Cascadia Scorecard Weblog

Sims Gets On The Bus

Is it a miracle? Can it really be so? Did I just read about a transportation plan that's actually useful and affordable? That can happen soon but also has long-term benefits?

I'm stunned by King County Exec Ron Sims' proposal to increase the sales tax to fund better bus service. For an additional 1/10th of a penny per dollar, Sims believes the county can drastically improve bus service--increasing the frequency and speed of routes and adding capacity to boot. (The Seattle Times reports; the P-I editorializes in favor.)

I have no idea what prompted Sims' outburst of sanity. These days, Puget Sound residents are accustomed to pony up for outlandish schemes of miracle monorails, glammed-out streetcars, multi-billion dollar tunnels, and vast highway expansion measures. (Not to mention problem-plagued light rail, the one transit option that's almost a reality.) Buses, on the other hand, are not especially sexy and they don't come with big-ticket political bragging rights. They're just staid, effective, flexible, and affordable. And--oh yes--they're already working so well that they're over-subscribed, at least in the city.

So on the upside, Sims' bus boosting proposal will improve mobility in the near future. On the downside, it doesn't promise flying saucers or citizen jet-packs, and it doesn't come with a flock of crazy-eyed proponents. (I do have a non-humorous quibble; but more on that later...)

Improving bus service is critical to the continued health of Seattle and the rest of King County too because it makes density work. As the region's density increases it should be able to leverage ever more viable transit--with more people in a neighborhood, it makes sense to run more buses, more often.

This morning as I was shuffling onto the 28 Express--a double-length bus crammed so full that we were standing in the aisles the entire length of the coach and crowding up near the driver--I wondered for the billionth time when Metro would start running twice as many buses. I also wondered why I wasn't on my bicycle. And I wondered whether I should drive more often. I'll bet my not-especially-dense Ballard neighborhood could fill double the buses, especially as more frequent departures tapped latent demand. And as nearly every week reveals new townhouses going up in formerly low-density lots, and condos rising along busy corridors, I wonder if we couldn't fill triple the buses.

So I'm all for Sims' bus proposal. All for it. I just hope that it doesn't get swamped by the headline-grabbers like the Alaska Way Viaduct tunnel, the regional transportation improvement ticket that voters will see this autumn, and all the other kooky multi-billion dollar career-makers. I'm hoping that local leaders--and local voters--remember that bus service works and it's a bargain.

Now a quibble. Why sales taxes? Most King County residents are already paying 8.8 percent and sales taxes are regressive, falling hardest on those who can least afford them. That's a problem, I think, in a county that's struggling with affordability issues. (Admittedly, some of that regressivity is mitigated because the higher taxes pay for bus service, which is especially important to lower income folks.) Wouldn't a better way to fund buses be something ingenious like a fee or tax based on the value of cars. Something more or less exactly like the monorail fee? *

* Yes, I know that such a tax/fee would require enabling legislation from Olympia. Enable it already. It has a host of benefits: it's progressive (because owners of more expensive cars pay more), it's nicely symmetrical (because it provides an incentive to switch from car to transit), and it's deductible from federal income taxes. It's also potentially localizable, meaning that your car tab renewal fee could pay for transit in your neighborhood. If West Seattle gets drastically better bus service, then West Seattle car owners could pay the bill. But if you live in Duvall and don't see many buses anyway, your fee could be proportionally lower. In any case, it would probably be far, far cheaper than the current monorail fee that's just about to expire.

Driving With Alcohol

Alcohol can lead to all kinds of unintended consequences, but who knew it could lead to energy independence? Apparently, the Brazilians did. Processing sugar cane into ethanol is expected to help Brazil meet its rising energy demands in a big way. According to an article in the New York Times, officials expect that within a year the country will become fully energy self-sufficient thanks largely to putting sugar in gas tanks.

Brazil's story is encouraging, but it's hard to know precisely what conclusions to draw for North Americans.

We can't buy Brazil's success by importing cane-based ethanol because our current policy regime all but disallows it. The US (and Europe too) slaps stiff duties on sugar imports--to the tune of 54 cents a gallon on cane-based ethanol imports, enough to render Brazilian ethanol at a competitive disadvantage.

We can't copy Brazil's success because our colder latitudes don't support sugar cane. Even Florida is considered only marginally productive for sugar cane and it comes at a horrific cost to ecological treasures like the Everglades. Hawaii produces sugar too, but its land base is far too small to meet American demand.

We can't imitate Brazil's success with northern crops like corn because producing corn-based ethanol is far too energy intensive.

Under the best conditions, corn ethanol yields only about 1.3 times as much energy as is required to produce it. Brazilian sugar cane, on the other hand, can yield 8 times as much energy; and producers think that efficiency can go to 10 times.

And even if we did somehow have access to Brazil's ethanol, our vehicle fleet couldn't take full advantage of it. But Brazil's can: more than 70 percent of cars sold in Brazil are "flex fuel" allowing drivers to alternate between ethanol and petroleum as price (or conscience) directs. Even better for Brazilian drivers, the flex fuel engines don't cost any more than conventional motors.

Sugar cane production is proving to be a boon to Brazil's economy, not to mention to its ecological footprint. (Nowadays, even the cane waste products are getting recycled back into various manufacturing processes.) But cane is not a free ride either: it's often grown on former pasture land and many fear that this will push livestock owners to clear more Amazon rainforest to make room. And cane growers are now pushing for genetically modified versions that will boost energy output and also resist disease and droughts. But GMO sugar cane may pose other unforeseen ecological problems down the road.

For me, the lesson from Brazil is two-fold. First, solving our biggest environmental problems (e.g. fossil fuel addiction and climate change) often forces us into other environmental compromises like deforestation and genetic crop modification. It's frustrating, of course, but real-world problems like energy consumption rarely offer no-downside solutions.

Second, there is not going to be any one-size-fits-all solution to the world's energy demands. Brazil can use sugar cane, but North Americans will have to figure out something else--something homegrown if independence is important. Conservation surely must be part of our effort to ratchet down reliance on oil, but we also must find local technologies and local resources for our energy needs.

Hybrid Hype: Incentives Gone Wild

Hybrid cars are good for us, right? So policymakers should provide incentives--things like tax breaks, access to HOV lanes, and free parking for hybrid drivers.

Well, not so fast, says a great article in today's Washington Post. [Free registration req'd.] There's growing reason to believe that those incentives for hybrids will make things worse--actually generating more gasoline use, not less. That's because many of the incentives confuse the means for the end.

Reducing fuel use (and attendant ghg emissions, air pollution, etc.) is the goal; getting drivers into hybrids is simply one instrument in pursuit of that goal.

But one of the more popular incentives to boost fuel efficiency has been to encourage hybrid ownership by offering hybrid drivers access to HOV lanes, even when the drivers are alone. And as the article rightly points out:

An incentive -- whether it's access to a carpool lane or cut-rate financing -- still aims to put another car on the road, and that undermines efforts to encourage carpooling.

Giving over HOV lanes to hybrids is probably counterproductive. In Virginia, where allowing hybrids in HOV lanes was pioneered, officials are worried that solo drivers in hybrids are clogging the high-capacity lanes and thereby discouraging carpools (because carpooling is no longer any faster than driving alone). In fact, 25 percent of all Virginia HOV lane users are hybrid drivers. And despite their hype, hybrids are not so fuel efficient that they can offset the fuel efficiency of an ordinary car with two or three riders. So the fuel efficiency of Virginia hybrids may become illusory as the vehicle fleet actually consumes more gas because drivers give up carpooling.

