Download Report (PDF) - Environment America

Download Report (PDF) - Environment America

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary 1Introduction 4Global Warming and North Carolina 5Current Indications of Global Warming 5Projected Future Impacts of Global Warming 6Global Warming Pollution in North Carolina 9Global Warming Reduction Efforts in North Carolina 10The Transportation Challenge 11Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Pollution in North Carolina: Past and Projected 14Tools to Reduce Global Warming Pollutionfrom Cars and Light Trucks 16Vehicle Global Warming Pollution Standards 16Advanced Technology Standard 20Policy Recommendations 22Assumptions and Methodology 24Notes 27

Executive SummaryNorth Carolina could limit its contributionto global warming overthe next 15 years by implementingpolicies to reduce carbon dioxide emissionsfrom cars and light trucks.Global warming poses a serious threat toNorth Carolina’s future. Scientists projectthat average temperatures in North Carolinacould increase by 8˚ to 15˚F over thenext century if no action is taken to reduceglobal warming pollution. Warming couldcause thousands of square miles in thestate to be flooded, increase damage fromstorms, and cause air quality to worsen, aswell as harm North Carolina’s economy,public health and environment in a hostof other ways.Controlling global warming pollutionfrom the transportation sector—and particularlycars and light trucks—is essentialif North Carolina is to begin to reduce itsemissions and its long-term impact on theclimate.Transportation-related emissions areresponsible for approximately 34 percentof North Carolina’s global warming pollution,the second largest source of pollutionbehind electricity generation. Carsand light trucks—such as pickups, minivansand SUVs—are the most importantsources of global warming pollution withinthe transportation sector, responsible forapproximately two-thirds of all emissionsfrom transportation and nearly one-quarterof North Carolina’s total emissions ofglobal warming pollution.Carbon dioxide pollution from carsand light trucks in North Carolinacould increase by 12 percent from 2005to 2020 unless action is taken to reduceemissions.• Emissions from cars and trucks increasedby nearly 33 percent between1990 and 2005 and are projected torise by an additional 12 percent between2005 and 2020.• Vehicle travel increased by 29 percentfrom 1996 to 2006 and is projected togrow by another 39 percent by 2020,causing global warming pollutionfrom transportation to rise significantly.• Slow implementation of stronger federalcorporate average fuel economy(CAFE) standards for cars and lighttrucks also feeds the growth in NorthExecutive Summary

• The Clean Cars Program will pavethe way for the widespread introductionof technologies like “plug-in”hybrids and fuel-cell vehicles, directinjectionengines, advanced transmissions,improved air conditioningsystems, and other technologies withthe potential to reduce pollution.• Even with implementation of theClean Cars Program, carbon dioxidepollution from cars and light trucks in2020 would remain 1 percent higherthan in 2005 because of a large projectedincrease in vehicle travel. Thus,North Carolina will need to adoptadditional policies to stabilize andreduce emissions from the transportationsector.North Carolina should move quicklyto adopt policies that will stabilize andultimately reduce carbon dioxide pollutionfrom cars and light trucks.• North Carolina should adopt theClean Cars Program so that it takeseffect in model year 2012.• North Carolina should invest in publictransit and adopt transit-orienteddevelopment policies that reduce vehicletravel, further helping to reduceglobal warming pollution from thetransportation sector.Executive Summary

IntroductionGlobal warming will have serious impactson North Carolina’s environment,economy and future qualityof life.Rising sea level could cause the state’sshoreline to move inland by 2,000 feet to2 miles, flooding thousands of square milesof coastal land. Stronger hurricanes andtropical storms, fed by warmer ocean temperatures,could wreak greater havoc onNorth Carolina in coming years, erodingbeaches, damaging coastal property, andharming forests across the state. The financiallosses caused by the impacts of globalwarming could total billions of dollars. Ultimately,they could change the landscapeand traditions of North Carolina.Addressing the challenge of globalwarming will require bold action.To avoid the worst impacts of globalwarming, climate scientists agree that weneed to reduce global warming pollutiondramatically within our lifetimes. If we are tohave a reasonable chance of keeping globaltemperatures from rising by more than2˚C above pre-industrial levels, the atmosphericconcentration of global warmingpollutants (in carbon dioxide equivalent)must be held below 445 to 490 parts permillion (ppm). 1To stabilize global warming pollutionlevels between 445 and 490 ppm (carbondioxide equivalent), global emissions mustpeak no later than 2015 and decline by 50to 85 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. 2The single largest step that North Carolinacan take now to cut global warmingpollution from the transportation sectoris to adopt the Clean Cars Program. Theprogram would reduce emissions fromcars and light trucks by 10 percent fromprojected levels in 2020. The policy wouldalso save money for motorists.Adopting the Clean Cars Program isone of the first significant steps that NorthCarolina must take if it is to reduce itscontribution to global warming.Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

Global Warming and North CarolinaCurrent Indications ofGlobal WarmingThe first signs of global warming are beginningto appear in North Carolina andthroughout the world. Global average temperaturesincreased during the 20 th centuryby about 1.3˚F (0.74˚C). 3 (See Figure 1.)While this increase may not seem extreme,it is unprecedented in the context of the last1,300 years of world history. 4Global warming has intensified in recentyears. In 2006, scientists at the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) reported that, since 1975, temperatureshave been increasing at a rate ofabout 0.36˚F per decade. 6 Nationally, six ofthe last 10 years (1997 to 2006) rank amongthe 10 warmest years on record. 7This warming trend cannot be explainedby natural variables—such as solar cyclesor volcanic eruptions—but is successfullypredicted by models of climate change thatinclude human influence. 8Figure 1. Global Average Temperatures, Difference from 1961-1990 Average 5Global Warming and North Carolina

