The Oregon Senate has approved a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.

SB 1059, which implements recommendations from 2009 Metropolitan Planning Organization Greenhouse Gas Emissions Task Force, does more than just set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in metro areas. It also directs state agencies to:

• Develop a statewide transportation strategy on greenhouse gases.
• Craft a toolkit to assist local governments and metro areas in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.
• Develop guidelines for scenario planning – used by communities across the country to consider alternative choices of land use patterns and transportation options to reduce emissions.
• Work with the Oregon University System to educate the public about the costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Report back to the 2011 Legislature with an estimate of how much it will cost local governments to prepare and select a land use and transportation scenario that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and potential sources of funding.
• Report back to the 2013 Legislative Assembly with an assessment of how the agencies are doing on these tasks.

The bill passed out of the Senate despite unanimous opposition from Republicans, 17-13 (Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Mount Hood joining the Rs in voting “no”). The bill now goes to the House, where it will most likely come up for a vote Wednesday.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon Policy Director, stated in a press release:

This victory will help create healthier, sustainable communities across Oregon. And it’s a major step for giving Oregonians better transportation choices.

The press release also quotes Chris Hagerbaumer, Deputy Director of the Oregon Environmental Council:

SB 1059 is a win-win for cities and towns across Oregon. The bill will help create the tools and resources local governments need to make cost effective decisions on planning future growth while also improving air quality and reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Cities and towns of all sizes will be able to use the tools that the agencies develop.

The Task Force identified a number of additional benefits that would accrue from reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including: saving families money by reducing their transportation costs; lower public infrastructure costs; healthier lifestyles due to more opportunities to walk and bike; and greater energy security by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

UPDATE 2/25/2010: SB 1059, which would initiate steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions in transportation, is headed to the governor’s office after passing out of the House 32 to 26 Wednesday. The Rs voted against the bill as a solid block. Two Ds, Terry Beyer of Springfield and Arnie Roblan of Coos Bay, joined the Rs in opposition.

Here’s a news flash from NASA: cars contribute to global warming!

Motor vehicles give off only minimal amounts of sulfates and nitrates, both pollutants that cool climate, though they produce significant amounts of pollutants that warm climate such as carbon dioxide, black carbon, and ozone.

In a paper published online on Feb. 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nadine Unger of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and colleagues described how they used a climate model to estimate the impact of 13 sectors of the economy from 2000 to 2100.

In their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now and in the near term. Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it.

Keep in mind that those cooling aerosols from electric power generation and industry (mostly from burning coal) and biomass burning (otherwise known as deforestation) fall out of the atmosphere quickly, leaving the greenhouse gases behind in the atmosphere to do their warming work for centuries to come. Says Unger:

The differences are because the impacts of greenhouse gases accumulate and intensify over time, and because they persist in the atmosphere for such long periods. In contrast, aerosols rain out after a few days and can only have a short-term impact.

Credit: NASA GISS/Unger

Unger’s model finds that in 2020 (left), transportation, household biofuels and animal husbandry will have the greatest warming impact on the climate, while the shipping, biomass burning, and industrial sectors will have a cooling impact. By 2100 (right), the model finds that the power and industrial sector will begin to contribute strongly to warming as carbon dioxide accumulates.

Here’s a simple idea that would go a long way towards saving the planet:

Cap the national driving speed limit at 34 MPH (55 KMH).

Benefits of a national slowdown would include:

• Massive reductions in oil consumption
• Immediate and significant C02 reductions
• Smaller, lighter vehicles = less materials consumption
• Instant surge in demand for high-speed rail and other public transportation
• Large drop in tire-related particulate pollution
• Plunging traffic fatality rates + reduced health industry expenses
• Constriction of suburbs & exurbs, relieving pressure on farm lands and other rural lands
• Shipping diverted from truck to rail & ship
• Demise of the “big box” model, reinvigoration of local economies and communities
• End of our road and bridge building mania

As if that’s likely to happen.

Still, our love affair with the automobile may be petering out. The Federal Highway Administration reports that vehicle miles driven in December were unchanged from December 2008:

Travel on all roads and streets changed by 0.0% (-0.1 billion vehicle miles) for December 2009 as
compared with December 2008. . . . Cumulative Travel for 2009 changed by +0.2% (6.6 billion vehicle miles).

Unfortunately, as U.S. passion fades the automobile has taken a new lover: China.

In 2009, cars scrapped in the U.S. exceeded new car sales  for the first time since World War II, shrinking the U.S. vehicle fleet from the all-time high of 250 million to 246 million.

The 14 million cars scrapped exceeded the 10 million new cars sold, shrinking the U.S. fleet by 4 million, or nearly 2% in one year. The U.S. fleet has apparently peaked and started to decline.