Same goes for other popular incentives: tax breaks and free or reduced-price parking. These incentives encourage people to drive by making it cheaper.

And if some incentives are wrong-headed, it's because they seem to miss the reason why hybrids are good in the first place. If we want to reduce fuel use, it's hard to see why hybrids deserve special tax breaks that are not afforded to buyers of other fuel efficient gas-powered cars (some of which are actually more efficient than certain hybrids). What's so special about hybrids?

But wait! Incentives catalyze the market. That's the basic argument for hybrid-centric policies. The idea is that by encouraging people to get into hybrids now, we'll reduce fossil fuel consumption down the road, when hybrid cars become cost-competitive.

There's some merit to this line of reasoning, but it's starting to seem outdated. The market for hybrids is scorching hot and growing--it probably doesn't need to an additional catalyst. Hybrid sales in 2005 were 10 times higher than in 2001 (and 20 times higher than 2000) and the growth looks set to continue. Incentives are probably a contributing factor, but high fuel prices are probably a much bigger reason.

What's more, the incentives may actually be counter-productive to the real goal. As we've seen, HOV lane access encourages solo driving; free parking and tax breaks make driving cheaper. (Plus, there may be weird counter-intuitive problems that arise from buying certain kinds of hybrids.)

The bottom line is that there's nothing especially laudatory about hybrid cars in and of themselves. The only thing special about them is that--generally speaking--they burn less gas per mile than internal combustion cars. But as the hybrid market diversifies into SUV and Lexus flavors, there's increasingly less reason to lionize hybrids per se. What really matters is fuel efficiency--plain old unsexy fuel efficiency, whether the car runs on gas, electricity, LNG, switch grass, or tiny elves.

I'm not saying that all incentives should disappear, but the incentives should be for fuel efficiency, plain and simple. It doesn't do much good to encourage buying a hybrid Ford Escape when a vanilla Civic is far more eco-credible. Efficient hybrids will still benefit, as will other fuel-sipping cars--just the kind we want on the road.

And there's an asterisk here too: the incentives shouldn't conflict with other instruments to reduce fuel use. Allowing solo drivers into carpool lanes makes about as much sense as slapping a surcharge on bus fare or bicycles to fund rebates for hybrids.

So what kind of incentives would work to increase the fleet's fuel efficiency? Feebates. Gas (or carbon) taxes. Pay-As-You-Drive insurance. Blah, blah, blah. Plus, lots of other stuff that would help make driving a choice, not a necessity.

The Year that States Took a Stand

Here's something to celebrate as we begin a new year: With Oregon's decision to adopt clean-car standards late in December, all three West Coast states will be implementing this landmark program for reducing global warming pollution simultaneously, beginning with the 2009 model year. Six other states--including Massachusetts, which signed on last week--have also adopted the stronger standards.

This is a great example of the groundswell of state and local action that stood in stark contrast to the posture of federal negotiators during the recent UN Climate Conference in Montreal. While the negotiators walked out, a new America walked in for the world to see: States, cities, businesses, and citizens from all over the United States who are committed to this urgent campaign for solutions. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels was an especially strong ambassador for this new US engagement.

As 2006 begins, I remember what Frances Moore Lappe said: "Hope is a stance, not a calculation." But here's my calculation anyway: Across a very wide spectrum of our society, a consensus is emerging that we must end our dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the clean energy transition, and it's our generation's job to do it. You can see it in Olympia and Salem and Boise and D.C., with electeds from both sides of the aisle clamoring to support new energy security initiatives. This issue will feature prominently in midterm elections. This is the beginning.

Christmas Lift

A year-end piece of good news about the Northwest's successful push in 2005 for cleaner cars, via a note yesterday from the Oregon Environmental Council:

"This afternoon, Oregon’s Environmental Quality Commission adopted the clean car standards by temporary rule. By acting before the end of the year, EQC has alerted automakers that they must provide cleaner, more climate-friendly cars to Oregonians starting with model year 2009. These new cars will consume less fuel and produce less pollution. They’ll cost less to operate. And they’ll reduce our dependence on oil."

The one hitch is that the EQC needs to make the rule permanent within 180 days, or it will expire. See more at www.cleancarsoregon.org.

Prius, Oil, and Time

Gristmill's ur-pundit David Roberts makes a good point concerning this post, discussing whether buying a Prius or other super-efficient vehicle really reduces climate-warming emissions.  What Dave is wrestling with is whether the oil "saved" by driving a Prius is really just bought by someone else -- leading to no net reduction in overall emissions. 

A few things to say here.  First, as astute commenter Patrick Niemeyer notes, the Prius has other benefits besides using less fuel -- it's also a phenomenally clean car.  Driving a Prius reduces your overall emissions of smog-forming compounds, particulate matter, and volatile organics.  For cars, cleanliness is, quite obviously, a good thing.

But that doesn't really get to the heart of Dave's point -- which is that super-efficient cars may ultimately be irrelevant if all the oil gets burned sooner or later.  I still think that's not quite right.  By reducing aggregate demand for transportation fuels in any given year, cars like the Prius offer a couple of clear, tangible benefits to the climate.

Let's say that for every 10 gallons of gas you save by driving a Prius, demand for gasoline from the global transportation system falls by six gallons -- that is, six gallons of gas aren't used in a given year, and are either placed in storage or not pumped out of the ground.  Now, of course, that gasoline may be burned next year, or the year after that.  But the pace at which carbon is emitted to the atmosphere does matter:  the longer the GHGs are in the atmosphere, the more heat they trap.  Delaying carbon emissions may reduce the pace of climate forcing, and buy a little time to deal with the consequences.

Which suggests reducing aggregate demand for transportation fuels can slow, however slightly, the pace of climate change. Which is a good thing.

The second benefit stems from this fact:   all else being equal, reducing aggregate demand for transportation fuels will reduce the price of oil.  And lower prices reduce the incentive to pull more oil out of the ground. 

For the "easy oil" -- the stuff that gushes from the ground, or can be coaxed out without too much trouble -- this probably doesn't matter.  (If you can produce a barrel of oil for under $10 with current technology, it's a pretty sure bet that it will get used up sooner or later.)  But for the hard oil -- stuff that takes a lot of technology, effort, and energy to produce -- price matters a lot.  Oil from, say, Alberta's tar sands might be extremely profitable to extract when oil's at $60 per barrel, but a money sink if oil prices fall below $40 per barrel.  Producing the really difficult oil is an especially big climate problem, since it often takes a lot of energy (and climate-warming emissions) to do so.

Now, if prices rise and people think they'll stay high, a lot of the relatively hard oil will get produced -- and sooner rather than later. And there's a huge supply of "hard" oil in the world.  By reducing demand, you make it less economically feasible to extract the really costly oil -- which reduces, or at least delays, the climate impacts of the transportation system.

Of course, it could be that, super-efficient cars or no, the world's "easy" oil will be used up eventually; and following that, prices will rise, and we'll start extracting the stuff that's harder to get at.  And it's even feasible to argue that it's better to face that day of reckoning sooner rather than later -- we'll have to face the music sometime. 

Nevertheless, a world of hybrid cars will probably come to that juncture, with all of the world's easy oil already tapped, a little bit later than it otherwise would; and it might--just might--prevent some of the really difficult oil from being produced at all -- especially if renewable energy technologies get more cost- and energy-efficient in the interim. 

To me, either result -- slowing the pace of global warming emissions, and/or keeping some hard-to-extract oil in the ground -- would be a boon for the climate.   Whether it's a cost-effective way to get to that benefit is a question for another time.