Other indications of global warminginclude:• Melting ice. The rise in global temperatureshas resulted in thinning iceand decreasing snow cover. Glaciersare retreating around the globe andthe annual extent of Arctic sea ice hasdeclined by 2.7 percent per decadesince 1978. 9 NASA scientists recentlyfound a 23 percent decrease in the extentof Arctic sea ice from winter 2005to winter 2007. 10• Rising sea levels. Oceans have risenwith the melting of glacial ice and theexpansion of the ocean as it warms.Average sea level has risen 6.7 inchesin the past century. 11• Shifting seasons. Spring events—such as leaf unfolding, egg laying andbird migration—are occurring earlierin the year. Numerous species ofplants and animals appear to be movingtoward the poles in response torising temperatures. 12• More severe storms. Storms may begetting more intense. For example, anincrease in the fraction of rainfall occurringas heavy precipitation eventshas been observed, a potential resultof warmer air that is able to hold moremoisture. 13 Hurricanes appear to havebecome more powerful and more destructiveover the last three decades,a phenomenon that some researcherslink to increasing global temperatures. 14Global Warming in North CarolinaThe first signs of global warming mayalready be affecting North Carolina’sclimate and land. Over the last century,for example, the average temperature inChapel Hill has increased by 1.2˚F. 15Precipitation patterns have changed,one possible impact of global warming.The state receives 20 percent less rain inthe summer than it did 100 years ago. 16 Atthe same time, the frequency of extremelyheavy rain increased 16 percent from 1948to 2006. 17Sea level along the eastern seaboard hasrisen throughout the twentieth century.In Hampton Roads, Virginia, sea levelincreased by approximately 12 inches from1930 to 2000. 18 Sea level at Charleston,South Carolina, rose 10 inches. 19 In NorthCarolina, eroding shoreline (caused in partby rising sea level) threatened the CapeHatteras Lighthouse and led to its relocationfarther from the ocean.Hurricanes and cyclones have becomemore frequent and more powerful. From1975 to 1989, only 20 percent of stormswere considered Category 4 or 5, the classificationgiven to the most severe storms.That proportion has increased to 35 percentin the period from 1990 to 2004. 20Projected FutureImpacts of Global WarmingClimate scientists warn that the world facesdire environmental consequences unless wefind a way to reduce our emissions of globalwarming pollutants quickly and rapidly.Global warming will have serious impactson North Carolina’s natural environmentand thus its economy and way of life.Future Global ImpactsMany scientists and policy-makers (suchas the European Union) recognize a 2˚C(3.6˚F) increase in global average temperaturesover pre-industrial levels as a roughlimit beyond which large-scale, dangerousimpacts of global warming would becomeunavoidable. 21 Even below 2˚C, significantimpacts from global warming are likely,Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

such as damage to many ecosystems, decreasesin crop yields, sea level rise, and thewidespread loss of coral reefs. 22Beyond 2˚C, however, the impacts ofglobal warming become much more severe,including some or all of the following possibleimpacts:• A 0.7 to 1.9 foot sea level rise, evenwithout accelerated break-up of icesheets; 23• Eventual loss of the Greenland icesheet, triggering a sea-level rise of 7meters over the next millennium (andpossibly much faster);• Widespread extinctions of plant andanimal species;• Displacement of tens of millions ofpeople due to sea level rise;• Expansion of insect-borne disease;• Increased coastal flooding and the lossof 30 percent of coastal wetlands;• A further increase in the intensity andduration of hurricanes;• Greater risk of positive feedback effects—suchas the release of methanestored in permafrost—that could leadto even greater warming in the future. 24Should the world continue on its currentcourse, with fossil fuel consumptioncontinuing to rise, temperature increasesof well above 2˚C are likely to occur. TheIntergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, in its 2007 Fourth AssessmentReport, laid out a scenario in which population,economic output and fossil fuel consumptioncontinue to grow dramatically.Under that scenario, global average temperaturesby the end of the century wouldbe approximately 7.2˚F (4.0˚C) higher thanin 1990, and temperatures would continueto rise for generations to come. 25North Carolina ImpactsGlobal warming will have consequences forboth rural and urban areas in North Carolina.North Carolina’s climate is expectedto grow warmer, with temperatures in theSoutheast region rising by 8˚F to 15˚F by2100. 26 Precipitation in the Southeast ispredicted to increase by an average of 20percent over the next 100 years. 27Rising Sea LevelAs global temperatures increase, oceanlevels will rise due to melting polar icecaps and the expansion of surface water asit grows warmer. This will dramaticallychange North Carolina’s coastline.North Carolina has 3,375 miles of tidallyinfluenced coastline, and an estimated 1.4million acres of land that are less than fivefeet above sea level. 28 Because the state’scoastal regions are so flat, a 12-inch rise insea level may cause the shoreline to moveinland by 2,000 feet to 2 miles. 29 Thus, an8 to 23 inch rise in sea level in the next 100years could result in the loss of thousandsof square miles of land in North Carolina.Compounding the problem, North Carolinais sinking by 7 inches per century dueto the movement of tectonic plates. 30Overall, North Carolina is the thirdmostvulnerable state to sea level rise. 31The potentially affected area is immense,because low-lying land that is not fullysubmerged by higher sea levels may be partiallyinundated during high tides. 32 Theregion between Pamlico and AlbemarleSounds and land along the coast northof Cape Lookout is most vulnerable. (SeeFigure 2.)The loss of coastal lands will imposelarge financial costs on the state throughproperty loss and damage to coastalrecreation. Researchers estimate that insome counties as much as 12 percent ofproperty could be harmed, at a cost ofGlobal Warming and North Carolina

$6.9 billion over the next 75 years. 33 In ablow to beach tourism, 12 of 17 popularswimming beaches along the southerncoast could shrink by 40 percent or moreby 2030, reducing spending by tourists. 34Fourteen of the 17 beaches could be completelyeroded by 2080.Problems will arise before the oceanovertakes coastal land, as salt water seepsinto freshwater supplies, penetrating aquifersand drinking-water wells. If groundwaterbecomes tainted with saltwater, it nolonger can be used for drinking or irrigating.Rising water levels can also impair thefunction of septic systems, making it veryFigure 2. Map of Areas in North Carolina Vulnerable toSea Level Risedifficult to sell affected homes. 35Higher sea levels could heighten theimpact of tropical storms. North Carolinahas received more direct hits by hurricanesthan any state other than Florida. 36 As sealevels rise, storms will be able to push waterfarther inland. In addition, more frequentand severe tropical storms could exacerbatethe impacts of higher sea levels and erodedbarrier islands.The Loss of Plant and Animal SpeciesHigher temperatures and changes in precipitationwill alter the mix of plants andanimals that can survive in North Carolina.The replacement of Fraser fir and redspruce by pines and oaks could change theecosystem of mountain forests.Insect populations, such as the Southernpine beetle, may thrive as temperaturesincrease. Forest fires are likely to becomemore common, increasing by 25 to 50 percentaccording to one model. 37As plant types change, birds and otheranimals may have to move northward tofind suitable habitat. By one estimate, 30species of birds that currently spend at leastpart of the year in North Carolina may beforced out of the state by a changing climate.38 Rising sea level may force a numberof endangered or threatened species fromtheir coastal habitat. 39The loss of coastal wetlands to risingsea level may cause a decline in birdpopulations. As sea level rises, beachesand wetlands are the first areas to beclaimed by the ocean. Along undevelopedshoreline, wetlands migrate inland andnew beaches form. Waterfront developmentprevents this regeneration. In NorthCarolina, much land along the ocean hasbeen developed, leaving no room for newwetlands and beaches and causing thestate to lose valuable wildlife habitat andrecreation areas. Development just inlandfrom current wetlands and beaches oftenis protected by storm walls, preventing theevolution of new coastal wetlands throughthe inundation of low-lying land.Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