Lester Brown at Treehugger identifies “market saturation” as the dominant factor. The United States now has 246 million registered motor vehicles and 209 million licensed drivers – nearly 5 vehicles for every 4 drivers.

Brown points to Japan as an example. In Japan, annual car sales peaked 1990 and have since shrunk by 21%.

Mish Shedlock looks at the data and asks, what about boomer demographics and teenage driving?

The massive wave of boomer retirement is about to hit. Many boomers will go from two cars to one, or from two new cars to one new car and an “emergency” clunker.

As for teens, parents can no longer afford to buy cars for their kids. And with teenage unemployment at the highest rate in history, can no longer afford to buy their own cars.

Peak oil, peak autos.  What’s next?

California’s new carbon fuel standard will shut U.S. ethanol out of the biggest U.S. market. Why? Because the regulations will count the emissions created when corn is planted, harvested and ground into fuel as part of ethanol’s carbon output. The regulation also counts indirect land-use changes – the impact on other areas of planting corn in the Midwest for ethanol.

Naturally, the two largest ethanol trade organizations have sued California over the standard.

When you count everything, “green” may not be green after all.

A prime example is the newly rolled out “Greenroads” rating system developed by University of Washington researchers and the engineering firm CH2M Hill. The system (the complete version of which is available here) outlines minimum requirements to qualify as a “green roadway”, including a noise mitigation plan, storm-water management plan and waste management plan. It also allows up to 118 points for voluntary actions such as minimizing light pollution, using recycled materials, incorporating quiet pavement and accommodating non-motorized transportation.

What the rating system leaves out is everything important:

Decisions regarding the location, type, timing, feasibility or other planning level ideas are excluded. While planning is fundamental to roadway and community
sustainability, these decisions are often too complex or political to be adequately defined by a point system.

“Greenroads” is greenwashing at its finest.

For anyone concerned about the impact of emissions from the transportation sector on global warming (or complacent about peak oil), this chart posted by Stuart Staniford at his blog Early Warning should be sobering:

Heading Out at The Oil Drum reports the Chinese purchased 13.6 million cars and light trucks last year, compared to 10.4 million sold in the USA. China is now the world’s #1 auto market. Not surprisingly, Chinese oil imports are also up. In December, Chinese imports of crude oil rose to 20 million tonnes, or the equivalent of 4.7 million barrels a day. Chinese demand is helping keep oil prices firm despite the continuing global economic disruption.

Then again, this chart from another Staniford post looking at urbanization trends shows that urbanization and vehicle use are in lockstep, growing exponentially :

Of course, correlation does not establish causation. But Staniford shows that as the percentage of the population engaged in agriculture declines and as countries “develop” and become urbanized, per capita energy use tends to increase.

The global climate and energy outlook is grim as China begins to look more and more like us. And notice India, looming there on the horizon.

America’s car culture appears to be stalling.

Rigzone reports that U.S. gas consumption has hit a 13 month low. Demand may be responding to higher gas prices: retail gas prices surged last week as the national average pump price rose 4 cents to $2.62 a gallon, 63% higher than a year ago at this time.

Calculated Risk reports on light vehicle sales:

The current level of sales is still very low, and are still below the lowest point for the ‘90/’91 recession (even with a larger population). On an annual basis, 2009 sales were probably just above the level of 1982 (10.357 million light vehicles).

Due in part to “cash for clunkers”, the United States scrapped 14 million autos while buying only 10 million in 2009, shrinking the country’s car and light duty truck fleet to 246 million from a record high of 250 million.

And the Federal Highway Administration reports that travel on all roads and streets changed by -0.5% (-1.4 billion vehicle miles) for October 2009 (the latest month for which data is available) as compared with October 2008. Cumulative travel for 2009 is up by 0.2% (4.8 billion vehicle miles). What will the final figures for 2009 show when the November and December numbers are in? Reports suggest that bad weather and the holidays had an adverse impact on gasoline demand.

Stuart Staniford at Early Warning has posted this chart showing that new vehicle fuel economy wasn’t very responsive to the oil price spike of 2005-2008.

Unlike the oil crisis of the late ’70s, people just didn’t run out and trade in their gas guzzlers for new fuel-efficient cars. And “cash for clunkers” did very little to offset the impacts of lower gas prices.

With gas prices down from the spike in 2008, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is once again on a growth path after falling in 2008. The Federal Highway Administration reports travel on all roads and streets was up 2.5% (5.8 billion vehicle miles) for September 2009 as compared with September 2008. Cumulative Travel for 2009 through September was up 0.3% (6.7 billion vehicle miles) over 2008.

U.S. Vehicle Miles through January 2009

The decline in VMT totaled 122 billion for the period December 2007 to January 2009, compared to the same 14-month period a year earlier. If VMT keeps increasing by almost 6 billion miles a month, it won’t be long before VMT is back to where it was before the oil price spike hit. If oil prices spike again . . . ?