Canada Questions Feebates

We're a little late on this bit of depressing news. A report issued last week by Canada's National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy recommended against implementing feebates, one of the most promising market tools around for encouraging the purchase of energy-efficient products and for tugging the entire car and truck market toward better fuel efficiency. (The NRTEE was charged with studying feebate options after the idea was proposed last spring.)

Here's their reasoning:

"Instead of using one economic instrument, such as a feebate, the government should develop an integrated and coherent sustainable transportation strategy for Canada focused on all aspects of the transportation sector," the agency said. . . A further study of feebates could be part of that strategy, it added.

Well, sure, nothing wrong with an integrated approach, but feebates could be an important piece of that. They're a much broader solution than NRTEE gives them credit for (and far more far-reaching than tax credits for hybrids, which, strangely, NRTEE does promote).

You can read a whole piece about their promise here, but in short, feebates are what's called a systemic solution--a solution that fixes a bunch of problems at once. They're a plus for the economy, because they help make vehicle price tags tell the truth about the productivity costs of economywide overconsumption of fuel. Because of their structure, they keep the entire market shifting toward fuel savings. They're also a big plus for clean air and a secure climate. And they benefit communities, because inefficient vehicles hemorrhage dollars from local economies.

Finally, with feebates, buyers get paid to choose vehicles that save them money anyway.

The backstory, not surprisingly, is that Canadian automakers are putting the pressure on, citing in this Vancouver Sun story (registration required) that "consumers don't want to be forced into buying vehicles that don't suit their needs."

We'd be willing to bet that these days a wider range of ultra-energy-efficient vehicles--which tools such as feebates will drive the market toward--would suit consumers' needs very well.

VOCs Populi, or that New Car Smell

Love that new car smell? You may not get that smell from the next new car you buy, and for good reason. Japanese auto makers are planning to reduce the new car smell that comes from fresh glue, paint, plastics because it contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Short-term exposure to VOCs like benzene and formaldehyde can cause headaches, nausea, and dizziness, while long-term exposure can cause cancer. Studies (pdf) show that most people get their most concentrated dose of VOCs in cars of all ages when caught in traffic or refueling, and the new car smell just adds to the problem. Because the smell generally dissipates after 6 months, it probably won't give you cancer. But, still, kudos to Japan for tackling another air quality problem.

Light as a Feather; Stiff as a Board; Safe as an SUV?

Is a heavy SUV always safer than a light passenger car? Maybe not.

Recent research is challenging the long-standing belief that cars must be heavy to be safe. It turns out that the quality of the car may be just as important as the quantity of its bulk. Several studies show that design, safety features, and vehicle size (for crumple zones) can offset safety losses from reducing weight. And in addition to better fuel efficiency, lighter cars are also safer for other vehicles involved in an collision.

Carmakers have long argued that fuel economy standards compromise passenger safety because efficiency usually means lighter weights. And until recently government studies seemed to support the weight-safety tradeoff. But now it appears that other factors are as important as weight. There goes one more argument against improving vehicle fuel efficiency.

545 Leaps!

Hidden in the flurry of transit-related news hitting Seattle these days--everything from the closure of the bus tunnel to the bizarre death-gasps of the monorail--a minor success for sane transit was scored this week.

Word has quietly leaked out that Sound Transit's 545 bus began its new route through Capitol Hill over the weekend, the result of a long and intensive effort by Anirudh Sahni and other transit activists. "90% of the difficulty involved overcoming pre-conceived notions, the prejudices and biases of Sound Transit," Anirudh observed, "and getting them to undertake an objective examination of the trade-offs of changing the route. We'll see how it does."

It's reasonable to expect that this small step for the 545 represents a giant leap for Microsoft employees and others who live on the Hill but work on the Eastside. By making the bus far more convenient than a single-occupancy vehicle, a lot more commuters are likely to be on the bus and not adding to the already-clogged Evergreen Point Bridge.

Loco-motive

UPDATE 9/26/05: Pretty good blow-by-blow coverage of the monorail's unraveling in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on Saturday.

We're not dead yet, proclaims the monorail board.

Just minutes ago, the board unanimously agreed to send the monorail back to the voters this November. This is apparently a last ditch effort to resuscitate the project in the face of stern opposition from the mayor and city council. The new plan may actually be financially viable because it will truncate the full Green Line route: the line would now run from the West Seattle Junction to downtown to Dravus Street in Interbay (between Magnolia and Queen Anne), a rather obvious solution that I've suggested before. (This slightly shortens the West Seattle route and lops off Ballard with the expensive bridge across the ship canal.)

What the heck is going on?

To my list of criticisms of the monorail board, let me now add: politically clueless and frenetic. It didn't exactly take a rocket scientist (or even a monorail planner) to see that city officials were serious about holding the project accountable to a financing plan that could pass a straight-face test. Why the monorail waited until the 13th hour to offer voters a new plan is utterly beyond me.

There is one possible silver lining, however. A shortened monorail line could conceivably be affordable. And the shortened line would still bridge the critical link between West Seattle and downtown. That could help replace lost capacity in the Alaska Way Viaduct, which is looking ever more likely to come down and be replaced by, well, nothing.

Perhaps instead of funneling billions into substitute road capacity, the city-county-state-feds should consider funding the monorail. If government chips in some money, they could--and should--attach some meaningful strings: namely, better leadership and public oversight. But I suppose I'm just being Pollyanna.

Gas Mileage: (More) Truth in Advertising

We previously discussed problems with the way the EPA lets auto manufacturers measure the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.  What with all the hullabaloo, the EPA proposed to revise its testing methods by the end of the year so they more resemble the real world. According to the Boston Globe, the three core changes would be to:

• Alter testing to reflect today's more aggressive and high-speed driving habits, as well as address traffic-stifling congestion in cities and expanding suburbs.
• Account for vehicles driven in cold climates, where fuel economy suffers.
• Calculate the impact of accessories, such as air conditioners, that cut fuel economy.

While individual drivers still might find that their vehicles' gas mileage doesn't match up with official figures, because of differences in driving conditions and habits, the new EPA estimates would give them a better idea about actual annual fuel costs. Even better, since CAFE standards are based on these tests, more accurate tests would mean more accurate CAFE estimates, likely causing auto manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency all around.

The Scrap Heap Is History?

Check it out: by 2015, all cars sold in Europe must be 95% recyclable.  Apparently, Mercedes-Benz already has a 2007-model year car that meets the requirement.

Part of me wonders if automotive engineers aren't actually excited by this sort of challenge.  It seems that whenever a new idea like this comes along, the auto executives complain about how impossible and costly it will be -- but as soon as the industry's hands are forced, the engineers figure out how to pull it off faster and cheaper than the executives had claimed was possible.  It happened with catalytic converters, with seat belts, with air bags.  And now, if early signs are any guide, it's happening with recycling.

SUV Watershed

There's more to this article than the headline, but the headline alone says quite a bit:  "Poll: 8 in 10 want drivers to drop SUVs."  That's another tentative -- though possibly shallow -- sign that high gas prices are turning Americans against their gas guzzlers.  Of course, since SUVs, trucks and minivans have commanded roughly half of the new vehicle market in recent years, one wonders if this means that 3 in 10 people want other drivers to drop their low-mileage vehicles.

Other poll responses are equally telling. Seven out of 10 respondents want to the government to fight rising gasoline bills by establishing price controls. Of course, holding down prices makes us consume more gas than we otherwise would, which in a world of limited petroleum supplies could lead to all sorts of other problems -- shortages, rationing, etc.  (As The Washington Post's Robert Samuelson reminds us, Cheap Gas Is a Bad Habit.)