A Note on UnitsBecause various gases contribute to global warming, and the potency of the warmingeffects of those gases varies, inventories of global warming pollution typicallyuse units that communicate emissions in terms of their global warming potential.In this report, we are measuring emissions of carbon dioxide only and thus reportemissions in terms of carbon dioxide. Other documents may communicate pollutionin terms of “carbon equivalent.” To translate carbon equivalent to carbon dioxide,one can simply multiply by 3.66.percentage of the state’s electricity needsshould be met with clean, renewable energysources or by energy efficiency. 56 By 2021,12.5 percent of customer demand met byinvestor-owned utilities must come fromrenewables or efficiency. Municipal andcooperatively owned utilities must meet alower requirement.While this standard will help to reduceNorth Carolina’s global warming pollutionfrom the electric sector, it does nothingto reduce emissions from transportation.North Carolina should next begin to addressthe challenge of emissions from thetransportation sector.Increasing Vehicle Miles TraveledNorth Carolina residents are travelingmore miles in their cars and light trucksthan ever before. Between 1996 and 2006,the number of vehicle-miles traveled(VMT) annually on North Carolina’sroads increased from 78.7 billion miles to101.2 billion miles—an increase of 29 percent.57 (See Figure 4.) VMT has been increasingfaster than population growth. In2006, the average North Carolinian drovenearly 2,000 miles more than in 1990. IfVMT growth continues at the same annualrate, by 2020, VMT will increase 39percent to 145 billion miles.The TransportationChallengeThe challenge of reducing global warmingpollution from cars and trucks is formidable,and growing increasingly so witheach passing year.Three factors—increasing vehicle milestraveled, stagnant fuel economy standardsthat were only recently updated, and largenumbers of light trucks and SUVs—in thetransportation sector make the challengeof reducing global warming pollution inNorth Carolina even greater.Stagnant Fuel Economy StandardsThe imposition of federal Corporate AverageFuel Economy (CAFE) standardsbeginning in 1975 led to dramatic improvementsin the fuel efficiency of Americancars and light-duty trucks. The CAFEstandards required a gradual increase infuel economy during the 1970s and 1980s,topping out at an average fuel economyfor new cars of 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg)by 1990 and 20.7 mpg for light trucks by1996. 59 The standard for light trucks hassince been increased to 22.2 mpg.In the decade-and-a-half following enactmentof the CAFE standards, the “realGlobal Warming and North Carolina 11

Figure 4. North Carolinians Are Driving More Miles Every Year 5814,00012,000Annual Miles Driven Per Person10,0008,0006,0004,0002,00001990 2006world” fuel economy of passenger carsnearly doubled—from 13.5 mpg in 1975 to24.1 mpg in 1988. Similarly, light trucksexperienced an increase in real-world fueleconomy from 11.6 mpg in 1975 to 18.3mpg in 1987. 60However, the trend in the 1990s wastoward less fuel-efficient vehicles as automakersfocused on producing morepowerful cars instead of more efficientones. To make matters worse, changes indriving patterns, including higher speedsand increased urban driving, further depressedfuel economy. An EPA analysis offuel economy trends found that the averagereal-world fuel economy of light-dutyvehicles sold in 2004 was lower than theaverage fuel economy of vehicles sold in1981. (See Figure 5.) Though fuel economyhas stabilized for the past several years andeven started to increase slightly, in manycases Americans get fewer miles per gallonfrom their new vehicles today than they didduring the Reagan administration.In December 2007, Congress updatedCAFE standards for cars and light trucks.By 2020, the fuel economy of new cars andlight trucks must average 35.0 mpg. Thefull phase-in schedule for the standardshas yet to be determined, but a proposedschedule suggests that the fleet averagewill be just 30.6 mpg in 2015. 62 This figureincludes an adjustment for a loopholethat allows automakers to earn credittoward meeting fuel economy standardsfor producing vehicles that are capable ofrunning on alternative fuel, even thoughmost vehicles never use anything butgasoline.While any increase in fuel economystandards is a welcome improvement,Congress could have established far higherstandards that would have achieved greaterglobal warming pollution reductions.Large Numbers of SUVs andLight TrucksWhile the fuel economy of the averagecar and light truck has stagnated over12 Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

the past two decades, the average fueleconomy of the entire new-car fleet hasdeclined—thanks to the dramatic shifttoward sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vansand light trucks.In 1975, when the first federal CAFEstandards were enacted, SUVs made up 2percent of the light-duty vehicle market,vans 5 percent, and pickup trucks 13 percent.By model year 2007, however, SUVsaccounted for 29 percent of light-dutyvehicle sales, vans 6 percent, and pickuptrucks 14 percent. The light-duty marketshare of passenger cars and station wagonsdropped over the same period from 81 percentto 51 percent. 63 (See Figure 6.)This shift toward larger vehicles hascaused the average fuel economy of the entirenew light-duty vehicle fleet to dip as lowas 19.3 mpg in 2004—lower than at any timesince 1980 and down by 12 percent from thehistorical peak in 1987 and 1988. 65Recent increases in gasoline prices haveslowed sales of SUVs, but it is too early todetermine if the long-term shift towardSUVs and light trucks will change significantly.(Manufacturers have promoted“cross-over” vehicles—or SUVs that looklike large cars—as an alternative to SUVs,but because these vehicles often are classifiedas light trucks, their fuel economy isnot necessarily better than that of conventionalSUVs.) Even if the number of SUVsand light trucks begins to decline, it willbe many years before the mix of vehicleson the road changes significantly.The combination of these three factors—moremiles traveled, increasinglyin trucks and SUVs, with stagnant fueleconomy across the entire vehicle fleet—poses a great challenge to North Carolinapolicy-makers as they attempt to reduceglobal warming pollution from the transportationsector.Figure 5. Average Fuel Economy for New Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet Stagnant 613025Fuel Economy (Miles per Gallon)2015105Car - CAFE StandardCar - Real World MileageCombined Real WorldMileageTruck - CAFE StandardTruck - Real World Mileage019751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001200320052007YearGlobal Warming and North Carolina 13

