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
AUGUST 1, 2001
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.