Seven out of 10 also support new government spending on transit.  But almost six in 10 now think it's more important to explore for new sources of energy than to protect the environment; and five in 10 favor opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development, up from just 42 percent earlier in the year.

The obvious result of a poll like this is that consumers are just screaming for something -- anything -- that might bring gas prices down.  And mostly they're looking for solutions that involve government subsidies -- for energy companies, transit, and gas consumers themselves -- or for sacrifice by someone else. That's not surprising. 

But what's all-too-clear from polls like this is that solutions that could really ramp up fuel efficiency and curtail consumption over the long term -- think feebates, or fighting sprawl, or paying for car insurance by the mile -- really aren't on the political landscape.  And that's probably because politicians (and pollsters) simply don't talk about them.  Which seems odd.  After all, they're no more infeasible than, say, expecting the powers-that-be to cut into oil industry profits by capping the price of gasoline.

Gas Mileage: Consumer Retorts

As Jessica mentioned last week, Consumer Reports recently claimed that EPA's vehicle ratings routinely overstate how fuel-efficient cars and trucks are in real-world driving.  For standard cars and trucks, the magazine says, EPA's ratings overstate real-world fuel economy by 30 percent.  But for small hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius, they claim that EPA overstates actual miles-per-gallon by a hefty 42 percent.  (Ouch.)

Now, I believe that there's reason to question Consumer Reports' figures.  Of course, I have read a number of reports that the Toyota Prius doesn't actually get the EPA-rated 55 mpg in combined city/highway driving (though some people -- particularly those who've optimized their hybrid-driving habits -- get pretty close, and these folks actually squeezed out 110 mpg from their Prius, albeit in highly non-standard driving conditions).  But I'd never heard any claim that the typical Prius averages just 32 mpg -- which is what the magazine's figures suggest.  See this comment by WorldChanging's Jamais Cascio for a similar take.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's take the CR figures at face value, and assume that small hybrids' mileage really is overstated by 42 percent, vs. just 30 percent for regular cars.  Doesn't the higher mpg reduction for hybrids suggest that their fuel-savings advantages vs. regular cars are overstated -- and that they don't save as much money as advertised?

Actually, no.  As counterintuitive as it may sound, the Consumer Reports figures, on their face, actually bolster the economic case for buying hybrids.

As we've said before, mpg math is tricky.  And though it may be hard to believe at first, Consumer Report's figures suggest that the Prius is an even better choice in the real world than EPA's fuel economy ratings would suggest.

Consider, for example, a regular, non-hybrid car with an EPA fuel economy rating of 30 mpg.  "Officially" it burns 2 gallons of gas every 60 miles.  But Consumer Reports estimates that the vehicle actually would get 21 mpg in real world driving -- 30 percent less than advertised.  Which means that over the course of 60 miles, the car actually burns 2.9 gallons of gas.

Now consider the Prius, with an overall EPA fuel economy rating of 55 mpg.  At its advertised mileage, it burns about 1.1 gallons of gas every 60 miles.  But if its mileage is reduced to 32 mpg -- a 42 percent reduction, per Consumer Reports' estimate for small hybrids -- then it uses about 1.9 gallons of gas every 60 miles.

So that gives us...

	Gallons consumed in 60 miles
	"Ideal"	"Real World"
Prius (rated 55 mpg)	1.1	1.9
Regular car (rated 30 mpg)	2	2.9

Look at the "ideal" column -- which represents how much gas EPA says the two cars should burn over 60 miles.  The Prius has a .9 gallon advantage -- a nice bonus.  But look at the "real world" column:  as estimated using Consumer Reports' figures, the "real world" Prius has a full one-gallon advantage over the "real world" regular car. 

In other words, the Prius is actually an even better deal--roughly 10 percent better--in the real world than it is in the abstract.  And compared with lower-mileage cars and trucks, the "real world" Prius looks better still.

Now, this obviously isn't evidence for or against Consumer Reports' estimates for hybrids.  And it doesn't do much to change my assessment that buying a Prius can be a pretty pricey way to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions. 

Still, it's good to remember that, as Barbie famously said, math is hard -- and miles-per-gallon math turns out to be among the more counterintuitive gauges that Americans are expected to understand.  So it's important to actually run the numbers.  Apparently, at least when it comes to gas mileage, it's just not enough to trust your instincts.

For Fuel Economy, the Numbers DO Lie

With gas prices soaring, some people may trade in their gas-guzzlers for more fuel efficient vehicles. But don't trust the EPA ratings. A recent analysis by Consumer Reports shows that 90% of vehicles get worse gas mileage than advertised -- in some cases more than 50% worse for city driving. And nationally, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) may be overstated by a whopping 30 percent.

How does this happen? Manufacturers inflate fuel efficiency in several ways. First, they don't test cars the way people actually drive. Vehicles are tested in a laboratory, not on actual roads. And while the EPA assumes that 55% of driving is done in city traffic, which uses more fuel than highway driving, many cars actually spend 62% of time there, according to Consumer Reports. Second, the car they test is not the car you buy. Manufacturers are allowed to use prototypes built especially for the fuel economy test, so they often modify them (within limits) to get the best rating possible.

In 1984 the EPA responded to an outcry by consumers who were angry that they could not get the fuel efficiency advertised. But rather than change the way it tests cars, the EPA just adjusted the test results it reports: 10% lower mpg for city driving, 22% lower for highway. And, as Consumer Reports shows, even these adjusted numbers still aren't accurate, especially in city driving.

And worse, CAFE standards, already low and full of loopholes, are also affected. Automakers successfully lobbied so that only the unadjusted mpg ratings are used when enforcing CAFE standards. While the government estimates that the fleet of 2003-model-year passenger cars that Consumer Reports tested averaged 29.7 mpg, Consumer Reports only got 22.7, well below the current standard of 27.5 mpg. For light truck the difference was 21.4 mpg versus 16, with a standard of 20.7 mpg.

When buying a new car, follow Consumer Reports's advice:

The EPA sticker can help you evaluate relative gas mileage among vehicles, but not absolute mpg.. .. [D]iscount the EPA sticker numbers for city travel as follows: conventional cars and trucks, 30 percent; larger hybrids, 35 percent; diesels, 36 percent; smaller hybrids, 42 percent.

For more information, go to the source.  Consumer Reports has the complete article online plus its rating for 303 vehicles (use links in their left column), available until November 2, 2005.

Last West-Coast Clean Car Domino Falls

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski just tipped over the last clean car domino on the west coast:  he's directed his Department of Ecology to draft regulations for adopting California's clean-car standards.

This is a major step.  Washington State had opted for California's standards, provided that Oregon adopted them too.  Because Canada has adopted similar standards, Oregon's move has created a clean car corridor stretching from San Diego through northern British Columbia.  Together, between California, Canada, and the northwest and northeastern states that have followed their lead, about 40 percent of the North American new car market will soon be cleaner and, if all goes well, more fuel efficient to boot.  (There's a pretty good chronology of all the political action on the car standards here, if you scroll down through our blog posts.)

Smog Cops vs. Social Justice

And in other news from the remote sensing front, there was an interesting article in the LA Times last week about the South Coast Air Quality Management District's testing of an automated device that measures tailpipe emissions (free subscription required). The article explains that testing has begun for a remote sensing device that measures tailpipe emissions and photographs an offender's license plate for ticketing.

The technology has been around for some years now. And it's about time for deployment.

