Since complaining about the extreme pollution from diesel buses in Japan the other day, I have noticed something else: it’s not just the buses.

At first I thought it was just the little 50cc scooters because their engine size exempted them from many of the Japanese regulations. Then I thought it was just sub 400cc motorcycles because their regulations were less strict. Eventually I realized there were just as many gas-burners spewing black trails of hydrocarbons as there were diesel buses putting out clouds of particulates.

So, what’s the deal? I certainly did not notice this trend the last time I was up by Tokyo. Perhaps rural emissions standards tend to be lower, like in the U.S. Perhaps no one is paying attention.

Either way, it is taught me a valuable lesson about the strict emissions standards we adhere to in the United States. While some in the industry and elsewhere complain that our emissions standards are overly strict compared to more densely populated regions like Japan and Europe, I tend to disagree.

The general philosophy is that Americans have gone nuts trying to reduce emissions to the point that they are no longer a problem. A little but more and we would never even notice, right? Not quite. Sometimes we take out air quality for granted in the U.S. I can remember looking out over the Philadelphia skyline on any number of occasions and never once thinking about automobile pollution.

However, on any given day in Kumamoto, a small city by most standards, it is hard to see the mountains across the city because they are so obscured by the slight haze the always hangs in the air.

So, don’t be tempted to think U.S. regulations are too strict. They may be expensive and a pain for auto companies, but they keep our air clean and the health and human well-being from that is probably immeasurable.

Since we last reported on the situation, the two sides have come to an agreement on how to move forward with the scrappage scheme. Both sides have compromised, and a lot of the worst parts (like that American-only clause) have been stripped from the proposal, but it’s still nothing to be happy about.

Having become even more jaded to the idea, I chalk this up to nothing but industry stimulus with a damaging and dangerous veil of greenwashing draped over top of it. Here are the plan specifics:

• Passenger cars: Cars that get under 18 mpg will be eligible for trade-in on new cars getting over 22 mpg. The rebate will be $3,500 unless the mpg differential will be 10 or more, in which case you’ll get a $4,500 rebate.
• Light-duty trucks: Trucks under 18 mpg can be traded in for trucks over 18 mpg. $3,500 for a 2 mpg difference and $4,500 for a 5 mpg difference.
• Large light-duty trucks: Trucks under 15 mpg can be traded in for large trucks that get 1 mpg better mileage and a $3,500 voucher. If you somehow manage to find a truck with 2 mpg better, you get $4,500.
• Work trucks: These trucks have no EPA rating, but if you trade in a pre-2002 vehicle for a new vehicle of the same or smaller class, you’ll get a $3,500 voucher.

Rewarding mediocrity

So here’s the proposal: $3,500 to buy a car with a dismal 22 mpg rating. That’s just terrible. If the government is going to be giving out lots of money, why not at least require some better fuel economy ratings? The same goes for trucks. I realize that large trucks get bad mileage, but there are enough choices out there that we can require more than 1 mpg of difference. Wouldn’t stricter rebate requirements also push automakers to improve so they qualify?

I just don’t get it. It seems like a lot of money for not much improvement in fuel economy. Then when you consider the high environmental cost of producing new cars and large trucks, this deal seems even worse. Why are we encouraging consumers to turn in a 15 mpg truck for a 16 mpg truck? A 2001 panel van for a 2010 panel van? That kind of turnover does nothing but prop up the truck industry that dragged our nation’s fuel economy into the gutter in the first place.

What a terrible waste. I really hope this legislation doesn’t pass, but I doubt there is any hope in stopping it. If people learn how to get better gas mileage with their current car, they could easily outpace a 1, 2 or 4 mpg increase without having to buy a new vehicle.

Image: Commutr

Beijing hopes that $3,600 will do the trick. Perhaps when you consider that that sum represents 67% of the average salary in China by purchasing power parity (source) you might think again. That would be somewhere near $30,000 in the US, and it doesn’t mean you can’t have a car, just not an old one.

Why is Beijing offering up so much money to get cars off the road?

Well, it’s important to note that the $3,600 offer only applies to the most polluting of cars, those 10% that make up 50% of the emissions in central Beijing. After the success the city had during the Olympics of cutting pollution, air quality has become a bigger issue for the Chinese people and politicians.

Given that this is such a large amount of money for the average Chinese person (especially given that people driving older cars are likely to be in lower income ranges), it is likely that this plan will work to some extent. They might not get rid of the full 10% of traffic they are targeting, but I would be surprised if they didn’t get most of those cars off the road.

Part of the reason this will likely be so effective is that the authorities will also be fining people who drive their older vehicles deeper inside the city. The fine won’t be huge by US standards, but it will have to be enough to pay for part of the $3,600 payouts and to discourage people from trying to skirt past the new pollution rules that Beijing has adopted.

Is this a good plan?