Figure 6. Light-Duty Vehicle Mix Shifts from Cars to Trucks, Vans and SUVs 64100%90%Percentage of Light-Duty Vehicle Sales80%70%60%50%40%30%20%SUVsVansPickupsWagonsCars10%0%Model Year 1975 Model Year 1988 Model Year 2007Vehicle Carbon DioxidePollution in North Carolina:Past and ProjectedBased on North Carolina-specific fuelconsumption data compiled by the U.S.Energy Information Administration (EIA),cars and light-duty trucks released approximately26.3 million metric tons of carbondioxide into the atmosphere in 1990. By2005, those emissions had increased by 33percent, to 35.1 MMTCO 2, and cars andtrucks were responsible for close to onequarterof North Carolina’s emissions ofglobal warming pollution.Any attempt to project North Carolina’sfuture global warming pollution dependsgreatly on the assumptions used. The “Assumptionsand Methodology” section atthe conclusion of this report describes indetail the assumptions used to develop thefollowing projections. Simply put, the “referencecase” for carbon dioxide emissions(based largely on data and projections bystate and federal government agencies) assumescontinued growth in vehicle travel,an improvement in vehicle fuel economyto comply with new federal CAFE standards,and no increase in the percentage ofvehicles that are trucks and SUVs.Based on these assumptions, carbondioxide emissions from the North Carolinalight-duty vehicle fleet are projectedto increase by 7 percent over 2005 levelsby 2010, followed by a further 5 percentincrease between 2010 and 2020. In otherwords, by 2020, carbon dioxide emissionsfrom cars and light trucks could be 49 percentgreater than 1990 levels in the absenceof action to reduce emissions.An increase of such magnitude wouldseverely challenge North Carolina’s ability14 Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

to stabilize and eventually reduce globalwarming pollution from the transportationsector and the state as a whole.However, this path toward increasingcarbon dioxide pollution from cars andlight trucks is not inevitable. Public policiesthat require or encourage the purchase ofmore fuel-efficient or advanced technologycars can make a significant dent inNorth Carolina’s future emissions of globalwarming pollution while potentially savingmoney for drivers. One of the mostpowerful policy options is setting limits onvehicle global warming pollution.Transportation and Global Warming: A Primergallon of gasoline contains a set amount of carbon, nearly all of which is releasedA to the atmosphere when it is burned. Some of the carbon is released in the formof hydrocarbons; most of it is released in the form of carbon dioxide. For each gallonof gasoline burned in a vehicle, about 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide is releasedto the atmosphere. In addition, the consumption of gasoline creates significantadditional “upstream” emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from the extraction,transportation, refining and distribution of the fuel. Other fuels have greater orsmaller amounts of carbon in a gallon (or its equivalent).Unlike other vehicular air pollutants that result from the incomplete combustionof fossil fuels or from fuel impurities, carbon dioxide is a natural result of thecombustion process. As a result, there are three main ways to limit carbon dioxidepollution from motor vehicles:1. Drive more efficient vehicles.2. Reduce the number of miles traveled.3. Switch to fuels with lower life-cycle global warming impacts, such as electricitygenerated from renewable sources or ethanol made from crop waste.Vehicles also emit small amounts of other global warming gases, such as methaneand nitrous oxide, as well as hydrofluorocarbons from the use of the air conditioningsystem. Control of some of these emissions is possible through means other thanreducing fuel use or substituting low-carbon fuels.Global Warming and North Carolina 15

Tools to Reduce Global WarmingPollution from Cars and Light TrucksNorth Carolina has many potentialtools available to reduce emissionsof global warming pollution fromthe transportation sector. In addition togreater efforts to promote alternatives todriving, the state should use the most powerfultool it has available now for cuttingemissions from transportation: adoptingglobal warming pollution standards forcars and trucks.The Clean Air Act gives most statestwo options for control of motor vehicleemissions identified as pollutants underthe Act: states may choose to comply withfederal emission standards or adopt themore protective standards—known as theClean Cars Program—pioneered by thestate of California, the only state empoweredby the Clean Air Act to devise its ownemission regulations.Fourteen states—Maryland, New Jersey,Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts,Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont,Maine, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon,Washington and California—have adoptedthe Clean Cars Program, including thevehicle global warming emission standards,and others—including Florida, Utah, andColorado—have gubernatorial commitmentsin place to adopt the standards.As discussed below, adoption of theClean Cars Program would significantlyreduce emissions of global warming gasesfrom cars and trucks, providing importantassistance in North Carolina’s efforts tocurb global warming pollution.The Clean Cars Program has two parts,analyzed separately below. One componentrequires that vehicles reduce global warmingpollution. The other part promotesvehicles that have lower emissions of toxicand smog-forming pollution and encouragesdevelopment of new technologies thathave the potential to reduce greenhousegas pollution.Vehicle Global WarmingPollution StandardsIn July 2002, California adopted the firstlaw to control carbon dioxide emissionsand other global warming pollution fromautomobiles. The law requires the Califor-16 Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

nia Air Resources Board (CARB) to adoptlimits that “achieve the maximum feasibleand cost-effective reduction of greenhousegas emissions from motor vehicles.” Limitson vehicle travel, new gasoline or vehicletaxes, or limitations on ownership of SUVsor other light trucks cannot be imposed toattain the new standards. 70 In September2004, CARB adopted rules for implementationof the global warming pollutionstandards.In developing the global warming pollutionstandards, the CARB staff reviewedseveral analyses of the types of technologiesthat could be used to achieve “maximumfeasible and cost-effective” reductions inglobal warming pollution from vehicles.CARB’s proposal estimates that neartermtechnologies could reduce averageglobal warming pollution from cars andthe lightest light trucks by 25 percent andfrom heavier light trucks by 18 percent.Over the medium term (2013 to 2016),cost-effective reductions of 34 percent forcars and smaller light trucks and 25 percentfor heavier light trucks are feasible. 71 Preliminarydiscussion by CARB suggests thatby 2020, global warming pollution fromThe Bush Administration’s Challenge to theClean Cars ProgramThe Clean Air Act allows California—and other states with pollution problems—toadopt vehicle emission standards that are more protective than federal standards.However, before California can implement a new policy, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency must review California’s proposed standard to ensure that it isnot “arbitrary and capricious” and that the state faces “compelling and extraordinaryconditions” that require stronger standards. 66 So long as the state satisfies thesecriteria, the Clean Air Act indicates that EPA should grant California a “waiver”from federal rules to implement its new standards.Historically, EPA has approved more than 40 waivers giving California permissionto pursue stronger environmental protections. 67 In December 2007, however, EPAdenied a waiver for California and other states to implement the global warmingpollution standards of the Clean Cars Program. The EPA administrator issued itsdenial despite a recommendation from EPA staff that the agency grant Californiathe waiver and would be likely to lose a lawsuit if the agency rejected the waiverand California sued. 68California and other states are challenging the EPA’s decision in court. Implementingthe Clean Cars Program is the best way to reduce global warming pollutionfrom cars and light trucks and is central to many states’ efforts to reduce theirglobal warming pollution. In the 14 states that have adopted the standards, theClean Cars Program will reduce emissions by 34.2 million metric tons of carbondioxide in 2020. 69By admission of EPA’s own legal staff, the Clean Cars Program is likely to beupheld by the courts, and EPA’s waiver-denial rebuked. In this case, North Carolinawould be able to implement the program two years from the time it is adopted bystate policy makers, as early as 2011.Tools to Reduce Global Warming Pollution 17