But it's also worrisome from a social justice perspective. The article fails to mention if the SCAQMD [we used to say "squawk mud"] program will ensure that the poor's only mode of transport is not eliminated if they cannot afford the full cost of retrofit. Sure, there are freeloaders that dilute their actions throughout society. But many of the polluting vehicles are the only cars the poor can afford in a transit-unfriendly town -- the under- or less-well employed often cannot rely on transit to get to work.

I know when I lived in Sacramento, another transit-unfriendly town, I could only take transit to a narrow range of choices. (Riding my bike 14 miles to work took, literally, one-third the time of transit, and I'm fit.) The same is true in LA. Not having a car in LA is not an option if you wish to feed your family.

There is not just one solution to reducing outstanding polluters. As Mark Hertsgaard found in Earth Odyssey, most people on the planet wish to decrease their pollution. They just can't afford to. They're too busy just trying to get by.

This new emissions device cannot be used as a blunt instrument: We must ensure it's used properly when it comes to our comparatively transit-friendly region.

Sins of Emissions

Some news bits from the Oregon legislative session, which just ended:

As the Oregonian reports, the auto industry has been trying to head off an Oregon effort to adopt "clean-car" emissions standards by including language in the budget that would effectively prohibit DEQ from implementing the standards. (Clean-car standards, which Washington state just adopted, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by some 30 percent and help drive the industry toward cleaner, more efficient design.) Governor Kulongoski has promised to counteract the move by using his veto power.

Meanwhile, the industry succeeded in effectively defeating a biofuels bill, which would have provided incentives for in-state production and use of renewable fuels such as ethanol  and biodiesel.

Automakers aren't exactly winning points for innovative thinking. From the Oregonian editorial:

The House Republicans who let this happen ought to have to spend the next election explaining why they would trade off Oregon jobs, Oregon agriculture and Oregon innovation all in a futile effort to extend a pollution tax credit and enable the auto industry to keep churning out cars that are less fuel efficient than those they made 20 years ago....

The auto industry has fought every advance -- seat belts, catalytic converters, air bags -- with this same argument about unacceptable costs. Every time its claims have been shown to be wildly inflated and wrong.

And in good news (mostly), the state did win a partial ban on toxic flame retardants known as PBDEs. Our study of PBDEs in Northwest women showed that the chemicals were found in relatively high levels in Oregonians; and a recent study of PBDEs in house dust found that Oregon samples had the highest levels of PBDEs.

Driver's Ed, Hybrid Style

Much has been made of the discrepancy between the rated fuel economy of hybrid cars and the actual results that drivers get on the road. Sure, "actual mileage may vary," but that variance proved particularly wide for hybrids, and was especially aggravating since fuel efficiency was the main reason people bought the hybrids in the first place.

Now comes the Dean of Energy Geeks, Amory Lovins, to offer a solution. According to his half-page piece in the current issue of the Rocky Mountain Institute newsletter (p. 15 of large pdf), hybrid owners need to learn a new style of driving to take advantage of their cars' technology. Lovins calls it "pulse driving," and it has two main components:
- Brisk acceleration, then letting up once you reach cruising speed. "The engine is most efficient at high speed and torque," he writes.
- Gentle braking, anticipating the need to stop. This allows the car to recover as much energy as possible and feed it into the battery. If you try to stop more suddenly, the mechanical brakes kick in, and they dissipate that precious energy as mere heat.

Lovins claims that this strategy has enabled him to eek out 63 mpg with snow tires on his 64-mpg-rated Insight, and will bring in 53 to 55 mpg on the 55-mpg-rated Prius.

Not having a Prius, I can't test-drive this advice, but I'd be curious how it squares with the observations of all you hybrid drivers out there.

No Silver Bullets

Here's yet another reminder that we can't rely on technology alone to save fuel. According to The New York Times, the next generation of gas-electric hybrid vehicles is being designed mostly to boost performance, rather than to boost efficiency. To wit:

The 2005 Honda Accord hybrid gets about the same miles per gallon as the basic four-cylinder model, according to a review by Consumer Reports, a car-buyer's guide, and it saves only about two miles a gallon compared with the V-6 model on which it is based. Thanks to the hybrid technology, though, it accelerates better.

Not to pooh-pooh a 2 mile per gallon boost, but does such a small mpg gain really warrant the federal tax subsidy that's currently doled out to hybrids in the US? Of course, the hybrid tax breaks are scheduled for phase-out in 2006. But they've been extended so many times now that I'm wondering if they'll become permanent.

This phenomenon -- using technological innovation to boost performance rather than efficiency -- is really just a continuation of a long-standing trend. Per person energy use in the Pacific Northwest has remained flat for decades, as each improvement in energy efficiency has been accompanied by an equal and opposite increase in our appetites. Still, it's good to get a reminder of exactly what the consumer dynamic is here; said one buyer of a hybrid Accord, "I wasn't prepared to give up anything to 'go green' - not performance, amenities, or space." And that attitude is shared, no doubt, by most of the car buying public. Which serves as a reminder that nobody should be sanguine that technological innovation, by itself, will have much of a dent on our fuel consumption.

Sunny Share

Some more interesting vehicle news, this time on car sharing companies, which according to The New York Times are catching on a bit in Europe:

Studies suggest that one shared car replaces 4 to 10 private cars, as people sell their old vehicles...The result is a 30 to 45 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled for each new customer.

Now, 30 to 45 percent is a pretty sizeable decline in driving. But it shouldn't come as much of a surprise; as any economist would predict, converting a fixed cost (e.g., the cost of buying the car) to a variable cost (e.g., the cost of renting a shared car, which for Seattle Flexcars costs up to $9 per hour) makes people far more selective about how much they drive. And that probably saves car-sharers money overall: yes, they pay more for each trip, but they make fewer trips, and also avoid much of the expense of purchasing and maintaining a car for personal use.

A few other good things about car sharing. If the Times' figures for Europe are relevant to the US -- i.e., each shared car really replaces 4-10 personal cars -- then car sharing can reduce toxic emissions associated with car manufacturing anywhere from 75% to 90%. And that's a lot of toxics avoided: for typical cars, about 60% of the life-cycle toxics emissions from cars comes from making them, rather than driving them.

Also, since a typical shared car is driven more than a personal car, it makes more sense for companies like Flexcar to invest in super-efficient vehicles. For a car driven 5,000 miles a year, it may be hard to financially justify paying the extra money for a hybrid system; but for a car driven 20,000 miles a year, the finances pencil out a lot easier.

Which means that, between efficiency gains and reductions in driving, someone who is in a position to ditch a 20 mpg personal car for a 50 mpg shared hybrid Prius or Civic could reduce their personal gasoline consumption by, oh, about 75 percent. And they'd save money to boot. Quite a deal, no matter how you look at it.

Smart Idea

Ok, so this isn't exactly a trend, and it has little bearing (yet) on the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. But I thought I'd point it out anyway: Smart cars -- the product of a joint venture between Mercedes-Benz and Swiss watchmaker Swatch -- are now available for sale in the US. Just two have been sold so far, but there are plans for more.

They had to do a little tweaking to the design -- including adding airbags -- to make sales legal in the US. But the mini-cars get 50-60 miles per gallon, and I'm told that in Vancouver, BC -- where the Smart has already been available for a while -- it's legal to park them perpendicular to the curb. They're that tiny.

It's way, way too early to call this sort of thing a trend. But it could be a sign that, with gas prices reaching new and dizzying heights seemingly every week, the appeal of fuel-efficient vehicles is beginning to catch on in the US.