We’ve already established that it will probably work, but is this fundamentally a good plan? On some level it flies in from of the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” motto that many conservations live by, since pulling cars off the road will mean that new cars need to be manufactured and there is no guarantee that the old cars will be recycled completely. However, when you consider the severity of the air pollution problem in cities like Beijing, I think it’s clear (pardon the pun) that this plan is for the best, at least for such superurban settings.

Everywhere else though, this might not be the best plan. Just because air pollution in Beijing is really bad doesn’t mean that every old, well-running car should be pulled off the road. Air pollution is fundamentally an issue of the concentration of certain pollutants, meaning that vehicle pollution may be a major concern in the city limits of Beijing but it probably doesn’t matter much in the desolate areas of Western China.

That said, this is a good plan for Beijing, but I don’t think we can take this as a case study for the US, where many of the air pollution issues related to cars have already been solved. Sure, LA is a parking lot and could probably use fewer cars on the road and better public transit, but elsewhere a strong focus on public transit will probably reduce traffic and environmental impact more than paying to move old cars off the road.

Thoughts? Share them in the comments!

Source: Treehugger

Canada’s most populous province is finally following the lead of British Columbia and Quebec in permitting low speed electric vehicles (LSV’s) to be driven on public roads.  Canada’s LSV class is based on the Neighbourhood Electric Vehicle class in the U.S., where 44 states permit their use (as of May 2008).

However, Ontario vehicles and their drivers will likely face additional regulations meant to address safety concerns raised in a government study released at the end of November.

“LSVs are a new kind of vehicle and it will take a new set of standards to allow them to be safely driven on Ontario roads,” said Transportation Minister Jim Bradley.  “Based on the study results, we plan to announce LSV safety standards and the rules of the road for LSVs this winter.”

The study recommends the province require a number of additional measures for the vehicles and their drivers, such as:

• daytime running lights (failing that, drivers must keep their headlights on at all times)
• a notice affixed to the exterior of the vehicle indicating its maximum speed
• a slow moving vehicle sign
• three separate sound warning devices: horn, proximity warning system for pedestrians/cyclists, backup warning systems
• defrosting and heating systems
• three-point seat belts
• requirement that buyers sign a “Notice of Limitations” document at the time of sale that explains
  what the LSV’s performance and safety limitations are
• prohibition against carrying infants and children who require infant or child seats
• restricted to drivers with G class license or higher (ie. no new drivers in Ontario’s graduated licence system)
• no towing of any type of trailer
• on multi-lane roads, the LSV must drive in the right lane, except if making a left turn
• … and more (see NRC study pdf, below)

Both the federal and provincial governments have been under some pressure by the public and media for apparent foot-dragging on the issue of approving for sale and permitting this vehicle class on public roads.

Additional information:

Ontario To Permit Low-Speed Vehicles – Government of Ontario

Safe Integration of Electric Low Speed Vehicles on Ontario’s Roads in Mixed Traffic (pdf) – National Research Council of Canada

I like to keep politics off of EcoModder, since I really feel like ecomodding is a non-political issue, even if there are some political reasons to get into. That’s why I am so hesitant to write this post: I don’t want to inject politics into a site that I think is better off without it. However, I think this issue is rather important and I tend to agree with the people I usually disagree with on this issue, so I think it’s also a fairly open topic as far as debate goes.

Why We Shouldn’t Bail Out the Big Three

For me, this all comes down to sustainability and good business practice. No one can say that Toyota and Honda haven’t made some big trucks and SUVs in their time, but these two automakers represent a smart strategy in North America. While the other automakers were focusing on development and production on high dollar SUVs, both of these companies dipped their toes in the water to get some of those profits. However, they remained focused on core quality and cutting edge environmental technology, likely aware that the SUV bubble was just that, a bubble.

When the bubble burst, both on gas prices and with the beginning of the global recession, it became this focus that sustained both of these companies, as well as the other Asian and European makes. The Big Three, who hadn’t invested in security, sustainability, or the base, has been left holding on to a pile of high dollar, undesirable vehicles. It’s not so much an issue of saving money, but creating products and technologies for the long term, which is something Honda and Toyota did with their hybrid systems 10 years or more ago. Right now the Big Three are just catching up to the next trend.