cars and the lightest trucks will be reducedby 36 percent and pollution from heaviertrucks will be cut by nearly half. 72One of the central requirements of thestandards is that they be cost-effective.CARB has adhered to that requirement andadded a margin of error to ensure that thestandards meet that requirement.The technological changes needed toachieve the reductions that CARB has required(such as five and six-speed automatictransmissions and improved electrical systems)will likely result in modest increasesin vehicle costs that would be more thanrecouped over time by consumers in theform of reduced fuel expenses. CARB projectsthat cars and the lightest light trucksattaining the 34 percent reduction in globalwarming pollution required by 2016 wouldcost an average of $1,064 more for consumers,while heavier light trucks achieving therequired 25 percent reduction would costabout $1,029 more. 73 (These cost increasesare relative to cars and light trucks soldtoday, not the more efficient vehicles thatwill be manufactured to comply with thenew federal fuel economy standards.)However, the agency also estimates thatthe rules will significantly reduce operatingcosts for new vehicles. Though consumerswill face higher monthly loan paymentswhen purchasing vehicles that complywith the global warming pollution standards,those increased costs will be morethan offset by lower operating expenses.For example, a consumer who buys a newcar in 2016 will save $20 per month dueto lower operating expenses compared toa car available today, despite higher loancosts and assuming gas costs $3 per gallon.After the loan is paid off, the consumer willsave $41 per month versus a car purchasedunder old federal fuel economy standards.Drivers who purchase a light truck or whopay for the vehicle in cash will experiencegreater savings. 74 (See Table 1.)CARB also projects that the net impactof the standards to the state’s economy willbe positive, suggesting that North Carolinacould save money while at the sametime reducing the state’s overall emissionsof global warming gases. 76Assuming that North Carolina adoptsthe standards beginning with the 2012model year and that emissions standardsafter 2016 continue to be strengthened,the resulting reductions in global warmingpollution would be significant. Comparedto the reference case projection for 2020,the emission standards would reducelight-duty carbon dioxide emissions by 10percent in 2020—for a total reduction of3.8 MMTCO 2. (See Figure 7.)Adopting the Clean Cars Programcan contribute significantly to efforts toreduce global warming pollution fromNorth Carolina’s transportation sector.With both components in effect, emissionsfrom light-duty cars and trucks would be1 percent greater in 2020 than they werein 2005, compared to 12 percent greater ifno action is taken.Table 1. Net Savings for a Consumer Under Global Warming Pollution Standards in2016 Versus Buying a Vehicle That Complies with Old Federal Fuel Economy Standards 75CarLight-Truck or SUVAnnual Net Savings while Repaying Loan $245 $320Annual Net Savings after Loan $490 $560Time to Recoup Higher Cost of Vehicle 2.2 years 2.5 years18 Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

Figure 7. Reductions in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Under Global Warming PollutionStandards (Light-Duty Vehicles)Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Million Metric TonsCarbon Dioxide)4039383736353433323130Emissions with newfederal fuel economystandardsEmissions with CleanCars Program20002002200420062008201020122014201620182020YearGlobal Warming Pollution Standards VersusFuel Economy StandardsThe global warming pollution standards within the Clean Cars Program covermultiple pollutants, including carbon dioxide from fuel combustion and air conditioneruse, methane and nitrous oxide from the tailpipe, and hydrofluorocarbonsthat are used in air conditioners. To produce vehicles that comply with the CleanCars Program, automakers can adjust vehicle operation to reduce emissions of anycombination of these pollutants. (In this report, we look at emissions of carbon dioxide,the most common pollutant, only.)In contrast, the federal government’s vehicle fuel economy standards regulate howmuch gasoline or diesel a vehicle may use to travel a mile. To comply with federalstandards, car manufacturers must produce more efficient vehicles.Because the California regulations and federal standards control different aspectsof vehicle performance, comparing the two standards requires some approximation.The California Air Resources Board estimates that in 2015, federal fuel economystandards will require vehicles to average 30.6 miles per gallon. 77 In contrast, theglobal warming pollution standards will equal 31.4 miles per gallon. By 2020, thefederal standard will rise to 35 miles per gallon, versus 42.5 miles per gallon for theglobal warming pollution standard. 78Tools to Reduce Global Warming Pollution 19

Advanced TechnologyStandardIn addition to requiring strict limits onglobal warming pollution, the Clean CarsProgram includes standards to reducesmog-forming and other hazardous pollutants.Though stricter than federal tailpipeemission standards, the progam achievesits goals in a similar way: by establishingfleet-wide limits on tailpipe emissions oftoxic and smog-forming pollutants.Unlike federal standards, however, theClean Cars Program includes an advancedtechnologystandard, which requires thesale of advanced-technology vehicles suchas hybrids that have even lower emissions.Eventually, the program calls for the sale ofzero-emission vehicles, such as full-functionelectric vehicles. In addition, some ofthe technological changes encouraged bythe advanced technology requirement helpto lay the groundwork for new technologiesthat can reduce emissions of global warmingpollutants.By adopting the Clean Cars Program,North Carolina can expect to have increasingpercentages of advanced-technologyvehicles on the road over the next decadeand more. The three main componentsof the advanced technology standard aredescribed below. 79Zero-Emission Vehicles“Pure” zero-emission vehicles are those—like battery-electric and hydrogen fuel-cellvehicles—that release no toxic or smogformingpollutants from their tailpipes orfuel systems. They also have the potentialto release far fewer global warming gasesthan today’s vehicles. (Note, however,that fuel-cell vehicles have zero emissionsonly when the electricity used to createthe hydrogen is generated from renewablesources such as wind or solar power.)The current emphasis of the program ison the long-term development of hydrogenfuel-cell and other zero-emission vehiclesrather than the near-term deployment ofbattery-electric vehicles. The current advancedtechnology standard requires thesale of very few pure zero-emission vehiclesover the next decade but it does providean incentive for automakers to continueresearch and development work on technologiesthat could provide zero-emissiontransportation in the future.Clean Conventional VehiclesThe majority of vehicles that automakersproduce to comply with the technologystandard will be conventional gasolinevehicles that are engineered to producedramatically lower emissions of air toxicsand smog-forming pollutants and havelonger-lasting emission-control systems.Advanced Technology VehiclesThe advanced technology requirementincludes provisions to encourage the saleof exceptionally low-emitting vehiclesthat also run on a cleaner alternative fuel,such as compressed natural gas, or thatuse advanced technologies, such as hybridelectricdrive.Hybrid-electric vehicles are the mostlikely technology to be used to complywith the advanced technology vehiclecomponent. Hybrids have proven to be verypopular with consumers, especially in anera of higher and rapidly fluctuating gasolineprices. Sales of hybrid vehicles haveincreased steadily since their introductionto the domestic market in December 1999.About 330,000 hybrids were sold in theU.S. in 2007, a 34 percent increase oversales in 2006. 80Today, the degree of global warming gasreductions from advanced technology vehiclesvaries greatly. Some hybrid-electric vehiclesand alternative-fuel vehicles—suchas hybrid pickup trucks to be sold by GeneralMotors and DaimlerChrysler—have20 Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