Get on the Bus

If you live in Seattle, you no longer have any excuse to not ride the bus. Check out www.busmonster.com, a hybrid of Google Maps and Metro’s Trip Planner that lets you see in real-time where the bus you want to take is on any particular route. You can look up the closest stops to your location and see the routes on their way.

Best of all, it will send you an email 5 minutes (or however many minutes you like) before your bus is due to arrive at your stop. Madly chasing bus drivers down the street just officially became part of my past.

Bus Monster is not only a cool and convenient tool, it’s the kind of creative thinking that can help convince car commuters to ride the bus. I know San Francisco has “my next bus” pop-up alerts and gps information at some stops—are there any other rider-friendly services we should know about in Cascadia?

Waiting to Inhale

People who move to the suburbs may think they’re fleeing the polluted air of the city.  Of course, there’s a tradeoff: by living in low-density suburbs, they spend more time in their cars. And as it turns out, the air inside your car may be just about the dirtiest you’ll breathe all day.

Last year, researchers in Sydney, Australia released a study (pdf) that measured the levels of benzene (a carcinogen) and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as well as asthma-inducing nitrogen oxides, among people who commute by car, bus, train, bike and foot.

The verdict? Car commuters breathed the worst air, getting the highest doses of benzene and other VOCs. Even bus commuters were exposed to lower levels of VOCs than car commuters (though bus riders breathed higher levels of nitrogen dioxide). Train commuters had the least exposure overall, with cyclists and walkers coming in second-best.

One reason for the difference is that motorists are breathing exhaust, both from their own vehicles and from nearby traffic. As the authors of the Sydney study note, driving on congested freeways puts motorists in a "tunnel of pollutants." By contrast, other travel modes reduce ambient exposures: trains tend to run on isolated tracks, buses often take express lanes, walkers and bikers may travel on quieter streets.

The US census says that 87.9% of Americans commute by car, truck, or van, and the National Household Transportation Survey shows that people who live in sprawling suburbs spend about 68 minutes per day in their cars--about 50 percent more than people who live in more compact urban neighborhoods.

So, to some extent, if you want more fresh air it may be smarter to move closer to downtown, rather than farther away.

Monorail: A Railroad or a High Road?

Seattle's monorail project has smashed into the biggest bump in its bumpy history. This is hardly news anymore: the $2 billion 14-mile line will end up costing $11 billion, with $9 billion in interest payments, and the tax to fund it will extend until 2053. City hall and Olympia are, in short, freaking out. Read about it here, here, and here.

There's good reason to freak out. The monorail financing as it is currently proposed is absurd. HOWEVER, the monorail is not dead yet. And while the financing debacle is more serious than a flesh wound, it should not spell the end of the project. Following, I spell out a few ways to salvage it.

(Full disclosure: I am an unreconstructed believer in the monorail. At its essence it is superior to any other form of transportation in the region. You can read my in principle defense of the monorail at the end of this post.)

1. Truncate the line. It's clearly not cost-effective the build the entire 14-mile green line without additional funding. Lopping off the arm north of downtown would preserve valuable capacity to West Seattle (even more valuable when the $4 billion viaduct tunnel inevitably implodes). It might even be possible to cut out only the downtown section, saving money on the most expensive property acquisitions. Riders could still get from the neighborhoods to Seattle Center or SoDo, close enough to walk to downtown or switch to other forms of transit.
2. Raise taxes, or diversify. Why not raise the value-based tax on cars, perhaps extending to brand new cars--an egregious oversight in the current financing? This would shorten the terms of the debt, dramatically reducing the overall cost. Alternatively, the monorail should consider taxing 1) commercial parking (the city has the authority to do this and it has the advantage of both encouraging transit and discouraging driving); 2) cruise ships (surely, Seattleites would love this one. After all, those clueless cruisers will undoubtedly be using the monorail).
3. Get government funding. The feds, the state, the county, and the city manage to come up with huge sums of money for all sorts of less worthy projects--the asinine viaduct tunnel, I-405 expansion, the asinine 520 expansion, the South Lake Union streetcar, and light rail, not to mention buses. There's no reason, in principle, that the monorail shouldn't be subsidized by government funds.

Of course, any of these three solutions would legally (and ethically) require going back to the voters yet again. I think that would make it 5 times. There is, however, really no other solution. The monorail's current plans are bad enough that city leaders should kill the plan. But before they kill something that Seattle's voters really want, they should make an honest effort at trying to fix the problem first. Remember, the monorail could be a very good thing for Seattle. We just have to figure out how to make it work.

Post-script: Why the monorail is a good thing

• It is funded by a value-based progressive tax on car ownership. It therefore kills two birds with one stone: it both discourages car-ownership and encourages transit ridership. (Also, at present its funding is more congruent with its service area than any other transportation project in the Puget Sound region.)
• Obviously, an elevated train is immune to grade-level congestion and construction. All else being equal, this makes it quicker, more efficient, and more reliable. It is, therefore a more appealing choice to riders.
• The monorail offers something additional that no other form of transit can: unique aesthetic quality. Not only is a monorail an iconic symbol, but the potential views--especially in a city like Seattle--are bound to be wonderful. It's quiet, sleek, and has a kitschy futuristic quality. (I know that number-crunching planner-types don't put much stock in this, but aesthetic value really does--and should--matter in our cities.) It is, therefore a more appealing choice to riders.
• Complaints about the shadow-effect of the stations and rails are red herrings. They are belied by the experiences of every city with an elevated train (at least that I've ever visited). Areas near el-train stops are usually vibrant, thriving, and dense centers. In fact, developers have already begun inquiring about building up the areas near monorail stations.
• For the last time, it is not argument against the monorail that it won't reduce city congestion. Nothing will--not road-capacity expansion, not high-speed buses, not light rail, not carpooling, and not even the monorail. Street congestion is here to stay. But it's an open question whether people will have other options that will allow them to move quickly despite the congestion. A monorail can accomplish this with an efficiency and aplomb that no other form of transit can.
• Also, for the last time, it is not an argument against the monorail that it is not the cheapest way to move people. No one except the pocket protector crowd cares. Seattle voters have consistently volunteered to tax themselves for the monorail (for all of the reasons that I mention here). Just try floating a popular initiative for expanded bus service, the apparent fave of transportation engineers. The point is: the monorail does in fact move people--quickly--it discourages car-ownership, and Seattleites want it here.
• It's the cleanest and greenest form of transit. Monorails run on electricty, which in Seattle is climate neutral, emitting no net greenhouse gases, and does not contribute to air pollution. You can't say that about non-electric buses, not even biodiesel buses, or trains.
• Still a doubter? Visit Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which is home to one of the few large-scale big-city monorail lines in the world. (Okay, I know it's not exactly next door.) I've ridden the monorail there and, yes, it lives up to all the claims that I've made in this post. KL's monorail is truly fantastic. Seattle's could be too.

Pollute the Rich

Feeling guilty about driving your car? If you've been ranting at too many of Clark's recent posts, then I've got a sales pitch for you...

For the low, low price of $160 you can turn your Hummer H2 into a zero emissions vehicle. It's easy. All you need is a TerraPass.

Now here's the fine print: it won't actually reduce the emissions from your tailpipe, or turn your gas-guzzler into a sipper. What the pass does is buy smog allowances from the Chicago Climate Exchange where companies buy and sell pollution credits. By buying up a few credits, you reduce their supply (and presumably raise their price), and you thereby indirectly reduce the amount of pollution from other people. 

Yes, it's weird. And disturbingly similar to the Catholic practice in the Middle Ages of allowing rich believers to buy indulgences to expiate their sins. And perhaps even more disturbingly, the program so far has attracted mostly drivers of fuel-efficient vehicles. According to the article on CNN.com, SUV drivers aren't very interested because they don't feel guilty in the first place.