So, when it comes to finances, why should the government bail out the Big Three? The case was made for the banks because the world economy depends on the credit market, and however it may be being mismanaged, it’s still an important step to prevent massive collapse. Will an auto company dying create massive collapse? Let’s think about a few things:

• Bankruptcy exists for a reason. It is a time for companies to be protected from creditors to restructure their businesses radically. This is what the automakers need. Avoiding this seems like giving the crack addict some good advice instead of checking them into rehab. If they can’t restructure in bankruptcy why would they be doing better with billions in hand outs?
• There is plenty of evidence out there to say that a breakdown in the Big Three would create a lot of unemployment in the US. However, recessions are a time of industry consolidation. If one of the Big Three did go under, it would be the perfect time for one of the more well off automakers to buy the company or to at least take over some of the resources. It would be much cheaper for VW to renovate a GM plant in the US than to build a new one, and VW would employ people just like GM did.
• Automakers are going to cut jobs no matter what. In order to get this money they’re promising things like cutting brands, models, management, workers, union contracts, and dealerships. Even if they get the money a radical restructuring is going to end tens of thousands of jobs due to previous mismanagement. We shouldn’t be treating it as if the bailout will be securing anyone’s job at this point.

But finally, I’d just like to note, the Big Three dug their own grave. Even with the yen as strong as it is against the dollar and Japanese domestic auto sales slipping even before the recession, you don’t see Subaru asking the Japanese government for money. That’s because other car makers built a wide base and maintained quality throughout.

The Big Three are in a bad way. But they’re not there because of this recession. They have been slipping slowly for the last 3 decades and the recession may have sped up their decline by a handful of months or a year. This was inevitable and throwing money at the problem when they’re not even going to be selling any cars isn’t going to wipe the slate clean.

Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. I’m not calling anyone stupid, and you shouldn’t need to either,

If you live in the U.S. and haven’t voted absentee or early yet, you may been looking for a ride to the polls. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a car at their disposal or (like me) be withing walking distance of the nearest polling place. Good thing that isn’t the end of the world.

As TreeHugger reports, popular online carpooling service Zimride has created a Facebook application called Carpool to the Polls. If you’re not one of the 40 million or so US Facebook users and really need a ride, you might want to check this out. Just make sure you know where your closest polling station is.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlL1u0YrlGE

No one is going to question that gas prices are high or that the economy is in rough shape, but evidently some people think that doesn’t mean we have to change at all. Just watch this political attack ad and see. Many Americans are already reducing their miles driven and changing the way they commute because of the current economy, but is that a bad thing?

I think not. In fact, it may very well be a good thing. I’m not a fan of the idea of global recession, but I can tell you from experience that after living in Japan where my commute consisted of walking, taking the train, and then biking, I not only saved money over driving, but was much more in shape, even though the effort was by no means strenuous.

So you tell me, do you think walking places is “wacky?” I certainly don’t.

PS: I’m not endorsing any candidates or parties here, I don’t even know where this ad is from besides PA, which I found out from this post at Treehugger, so please no “Barack Obama is my hero” or “John McCain is a maverick” comments!

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

It may not be surprising that any politician from Illinois, the United States’ second largest corn-producing state, supports ethanol, but in Senator Obama’s case, this does come as a bit of a shock. I don’t like to inject EcoModder into political discussions very often, but when it comes down to our possible future president and his views on ethanol as a future fuel source, it’s important that we all be informed.

The reason I say that I am a little shocked by Obama’s support of ethanol  is that, however you feel about the man, you have to admit he is usually aware of the popular opinion held by those considered to be experts of whatever field. Those experts, at least the ones concerned with the economy and the environment, tend to believe that corn-based ethanol production isn’t exactly a winner. The main supporters of corn-based ethanol are, after all, farm lobbyists. One just doesn’t expect Obama, with his strong stances on lobbyists and special interests, to be one to buy into the mega-farm corn lobbying.

Here’s what the NYT has to say on that count:

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

As far as policy is concerned, Obama’s support for ethanol is based primarily on foreign policy and security concerns, not environmental ones. Supporting ethanol, he believes, is a way to divest money and interest from foreign and often hostile powers. With that money staying home not only will the US have greater energy independence, but will send less of its money abroad.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, is a staunch supporter of free trade and wants to end tariffs on foriegn ethanol as well as end subsidies to the US ethanol industry. Sure, McCain’s recent plan to secure $300 million for EV batteries doesn’t exactly smack of free trade, but he certainly doesn’t seem to believe in corn ethanol as a solution to the brewing energy crisis.

You can’t fault McCain for being inconsistent on ethanol, at least, because it seems he’s opposed it since longer than most of us knew about it, dating back to his failed 2000 primary election bid.

So where does this leave voters, people interested in the environment, economics, and the future of transportation in the US? While I have no interest in telling you who to vote for, it’s clear that even though McCain and Obama share the goal of energy independence and greenhouse gas reductions, they intend to go about it in very different ways. It is, in my view, not very likely that either candidate will be changing their opinions anytime soon.

While Obama will continue to support government intervention and ethanol, and McCain the opposite, it is also true that either individual, as President, will need to make compromises on their positions in order to create effective policy. It is here that all citizens, regardless of political affiliation, have the ability to influence the policy makers. My advice: vote for who you like and support the views you find important, because it doesn’t have to end at the ballot box.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Image: Joe Crimmings