nearly the same global warming emissionsas conventional vehicles. Others, like theToyota Prius, offer substantial reductionsin global warming emissions.The advanced technology standarddoes provide additional credit to hybridelectricvehicles that attain a greater shareof their power from an electric motor(generally allowing them to achieve lowercarbon dioxide emissions), but these creditsare not directly tied to global warmingpollution.Impact of the AdvancedTechnology StandardsIn the short term, the advanced technologystandards can help to cut emissionsof toxic and smog-forming pollution inNorth Carolina. The full benefits of theprogram, however, accrue over the longrun, as new technologies are developedto comply with the program. At its heart,the advanced technology standard attemptsto jump-start advanced technologyvehicle development and the adoption ofthese technologies in the mainstream automarket.An example of the potential power of theprogram to hasten technological changeis the development of hybrid vehicles.Adoption of the original program sparkedpublic and private-sector research effortsinto the development of advanced batteriesand electric-drive technologies. While thegeneration of full-function electric vehiclesthat resulted from that research—such asHonda’s EV-Plus and General Motors’sEV1—were not sold in large quantities, theresearch effort drove advances in electricvehicle technology that facilitated the birthof the popular hybrid-electric systemsthat now power hundreds of thousandsof vehicles worldwide and have laid thegroundwork for recent advances in fuel-cellvehicle technology. 81Similarly, the current form of the advancedtechnology standard is designedto encourage continued investment inhybrid-electric and hydrogen fuel-cellvehicle development and may lead to thedevelopment of new types of vehicles (suchas “plug-in hybrids” that combine the benefitsof battery-electric and hybrid-electricvehicles) with significant benefits for theclimate.Tools to Reduce Global Warming Pollution 21

Policy RecommendationsAttaining reductions in carbon dioxideemissions will require significantactions to reduce emissions fromlight-duty vehicles. No one policy will solvethe problem. North Carolina will need topursue a range of policies to address thecurrent lack of standards for vehicle globalwarming pollution and increasing vehiclemiles traveled.Adopt the Clean CarsProgramThe first step North Carolina should takeis to adopt the Clean Cars Program forimplementation in model year 2012, establishingvehicle global warming pollutionstandards. The standards will limit growthin emissions from light-duty vehicles.Reduce Per-Mile Emissionsfrom VehiclesThe Clean Cars Program is the biggeststep North Carolina can take now toreduce global warming emissions fromvehicles. Other policies can provide additionalbenefits.Promote Low-Carbon FuelsFuels such as electricity and biofuels canhave lower global warming emissions thanpetroleum fuels. Some fuels have loweremissions than others—cellulosic ethanolis less polluting than corn-based ethanol,for example. A statewide low-carbon fuelstandard, such as one adopted by California,would promote fuels that provide thegreatest global warming benefit.Reduce Growth in VehicleTravelImprove Transit ServiceBetter bus and rail service could reducethe amount citizens need to drive. Existingbus service could be improved with morefrequent service and extended hours. Inrelatively low-density neighborhoods andshopping areas, small shuttle buses can22 Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

carry passengers to major bus lines that arebeyond walking distance. Smaller cities andtowns that do not have transit should establishservice. Carpools and vanpools canhelp serve areas not accessible to transit.Employers can help organize and promoteride-sharing programs by pairingdrivers with similar commutes, offeringpreferred parking to carpools, and providinga ride home if an employee has amid-day emergency or needs to stay atwork late.Expand Walking and BikingOptionsMany trips can be completed on foot or bicycleinstead of in a car, but the lack of saferoutes for walking or cycling deters people.Sidewalks with pedestrian amenities suchas benches and trees, and shops orientedtoward customers on foot rather than incars can encourage more people to walk.Changes to road design can slow traffic,making it easier and safer for pedestriansand cyclists to cross busy intersections.Link Insurance to Miles DrivenFor almost all drivers, insurance is a“fixed cost,” meaning that they pay thesame amount each year regardless of howmuch they drive. As a result, when driversconsider the cost of driving extra miles,insurance expenses do not come into play.Offering insurance on a cents-per-milebasis can encourage car owners to driveless by making apparent the full costs ofeach mile driven.Private insurers could offer centsper-mileinsurance that allows drivers topurchase insurance by the mile. Driverswould have a direct financial incentive todrive less. Such insurance also can providea benefit to senior citizens and others whodrive less than average.Promote Smart GrowthCompact development can reduce howmuch people need to drive. Many existingdevelopments in North Carolina arespread out, placing jobs and shops outof easy walking distance of homes. Newhousing and shopping projects could beconstructed to encourage trips on foot orbike or by transit, allowing residents theoption of not driving. For example, transitorienteddevelopment concentrates homesand shops near transit hubs to facilitate theuse of transit.Policy Recommendations 23

Assumptions and MethodologyProjections of future global warmingpollution from automobiles depend agreat deal on the assumptions used.This section details the assumptions wemade about future trends and explainsthe methodology we used to estimate theimpact of various programs.Historic Light-Duty VehicleCarbon Dioxide EmissionsCarbon dioxide emissions from light-dutyvehicles (cars and light trucks) in NorthCarolina in 1990 and 2000-2004 werebased on state-specific motor gasolineusage data from the U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration(EIA), State Energy Data. 82 Fuelconsumption data for the transportationsector in BTU was converted to carbondioxide emissions based on conversionfactors from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook2003, Appendix H and EIA, Emissions ofGreenhouse Gases in the United States2001, Appendix B. The proportion oftransportation-sector gasoline emissionsattributable to light-duty vehicles was estimatedby dividing energy use by light-dutyvehicles by total transportation-sector motorgasoline use as reported in EIA, AnnualEnergy Outlook 2007.Projected Light-Duty VehicleCarbon Dioxide EmissionsVehicle-Miles TraveledHistoric vehicle-miles traveled data forNorth Carolina were obtained fromHardee Cox, Road Inventory InformationSection, North Carolina Department ofTransportation, personal communication,18 March 2008. Projected VMT was calculatedon the assumption that the averageannual growth rate from 1996-2006 willcontinue in the future.VMT Percentages by Vehicle TypeTo estimate the percentage of vehicle-milestraveled accounted for by cars and lightdutytrucks, we calculated VMT splits byvehicle type for 2000 through 2006 from24 Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