Buy A Diesel?

A concerned reader is in the market for a used car, and wants to know what we'd recommend: a fuel-efficient hybrid vehicle (like a Prius), or one that can run on veggie-oil-based biodiesel (like a Volkswagen Jetta)?

A while back I posted on a similar question -- whether to buy a new Prius or an old Accord.  There, the price differences were so wide that the Accord seemed the better buy -- provided that the buyer commits to using some of the savings to offset their environmental impacts in other ways.

Here, however, the price differences aren't so wide.  And -- at risk of aggravating people attached to one solution or the other -- I'm not yet convinced that there's all that big a difference.

Of course, there are lots of uncertainties in play here.  First, a lot depends on what used cars are available when you're ready to buy.  Both hybrids and biodiesel-ready cars are still fairly scarce, so you may have no choice but to buy a car with more options -- a good stereo, plush seats, etc. -- than you really need.  Paying more could put a crimp in your wallet -- which, in turn, could leave you with less money for other earth-friendly purchases.

Second, with the purchase price of a used Jetta and Prius so close, a lot depends on what you think fuel is going to cost a few years down the road. It's hard enough to predict prices for next month; over ten years, prices are essentially unknowable. That's especially true for an evolving market like biodiesel; but it's also true for oil prices, which tend to be volatile. 

Third, "external costs" -- the things that society, rather than the driver, pays for -- are harder to get a handle on, since there are two different kinds of fuels with different kinds of externalities. Should you count the security & military costs associated with petroleum? The environmental costs of oilseed farming? The risk of oil spills? Pesticide safety? Compounding the problem, the numbers themselves are pretty sketchy -- so no matter what you decide to include in your analysis, the figures are going to be approximations.

And fourth, a lot depends on you -- in particular, are you willing to drive a car that uses a little more gas than you'd like, if it saves you some money? And if so, are you willing to invest those savings in something that might do even more environmental good in some other sector of the economy?

So starting with the basics:  before you buy a car -- any car -- you should take a look at your needs. How many passengers will you need to carry? How much cargo (if any)?  How many miles per year are you expecting to drive? Don't overbuy -- if you need a truck just a few times per year, it's usually cheaper and more earth-friendly to buy a smaller car, and rent or borrow a truck only when you need it.

Our reader has done all that: she needs a car to hold 2 adults, plus one or two car seats for kids, that will be driven less than 10,000 miles per year. She's interested in a used hybrid (such as the Prius) or a biodiesel-ready car (such as the Volkswagen Jetta).  Just to round out her choices, I'll look at a used Toyota Camry and a Toyota Corolla as well.

I took a look at the Kelly Blue Book value for comparably equipped used cars from the 2002 model year.  And I made some assumptions:  first, that the car would be driven for 12 consecutive years, for 10,000 miles per year, after which it would have to be junked; second, that future gas purchases would be discounted at a 3 percent annual rate; third, that biodiesel will cost 40 cents more per gallon than gasoline; fourth, that each vehicle's actual gas mileage would be about 5 percent lower than the federal ratings; fifth, that CO2 credits (the cost to reduce a ton of CO2 emissions on the EU carbon market) would cost $30 per ton -- which is a little more than today's rate in US dollars; sixth, that the US spends about 30 cents per gallon to defend its petroleum supply (as described here, way down on the page); and seventh, that biodiesel reduces CO2 emissions by 78 percent, compared with gasoline.  Then, I calculated the total cost of buying and fueling the car for 12 years; plus the cost of buying enough CO2 credits, purchased up front, to offset the car's CO2 emissions; plus per-gallon defense costs.

The winner in the Prius vs. biodiesel-Jetta grudge match was...wait for it...the Toyota Corolla, by a hair.  The Prius came in a close second, followed by the Jetta, with the Camry trailing the pack. 

If gasoline averages about $2.50 over the next 12 years (a huge if), choosing the Corolla could give you a little cash--perhaps a couple thousand dollars--which you can use to buy a super-efficient fridge or, if you're in a generous mood, some more carbon credits.  That will make the cost savings on the Corolla add up to even greater environmental benefits over time. The higher gas prices go, of course, the less the Corolla saves; but as long as gas prices average less than an inflation-adjusted $4.00 per gallon over the next 12 years, the Corolla (plus carbon credits) is consistently the cheaper choice.

But not by much.  The real lesson here, perhaps, is that there's no overwhelming winner.  What you consider the best choice is very dependent on what assumptions you make, what external costs you include, what probability you assign to future events, how much you actually drive, and the like.  In the range of assumptions that I made, the choices just aren't that different; your mileage may vary. 

The real difference, however, is between a reasonably efficient car and a gas guzzler. Assuming $4.00/gallon gas, a car that costs the same as a Corolla, but is rated at 18 mpg rather than the Corolla's 31, could cost $10,000 more over 12 years. That's a big difference -- far bigger than the difference between Corolla and a Prius.

Now, for the (inevitable) caveats.

• I didn't look into pollution costs, outside of greenhouse gases.  The diesel Jetta gets a pretty poor rating on tailpipe emissions; but biodiesel burns more cleanly than regular diesel. (However, this post from the Green Car Congress blog suggests that biodiesel may have worse overall emissions than regular diesel, because of the higher emissions and energy costs of agriculture; I don't know enough to decid.) Still, I think that the Prius would beat out the Jetta on this score, since in addition to being fuel efficient it's also a very clean car.  The Corolla is probably somewhere between the Prius and the Jetta.
  
• Biodiesel currently sells at a premium to gasoline -- in mid-May, the premium was about 70 cents, based on this and this.  If you think that premium will decline over time, then the Jetta looks a lot better.
• I don't yet know how to buy EU CO2 credits, though you can buy US credits (as detailed here). With some reservations, I think these are worthwhile -- especially since the projects they fund tend to have ancillary air quality and habitat benefits.

So to get back to the original point -- what do I recommend for someone looking to buy an environmentally friendly used car?  First, during your search, identify a few vehicles that get at least 30 mpg, that you think you think are safe, and that you could live with.  Then, sum the purchase cost of the vehicle, plus an estimate of the cost of 10 years of fuel, plus carbon credits, plus at least 30 cents extra per gallon of petroleum to account for externalities.  Compare costs based on that number, not on the purchase price.  Then check your gut, and if you feel comfortable, go with the least expensive option.  And finally...once you make your choice, buy your carbon credits, and turn your attention to your next big purchasing choice.  Perhaps a place to live that's closer to work or stores, so you can drive less?

Clean-Car Dominoes: The Oregon Chapter

Many of you probably know that, in a huge win for Washington’s economy and air quality, the 2005 Washington Legislature voted to adopt stronger emission standards for new vehicles--"clean-car standards." The bill includes a landmark provision calling for a 30-percent reduction in global warming pollution.

The catch is that Oregon has to adopt them as well, which is generating lots of discussion in the state right now. Oregon’s Environmental Quality Commission has the authority to adopt the standards administratively, and Governor Kulongoski has said he intends to use that authority.

Some members of the Oregon House have moved to block the effort (see this editorial on the subject); they even passed a non-binding resolution discouraging state agencies from taking any action to reduce global warming pollution – a flat-earth society gesture that was previously seen only in fossil fuel stronghold states like Wyoming and West Virginia. But the groundswell for reducing global warming pollution and fossil fuel dependence in Oregon is strong. The state is the last missing piece in constructing a contiguous clean-car market – up the west coast, across Canada, and throughout the Northeast – that would comprise 40 percent of the North American vehicle market. Can you say “tipping point”?