The Energy Information Administration reports petroleum used for transportation in 2009 remains significantly less than in 2007 and 2008 (8.0% and 4.2%, respectively).

Stuart Staniford has posted this chart at his blog Early Warning.

You ask, why is this interesting? Staniford in an earlier post argued that if global oil supply was flat, and if the developing regions of the world continue to grow at the rate of the last five years, then developed country oil consumption would have to decline at 4% per year. Consequently, oil efficiency would have to increase at 4% a year if OECD economies were not to shrink – and to increase by even more if economic growth is to continue in the future as it has in the past.

The situation is even more challenging if global oil production begins to actually decline.

The real significance of the concept of peak oil lies in the economic consequences – the question of exactly when global oil production peaks is in itself not particularly interesting or important. What we need to be thinking about and planning for is adopting to a different kind of economic and political environment as global oil supplies – and more importantly oil supplies available for export – become  increasingly constrained and then inevitably begin to fall.

The implications for transportation planning are stark – but transportation planners are mostly oblivious to or dismissive of the concept of peak oil. With 97 percent of U.S. transportation energy based on petroleum, oil is the lifeblood of America’s economy. Staniford points out that when it comes to transportation fuel economy, improvements are not happening nearly as fast as we will need going forward

Transportation planning is based on projecting demand into the future. Will the oil required to fuel those projections be there? Transportation planning that fails to take peak oil considerations into account is disconnected from reality.

A new report by the European group Transport & Environment titled “How to avoid an electric shock: Electric cars from hype to reality” finds that while there may be significant potential environmental benefits to be had from a switch to electric vehicles, the supposed benefits are wholly dependent on changes in the way electricity is generated, energy is taxed and CO₂ emissions are regulated. Current EU legislation contains loopholes that are likely to lead to emissions and oil use going up rather than down.

Why is this? Binding EU targets for car CO₂ emissions agreed last December include ‘super credits’ that enable carmakers to sell up to 3.5 gas-guzzling SUVs for every electric vehicle they sell and still reach their official EU target. Electric cars are also counted as ‘zero emissions’ despite the fact that the electricity they use can come from high-carbon fossil fuels such as coal. The combined effect of these loopholes would be that carmakers that choose to market electric cars to meet EU targets would have to do less to reduce emissions of conventional cars. The overall effect would be higher CO₂ emissions and oil use.

The report says electric cars can help reduce CO2 emissions from the transport sector provided two conditions are met: first, they must be more energy-efficient than state-of-the-art conventional vehicles on a ‘tank to wheel’ basis; second, the electricity to power the cars must be sourced from renewable sources.

The first of these conditions appears to have been met: electric vehicles are between two and three times more efficient than petrol hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles on a ‘tank-to-wheel’ basis.

The second condition, which depends on ‘well-to-wheel’ environmental impacts, is far from guaranteed, as it depends on the type of electricity generation. Electric cars powered by wind or solar energy are obviously superior. But if the electricity comes from coal, hybrids perform better.

The extra electricity required to power electric vehicles will require increased generating and grid capacity, which will require investment in the power sector. Even if the grid has the capacity and the basic infrastructure to meet the needs of electric cars, the new demand patterns they will create may result in greater use of coal and nuclear power.

And then there’s Jevons paradox. While the initial cost of acquiring an electric vehicle is high, the operating costs are low, with fuel savings ultimately fully compensating for the higher up-front expense. Low operating costs of electric vehicles would encourage people to drive more, especially since the initial purchase price is a “sunk cost.” These effects would result in extra demand for car transport. To offset this effect, it would be necessary to tax electricity. Meters in cars would be needed to measure the amount and environmental quality of electricity used [how "environmental quality" might be measured is left a mystery].

Bloomberg reports unanticipated consequences of the push for plug-in electric cars:

California’s push to lead U.S. sales of electric cars may result in higher power rates for consumers in the state, as a growing number of rechargeable vehicles forces utilities to pay for grid upgrades.

Power companies including Southern California Edison, the state’s largest, have to install new transformers and meters to handle greater demand and prevent blackouts when autos are being charged at outlets. Utility rates will rise to cover the costs, said Travis Miller, a Morningstar Inc. analyst in Chicago.

“If you look at the kind of money that will be needed for a full smart grid and support for electric vehicles, then you are talking about a substantial amount,” Miller said in a phone interview. The spending may total “multiple billions” of dollars over a decade or more, he said.

Not to mention additional generating and transmission capacity.

Whocoodanode?

Says Edison CEO Ted Craver:

It’s important that the customer experience with plug-in electric vehicles be a good one.

What better experience for drivers than having their costs subsidized by the rest of us? Oh, that’s the way it has always been. Silly me.