North American fuel efficiency rules riddled with loopholes

Apr 09, 2010

Comments on this story (3)

Green Wheels

Much celebratory ink has been spilled over last week’s announcement of new fuel efficiency rules for Canada and the United States.

There is good reason to laud any measure that reduces the greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants that spew from our cars and trucks.

But let’s not get carried away. The improvements promised in government news releases and trumpeted in headlines would, at best, make only a small dent in climate change, and the actual results will be substantially less than that.

The new policy proclaims carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks are to fall by 4.3 per cent annually, on average, starting in 2012 — so that emissions from models built in 2016 will be 23 per cent lower than from today’s models.

The resulting headline numbers — 153 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre here; 35.5 miles per gallon south of the border — are tough only from a North American perspective. Europe, China and Japan already have more stringent rules, which come into effect sooner.

Both the American and Canadian governments have published big numbers for how many tonnes of greenhouse gases, and barrels of oil, would be saved if that standard were achieved. But they’re massive only because they’re totalled over the lifetimes — up to 26 years — of the vehicles covered.

Equally important, though, is that the headline fuel-economy gains are more aspiration than certainty.

In their 837-page regulation, the two U.S. agencies involved describe their plan as “proposed fleet-wide standards” with “projected levels of stringency.” They “acknowledge that the Model Year 2016 fleet emissions and fuel economy goals ... are estimates and not standards.”

There are several loopholes and sources of uncertainty.

Although car makers are to cut the average gasoline consumption of all the vehicles they make by about 4.3 per cent annually over five years, bigger vehicles (measured by multiplying wheelbase by track) will be allowed higher emissions. The aim, the agencies say, is “ensuring that consumers still have a full range of vehicle choices.”

After going through a mind-boggling array of calculations and assumptions, the agencies forecast, “no significant effect on the relative distribution of different vehicle sizes in the fleet, which means that consumers will still be able to purchase the size of vehicle that meets their needs.”

If buyers shift to smaller vehicles, the greenhouse gas savings would be better than forecast: If they opt for bigger, the benefit would shrink.

Carmakers would also be allowed to pay penalties if they exceed their emission limits. It’s not yet clear how big that penalty would be but, per vehicle, it’s likely to be less than the cost of complying, or so small that many consumers won’t mind the additional cost.

Also, improvements in air conditioners — to reduce refrigerant leakage and demand on the vehicle motor — are to be counted as fuel-efficiency gains, although there isn’t yet a standard method of assessing such changes.

The law awards bonuses for vehicles that run on ethanol — ignoring the harmful climate change and other environmental impacts of producing that fuel.

Electric vehicles and the battery-powered component of hybrids are to be treated as zero-emission, although generating the electricity for them can produce substantial greenhouse gas emissions.

The agencies also forecast that a “rebound effect” from lower operating costs will lead to 10 per cent more driving.

In fact, here and around the world — without dramatic, and therefore highly unlikely, improvements in public transit and moves toward far denser urban development — any efficiency gains are certain to be overwhelmed by the increased number and use of vehicles.

The new rules aren’t a bad thing. They’re simply not as good as portrayed.