Life In The Fast Lane

I thought this might happen: according to the Union of Concerned Scientists' Hybridblog reports that a US federal transportation bill contains provisions that would open up HOV lanes to hybrids.  The problem -- not only could that clog HOV lanes (slowing down the buses, carpools and vanpools that depend on them), but the US Congress is trying to lower the bar, letting even low-mileage hybrids into the fast lane:

In the end, the Senate provision would open HOV lanes to vehicles that achieve at least a 50 percent increase in fuel economy in the city or a 25 percent increase in fuel economy in combined city-highway miles over the non-hybrid model, regardless of the number of passengers.  This... opens up a Pandora’s box of potential abuses.  Not to mention the fact that both the House and Senate language do not even consider smog-forming emissions—with hybrids you don’t have to trade off fuel economy and smog, but instead of recognizing this fact, these bills would allow some higher mpg vehicles into HOV lanes despite the fact that they are among the dirtiest vehicles permitted by law (4-10 times dirtier than many of the hybrids on the road today).

Seems to me that opening up HOV lanes to hybrids was a so-so idea to start with.  But it just got a whole lot worse.

Hyping Hybrids

Despite the federal government's obstinate refusal to increase vehicle fuel efficiency, consumers are increasingly setting their own standards higher. Hybrids are rocketing off car lots, according to Polk, an auto industry research firm. US sales of hybrids in 2004 outpaced the previous year's sales by 81 percent. Not surprisingly, California led the surge, with as many new hybrid registrations, 25,021, as the next seven states combined.

The Northwest, however, can still pride itself on strong hybrid sales. Washington consumers were 3rd; Oregonians were 11th. (And on a per capita basis, Washington and Oregon would have performed even better: Washington is the 15th most populous state; Oregon is the 27th.) By the same token, the Seattle metro region was the 5th biggest buyer of hybrids; the Portland metro area was 11th. Polk did not provide data for hybrid sales in Canada.

The Toyota Prius still dominates the market, accounting for nearly 2/3 of all hybrid sales.

Talking With Cars

This New York Times article from last Saturday echoed news that has been popping up all over recently.  The headline sums it up:  "America's Love Affair With S.U.V.'s Begins to Cool."  Higher gas prices are apparently starting to shift people's car-buying patterns -- which seems to have caught most auto-industry execs by surprise, though it should hardly come as a shock to economists who (quite naturally) expect that price changes will eventually change people's behavior.

But what stuck out at me was this quote from a former SUV aficionado:

"I never wanted a car before - never," said Tamika Cooks, a science teacher at Bellaire High School in Houston, in an interview Friday as she was signing the paperwork for her Chrysler 300C. "But this car has captured my attention. It speaks to me. It calls my name."

By now, I should be used to the idea that people respond to their vehicles emotionally, and that buying a car is as much a visceral decision as a practical one. Automobile marketers understand this very well, of course, but it's a lesson I keep having to remind myself.  And it means that, for folks like me who want to reduce fuel consumption, it's not enough simply to present people with useful information about vehicle choices. You also have to speak to people's psyches, or their ids, or whatever portion of the brain it is that actually motivates them.

Luckily, it seems that when vehicles are chatting with people's ids these days, they're saying something different than they did 5 years ago.  The SUV that used to whisper "power, domination, self-determination" now whispers "That'll be $100 a tank, bub."

Now, it strikes me that the same sort of thing that motivates car buyers may also be what animates the surprisingly heated battles over mass transit. Different modes--buses, bus rapid transit systems, light rail, ultra-light rail, monorail, and heavy rail--each seem to attract vigorous supporters, who view any discussion of transportation as an opportunity for spittle-flecked invective in favor of their chosen mode. For outsiders to the debate, it all seems rather silly and off-putting; each kind of transit has its advantages and disadvantages, so the decision about which mode to employ ought to depend with what's most practical and cost-effective in any given situation.

But perhaps the best way to understand it is that, while some people hear cars speaking to them, others hear buses or trains.

Car Buyers Imposing Higher Fuel Standards

From the Christian Science Monitor, evidence that consumers are beginning to think about gas prices as they make new vehicle purchases:

Last month, 49 percent of new-car buyers, the highest level ever, had changed their mind or were thinking strongly about buying a vehicle they would not have considered because of gas prices, according to a survey by Harris Interactive and Kelley Blue Book.

Over the short term, rising gas prices only affect consumption a little bit, because people have only so much flexibility to change their driving habits.  Over the long term, though, people start making more fundamental changes -- where they live, what they drive -- that can lead to more significant reductions in how much gas they use.

There's still plenty of room for skepticism.  Sales of hybrids are surging now, but some industry analysts are predicting that demand will top out, with hybrids commanding a small share of the market.  (Some of those skeptics, of course, are from car companies that don't produce hybrids -- so take those predictions for what they're worth.)  But then there's this:

Even McManus - the hybrid cynic-turned-believer - has serious doubts about how big an impact even a massive surge in hybrid sales will have on reducing America's oil dependence. His analysis, for instance, shows a "rebound effect." For every 1 percent decline in the cost of fuel, Americans drive 1.85 percent more.

That number seems way too high to me, and this lit. review by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute seems to agree.  Still, all else being equal, increased vehicle fuel efficiency does tend to reduce the cost of driving a mile, which in turn increases the number of miles people drive.  Which leads to this seeming paradox:  in a world of hybrids, we might drive more, but still use less gas.

In other hope-inspiring vehicle news, cleaner diesel vehicles may be on their way.

Cutting the Accord?

A question from a reader:  what do we think about this piece of advice from the May-June Sierra Club magazine's "Hey Mr. Green" column:

Hey Mr. Green,

What's best for the environment, continuing to drive my perfectly fine 1990 Honda Accord, or trading it in for a new gas-sipping Prius? — Heath in Los Angeles

Well, Mr. Green hates to say this because you might be bonded to your trusty old Accord, but she burns twice the petrol and wheezes out twice the global-warming gas of a Prius or similar hybrid model. Being a conscientious environmentalist, though, you're also worried about the energy and pollution involved in building a new car — the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gas. But by the time the Prius hits 50,000 miles, its energy savings will have made up for its own construction. So unless you drive very little, a new hybrid is the way to go.

That's not necessarily the advice I'd give.

The venerable Mr. Green is correct in assessing the environmental benefits of the decision -- which obviously, after the first 50,000 miles, favor the new Prius.  But he doesn't look at the cost of achieving those benefits.  Factoring in costs, buying a new Prius loses a bit of its luster.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Heath drives about 10,000 miles per year, that his Accord gets 25 mpg in actual driving, and that a Prius would get 50 mpg.  (The gas mileage figures are the ones that Mr. Green seems to be using, so I'll grant him that.)  After 5 years, the Accord has burned up 2,000 gallons of gas; the Prius 1,000, plus an additional 1,000 gallons equivalent consumed during the car's construction. 

In other words, from a carbon standpoint at least, 5 years is the environmental break-even point.  Before that, and the Accord emits less carbon overall.  After that, the environmental benefits of driving a Prius start to add up.

Now, let's look at the costs.  Right now, a fairly bare-bones 1990 Accord is worth somewhere in the vicinity of $1,200 to $2,500, according to the Kelley Blue Book.  Let's say that after 5 more years of driving, its value declines to $0 -- which is a pretty good assumption, given that a 20 year old Accord with 200,000 miles on it has a resale value of $0 (see here).  And let's say that to keep the older car running for 5 more years