the Federal Highway Administration,Highway Statistics series of reports andestimated future VMT splits.To calculate North Carolina-specificdata on VMT splits, we obtained annualregistration data from Highway Statistics,Tables MV-1 and MV-9 for 2000 through2006. We then multiplied the number ofregistered vehicles by the average milesdriven per vehicle type, as reported inFHWA Table VM-1. From this, we obtaineda VMT split between cars andlight-duty trucks.EPA’s projections of the VMT splitamong cars and light-duty trucks assignsignificantly more VMT to light-dutytrucks than has been the case over the pastseveral years, according to FHWA data.Recent rises in fuel prices have promptedmore consumers to purchase cars insteadof trucks than has been the case for severalyears and North Carolina’s fleet mix wasrelatively stable from 2000 to 2006. We assumedthat the fleet mix will remain steady,with continued marketing of crossovervehicles and SUVs counterbalanced byrising gas prices.VMT in the light-truck category werefurther disaggregated into VMT by “light”light trucks (in the California LDT1 category)and heavier light trucks (CaliforniaLDT2s), per EPA, Fleet CharacterizationData for MOBILE6: Development and Useof Age Distributions, Average Annual MileageAccumulation Rates, and Projected VehicleCounts for Use in MOBILE6, September2001.VMT Percentages by Vehicle AgeVehicle-miles traveled by age of vehiclewere determined based on VMT accumulationdata presented in EPA, Fleet CharacterizationData for MOBILE6: Developmentand Use of Age Distributions, Average AnnualMileage Accumulation Rates, and ProjectedVehicle Counts for Use in MOBILE6, September2001.Vehicle Carbon Dioxide EmissionsPer-mile carbon dioxide emissions fromvehicles were based on assumed levels ofcarbon dioxide emissions per gallon ofgasoline (or equivalent amount of otherfuel), coupled with assumptions as to milesper-gallonfuel efficiency.For conventional vehicles, a gallon ofgasoline was assumed to produce 8,869grams (19.6 pounds) of carbon dioxide.This figure is based on carbon coefficientsand heat content data from EIA, Emissionsof Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2001,Appendix B. Fuel economy estimates werebased on data presented in EIA, Assumptionsto the AEO 2007, and multiplied bya degradation factor obtained from EIA,Assumptions to the AEO 2007. (The degradationfactor represents the degree to whichreal-world fuel economy falls below thatreported as a result of EPA testing.)The data in AEO 2007 were compiled inearly 2007 before Congress passed legislationupdating CAFE standards to a 35 mpgfleetwide average by 2020. EIA has not yetreleased data on the likely phase-in of thisstandard, so we drew upon an estimateprepared for California EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Air Resources Board,Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions forthe United States and Canada Under U.S.CAFE Standards and California Air ResourcesBoard Greenhouse Gas Regulations, 25 February2008. Using the underlying data for thereport, we calculated the annual percentagereduction in emissions for passenger carsand light duty trucks, respectively, in California,and applied those same percentagereductions to the appropriate category ofvehicles in North Carolina.To calculate savings of the Clean CarsProgram’s global warming gas emissionstandards, we used data preparedfor CARB, Comparison of Greenhouse GasReductions. We calculated the percentagereduction in emissions expected each yearin California for cars and the lightest lighttrucks, and for heavier light trucks. WeAssumptions and Methodology 25

then applied those percentage reductions toprojected emissions from vehicles in NorthCarolina and tallied emissions from all vehiclesto create a fleet-wide projection.Fleet Emissions ProjectionsBased on the above data, two scenarioswere created: a reference case scenariobased on implementation of the new federalfuel economy standards and a Clean CarsProgram scenario based on the percentageemission reductions envisioned by CARBstaff in their 25 February 2008 document.Each scenario began with data from 2005and continued through 2020.Projected emissions were based onthe year-to-year increase (or decrease) inemissions derived from the estimationtechniques described above. These year-toyearchanges were then applied to the 2004baseline emission level to create projectionsthrough 2020.Mix ShiftingWe assumed that neither of the policiesunder study would result in changes in theclass of vehicles purchased by North Carolinaresidents, or the relative amount thatthey are driven. In addition, we assumedthat the vehicle age distributions assumedby EPA remain constant under each of thepolicies. In other words, we assumed thatany increase in vehicle prices brought aboutby the global warming emission standardswould not dissuade consumers from purchasingnew vehicles or encourage themto purchase light trucks when they wouldotherwise purchase cars (or vice versa). Mixshifting impacts such as these are quitecomplex and modeling them was beyondthe scope of this report, but they do havethe potential to make a significant impacton future carbon dioxide emissions.26 Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

Notes1. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Working Group III, FourthAssessment Report, Climate Change 2007:Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary forPolicymakers, 2007.2. Ibid.3. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Working Group I, FourthAssessment Report, Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis, Summary forPolicymakers, 5 February 2007.4. Ibid.5. R.K. Pachauri and Babu Jallow,Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis, Power Pointpresentation, 6 February 2007.6. J. Hansen et al., National Aeronauticsand Space Administration (NASA)Goddard Institute for Space Studies,GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: GlobalTemperature Trends: 2005 Summation,downloaded from, 23 May 2006.7. National Climatic Data Center, 2006Annual Climate Review, National Summary,21 June 2007. Note that though NASArevised its analysis of the hottest yearson record in August 2007, the NationalClimatic Data Center’s data has notrequired such revision.8. See note 3.9. Ibid.10. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, NASA Examines Arctic SeaIce Changes Leading to Record Low in 2007(press release), 1 October 2007.11. See note 3.12. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Climate Change 2007: ClimateChange Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability:Summary for Policymakers, April 2007.13. See note 3.14. Kerry Emanuel, “IncreasingDestructiveness of Tropical Cyclones Overthe Last 30 Years,” Nature 436: 686-688, 4August 2005.15. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Policy, Climate Changeand North Carolina, September 1998.16. National Wildlife Federation, GlobalWarming and North Carolina, 21 June 2007.17. Travis Madsen, Frontier Group, andEmily Figdor, Environment AmericaResearch & Policy Center, When It Rains,It Pours: Global Warming and the RisingNotes 27

