their dirtiest, least safe diesel buses with commercially
available clean buses that protect children's health.
But incentives
only work within a framework where firm standards guarantee environmental gains.
Virtually all of the progress we have made to date with respect to motor
vehicles and air pollution has been the result of government action. The
evidence suggests that past regulatory programs have been highly effective. For
example, the cost effectiveness of nearly every major vehicle emissions
regulation aimed at reducing smog precursors over the past 15 years has been
less than $
1 per pound, [14] even as emissions requirements
have become ever more stringent. We have a history of overestimating costs of
environmental programs and making dire predictions over the impact of new rules.
Nearly thirty years ago, federal regulators enacted new rules to require
the first catalytic converters on passenger vehicles. The industry sued for a
delay. In a 1973 hearing, GM's vice president for environmental affairs said:
"[I]f GM is forced to introduce catalytic converter systems across the board on
1975 models, the prospect of unreasonable risk of business catastrophe and
massive difficulties with these vehicles in the hands of the public may be
faced. It is conceivable that complete stoppage of the entire production could
occur, with the obvious tremendous loss to the company, shareholders, employees,
suppliers, and communities." [15] GM won a delay in the rule but went on to
introduce catalytic converters on all of its models beginning in 1975.[16]
As we struggle to address transportation-related air quality and climate
change, I urge you to consider strong standards that set aggressive, yet
achievable, goals for industry's engineers. We will make important progress
through your continued support for key air quality programs such as the Tier 2
tailpipe standards and accompanying low-sulfur fuel requirements. The next step
in improving the environmental performance of vehicles is boosting the fuel
economy of our fleet. This is an issue that Congress has not addressed for over
a decade, yet we believe the technical, economic, and environmental case for
action is clear. The technology exists to cost-effectively bring SUVs, pickups,
and minivans up to the
fuel economy standards of cars and then
boost the entire fleet to over 40 miles per gallon over the next ten years. It
is a policy path that is good for consumers' pocketbooks and good for the
environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Committee today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2001