Frequency of Extreme Precipitation in theUnited States, December 2007.18. Data from the Permanent Service forMean Sea Level, as cited in Amber Mungerand Michael Shore, EnvironmentalDefense, Understanding Global Warming forNorth Carolina, 2005.19. Ibid.20. P.J. Webster et al, “Changes inTropical Cyclone Number, Duration, andIntensity in a Warming Environment,”Science 309: 1844-1846, 16 September 2005.21. Malte Meinshausen, “What Doesa 2˚C Target Mean for GreenhouseGas Concentrations? A Brief AnalysisBased on Multi-Gas Emission Pathwaysand Several Climate SensitivityUncertainty Estimates,” in Hans JoachimSchnellnhuber, ed., Avoiding DangerousClimate Change, Cambridge UniversityPress, 2006.22. Rachel Warren, “Impacts of GlobalClimate Change at Different Annual MeanGlobal Temperature Increases,” in HansJoachim Schnellnhuber, ed., AvoidingDangerous Climate Change, CambridgeUniversity Press, 2006.23. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Summary for Policymakers ofthe Synthesis Report of the IPCC FourthAssessment Report, 16 November 2007.24. See notes 21 and 22.25. Corresponds to scenario A1F1 in note3.26. National Assessment Synthesis Team,U.S. Global Change Research Program,Climate Change Impacts on the UnitedStates: the Potential Consequences of ClimateVariability and Change, April 2001.27. Ibid.28. James Titus and Charlie Richman,“Maps of Lands Vulnerable to Sea LevelRise: Modeled Elevations Along the U.S.Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,” Climate Research,2001; See also note 15.29. Okmyung Bin et al., East CarolinaUniversity, University of North Carolinaat Wilmington, Duke University, andAppalachian State University, Impacts ofGlobal Warming on North Carolina’s CoastalEconomy, 15 March 2007.30. Amber Munger and Michael Shore,Environmental Defense, UnderstandingGlobal Warming for North Carolina, 2005.31. See note 28.32. Ibid.33. See note 29.34. Ibid.35. See note 28.36. See note 15.37. See note 26.38. American Bird Conservancy andNational Wildlife Federation, GlobalWarming and Songbirds: North Carolina,2002.39. National Wildlife Federation, GlobalWarming and North Carolina, 21 June 2007.40. See note 15.41. Ibid.42. See note 15 and Centers for DiseaseControl, Eastern Equine EncephalitisFact Sheet, downloaded from, 31October 2005.43. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Service, State FactSheets: North Carolina, updated 11 January2008.44. See note 29.45. See note 1.46. Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Fourth Assessment Report, ClimateChange 2007: Synthesis Report, 2007.47. See note 1.48. U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, State CarbonDioxide Emissions: Emissions Detail by State,February 2008.49. U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, Table H1CO2: World Carbon Dioxide Emissions from28 Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels,1980-2005, 18 September 2007.50. See note 48.51. Data on emissions within thetransportation sector was calculated asfuel use multiplied by the carbon coefficientof each fuel. Fuel use data: EnergyInformation Administration, State EnergyProfiles: North Carolina, 6 March 2008.Carbon co-efficients: Energy InformationAdministration, Documentation forEmissions of Greenhouse Gases in the UnitedStates 2003, May 2005.52. See note 48.53. California Environmental ProtectionAgency, Air Resources Board, Draft StaffProposal Regarding the Maximum Feasible andCost-Effective Reduction of Greenhouse GasEmissions from Motor Vehicles, 14 June 2004.54. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse GasEmissions and Sinks, 1990-2002, 15 April2004.55. See, for example, James Hansen andLarissa Nazarenko, “Soot Climate Forcingvia Snow and Ice Albedos,” Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences, 101: 423-428, 13 January 2004 for a discussion of thepotential impact of black carbon on globalwarming and the uncertainty in estimatingthe magnitude of that impact.56. North Carolina Utilities Commission,Docket No. E-100, Sub 113, 29 February2008.57. Hardee Cox, Road InventoryInformation Section, North CarolinaDepartment of Transportation, personalcommunication, 18 March 2008.58. Ibid.59. Stacy C. Davis and Susan W. Deigel,Center for Transportation Analysis, OakRidge National Laboratory, TransportationEnergy Data Book: Edition 22, September2002, Chapter 7.60. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Light-Duty Automotive Technologyand Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through2007, September 2007. The federal lawthat established CAFE standards alsoestablished the means for testing ofvehicles to determine compliance with thestandards. It has long been recognized thatthese testing methods overstate the “realworld” fuel economy of vehicles. EPA hasbegun to include adjusted figures in itsreporting of fuel economy trends and, in its2004 report, included an estimate of realworldvehicle mileage based on increasesin the percentage of urban driving. Inthis report, all discussions of vehiclefuel economy will refer to “real world”efficiency levels rather than “EPA rated”levels.61. Real world fuel economy: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Light-Duty Automotive Technology andFuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2007,September 2007. CAFE standards: U.S.Department of Transportation, CAFEOverview: Frequently Asked Questions,downloaded from, 13 March 2008.62. Analysis of proposed CAFE standardsby the California Air Resources Board,NHTSA vs AB1493 with 50% AC Credit(spreadsheet), 25 April 2008.63. See note 60.64. Ibid.65. Ibid.66. Clean Air Act, Section 209(b)(1).67. Northeast States for CoordinatedAir Use Management, U.S. EPA ThwartsState Climate Efforts—Rejects CaliforniaGreenhouse Gas Vehicle Program (pressrelease), 20 December 2007.68. Juliet Eilperin, “EPA Chief DeniesCalif. Limit on Auto Emissions,”Washington Post, 20 December 2007.69. California Environmental ProtectionAgency, Air Resources Board, Comparisonof Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the UnitedStates and Canada Under U.S. CAFEStandards and California Air Resources BoardGreenhouse Gas Regulations, an EnhancedTechnical Assessment, 25 February 2008.70. California Assembly Bill 1493, adoptedNotes 29

29 July 2002.71. California Environmental ProtectionAgency, Air Resources Board, Staff Report:Initial Statement of Reasons for ProposedRulemaking, Public Hearing to ConsiderAdoption of Regulations to Control GreenhouseGas Emissions from Motor Vehicles, 6 August2004.72. See note 69.73. California Environmental ProtectionAgency, Air Resources Board, AddendumPresenting and Describing Revisions to:Initial Statement of Reasons for ProposedRulemaking, Public Hearing to ConsiderAdoption of Regulations to Control GreenhouseGas Emissions from Motor Vehicles, 10September 2004.74. Meszler Engineering Services,GHG Emission Standards for Vehicles: AnOverview of California’s Pavley Requirements,presentation to Rhode Island GHGProcess Stakeholders, 28 April 2005.75. Ibid.76. See notes 71 and 73.77. See note 62.78. Assuming the vehicle fleet consists of70 percent cars and the lightest light dutytrucks, and 30 percent heavier light dutytrucks. See note 69.79. For a fuller discussion of the advancedtechnology standard and the tailpipeemissionsstandards, see EnvironmentNorth Carolina, Clean Cars, Cleaner Air:A Primer on the Clean Cars Program and ItsBenefits, May 2006.80. Electric Drive TransportationAssociation, Hybrid Sales Figures/TaxCredits for Hybrids, downloaded from, 14 March 2008.81. The reasons behind the lack of marketsuccess of the EV-Plus, EV1 and similarelectric vehicles are complex, and mayhave much to do with automakers’ failureto properly market their vehicles to thepublic.82. U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, State EnergyConsumption, Price and ExpendituresEstimates, Consumption, 1960-2005, 29February 2008.30 Putting the Brakes on Global Warming

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines