Ford Exec Cites US Energy Policies As Critical Factor in Shaping Future Vehicle Fleet, Calls for Cap-and-Trade Program
09 August 2009
Actual and projected greenhouse gas emissions for passenger vehicles by region/country through 2022. Adapted from ICCT. Click to enlarge. |
Sue Cischke, Ford group vice president, Sustainability, Environment and Safety Engineering, pointed to the “key role” government policies such as fuel standards and greenhouse gas emission regulations, play in the development and support of Ford’s product and technology pathways. Cischke was speaking at the Center of Automotive Research’s Management Briefing Seminars in Traverse City last week.
Cischke cited the recent agreement on one national standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions regulations as an example of how the government, the auto industry and the environmental community can work together toward common goals. (Earlier post.) The agreement provides a framework to reach an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016.
The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) calculates that meeting the proposed Federal policy will require a 5.7% annual increase in average fuel economy through 2016. Meeting the California Pavley regulations will require about a 5.8% annual increase in average fuel economy, according to ICCT. By comparison, meeting Japan’s standards for 2004-2015 requires a 1.9% annual increase; meeting the EU targets for 2008-2015 requires a 2.5% annual increase to 2015; and meeting China’s 2004-2009 target requires a 5.3% annual increase.
To meet the demand for higher fuel efficiency, Ford will leverage and expand EcoBoost engine technology that will be available on 90% of the company’s nameplates by 2013. Other technologies such as six-speed transmissions and electric power assist steering, which yield additional fuel efficiencies, will also be widely applied across Ford’s vehicle lineup over the next several years.
Ford has doubled the number and production of its hybrid vehicles and announced an aggressive strategy to bring four new electrified vehicles to market over the next three years. They include a battery-electric Transit Connect commercial van in 2010, a battery-electric Ford Focus passenger car in 201l, and the next-generation hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicle in 2012.
Overall, Ford has committed to $14 billion of investment in the development and deployment of new technologies over the next seven years.
Ford is pleased that the Obama administration has recognized the substantial investment required to develop the technologies that will increase fuel efficiency and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. We appreciate the administration’s partnership in retooling plants, developing advanced technologies and supporting the domestic production of key components and batteries.
—Sue Cischke
Ford received a $62.7 million grant from the Department of Energy to support internal production of an electric-drive transaxle with integrated power electronics in an existing Ford transmission facility. (Earlier post.)
Cischke also noted the critical link between energy prices and purchase decisions as a driving force in the need to implement a comprehensive national energy policy.
Price signals matter. That is why we support a comprehensive, economy-wide, upstream national carbon cap and trade program that can slow, stop and reverse the growth of US emissions while expanding the US economy. Ford remains committed to delivering the fuel-efficient vehicles that will help achieve our nation’s goals, but it is imperative that government also address the need for lower carbon fuels, consumer incentives and price signals to adopt the technologies that will deliver a more fuel-efficient, greener future.
—Sue Cischke
Ford recognizes the need for a comprehensive approach to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change concerns. While cap and trade for carbon emissions remains a complex challenge, Cischke noted the need to employ an integrated approach that would include contributions from all of the key stakeholders.
Resources
Fuel Economy Standards and GHG Standards (ICCT, May 2009)
This is Ford's way of saying, "We're more than happy to build more fuel-efficient cars as long as the government enacts policies that make people want to buy those cars. Don't sit there and do nothing and then act like it's our fault when all our customers buy Expeditions."
Posted by: Peter9909 | 09 August 2009 at 09:17 AM
If the people that think they want to buy Expeditions have to pay a $5000 gas guzzler fee and $1000 per year registration, they might think twice. Since they burn more than twice the amount of fuel as other vehicles, they would have to show that they NEED this vehicle for a valid reason, like work.
Posted by: SJC | 09 August 2009 at 10:26 AM
Peter:
Can we assume that the Big-3 + coal fired power generating plants, etc will not take positive actions on their own to reduce fuel consumption and GHG and that they will always wait for government intervention to be forced to do it? It reminds me of tobacco companies reactions to the poison they were feeding us for decades.
For all of us who do not want or like government interventions, this is not a very pretty situation.
Fortunately, many of us agree with necessary government interventions to stop a few from poisoning so many.
Posted by: HarveyD | 09 August 2009 at 10:35 AM
Utter tripe.
A duplicitous toady working for the Administration's need to finance its health care and social programs with carbon taxes. Ford motors has NOTHING to do with this Admin's junk science-based cap n' trade tax scheme.
Worried about GHG emissions? How about regulating the vast tonnage of water vapor evaporating daily from our fresh water lakes and streams?? Eighty percent of the "greenhouse" effect comes from water vapor. Or is that not taxable?
Just because toadies such as this spout off about GHG does not mean the public believes in AGW. Daily, science rejects the entire myth of global warming. NOAA just slashed their prediction for catastrophic hurricanes, Science just published a paper confirming ice ages synchronize with the insolation Earth orbit variation:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5941/710
If Barak and Admin need money for their projects - call it what it is... A CARBON TAX. At least don't let the fat cat commodities traders and market speculators steal billions from regular folks' paychecks via "cap n charade."
Posted by: Reel$$ | 09 August 2009 at 02:36 PM
Peter is right on the money. Remember though that these big corporations are even more political than congress - and it's brutal. The minute Ford starts making big money anywhere, that's what they'll start making. Right now, Ford knows GM & Chrysler are on the ropes...there is blood in the water with the small cars (especially relative to GM & Chrysler)...they're going in for the kill while they can. Big vehicles are down & out for now but not for long.
Posted by: ejj | 09 August 2009 at 07:48 PM
Reel$$, do you ever actually think about what you write and the references you give? Once again, you have demonstrated your near complete lack of understanding of climate science.
"How about regulating the vast tonnage of water vapor evaporating daily from our fresh water lakes and streams?? Eighty percent of the "greenhouse" effect comes from water vapor."
Water vapour has an atmospheric residence time of days to weeks (it falls out as RAIN). We could pump out all the water vapour we want and it won't have any effect beyond the local area. Beyond this, with every 1 degree increase in temperature, air can hold 7% more water vapour. So even a small increase in temperature from increased CO2 can cause a positive feedback loop with water vapour and result in a larger temperature increase than with CO2 alone.
"Science just published a paper confirming ice ages synchronize with the insolation Earth orbit variation:"
That has never been disputed. In fact, you are actually supporting the climate scientists' concerns over AGW. They have said all along that Milankovitch cycles are the primary drivers of climate change, which cause changes in the amount of solar radiation hitting the northern hemisphere (more land) than the south. This, coupled with positive feedback relationships like with CO2, causes ice ages to come and go.
The article actually states, "Growth of the ice sheets to their maximum positions occurred between 33.0 and 26.5 ka in response to climate forcing from decreases in northern summer insolation, tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures, and atmospheric CO2."
So what's your point again?
Posted by: Mark_BC | 09 August 2009 at 08:53 PM
Making cars smaller and lighter is the easiest way to get better fuel economy. The lighter you can make a battery powered car, the more range the car will have with the same battery.
However, when steel is removed to lighten a car, the car is generally made less safe in collisions.
Today, the death rate for micro cars is double the rate for larger cars.
Please help me promote this invention which will reduce
CO2 and save lives.
www.safersmallcars.com
Posted by: shopa | 10 August 2009 at 08:55 AM
The cap and trade system seems overly complex for a government program to reduce carbon emisions, which could just be done with taxes. Is there another agenda, full-employment for economists, accountants, and bureaucrats perhaps?
Posted by: Mick the Economist | 10 August 2009 at 11:13 AM
At least we're seeing more honesty about Milankovich cycles (solar - i.e. the sun) having the predominant influence on Earth's climate - for the last 20M years or so. Unfortunately alarmists still cling to "positive feedback from CO2" to buttress their agenda. But the story gets clearer every day which is good for all.
Peter's comment that Ford is asking government to do their part in selling these low carbon vehicles seems right. Without tax credits, discounts, cash back and other incentives (how about zero sales tax?) - the only people that will purchase EVs will be Tesla buyers and early adopters.
And there are way too few of them.
Posted by: sulleny | 10 August 2009 at 01:04 PM
@Rell$$ and sulleny,
No one is denying the effect of variation in solar activity on Earth's climate. What we are concerned about is the effect of the vast amount of anthropogenic CO2 released into the atmosphere over a geologically-short time frame. Being a GHG, the effect of CO2 on the earth's warming is undeniable, and made worse by positive feedback. Over a very short time, human managed to released vast amount of carbon sequestered underground that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate by photosynthetic action of green plants and algae. This is clearly unsustainable!
The agenda is toward sustainability and environmental protection...and to create more jobs, green jobs, along the way...It's a win-win agenda for all, even for Big Oil. Big Oil has the most money in their [Swiss] bank accounts that can be invested in the Green Economy...that will again reap them huge dividends...they already control most of the governments, now they just have to tell the governments to enact green legislation so that their Green investment will bear fruits.
If the two of you work for Big Oil, please go tell your boss it's time to turn the game around...It's more sustainable and fun that way! "The Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules."
Posted by: Roger Pham | 10 August 2009 at 02:09 PM
@shopa,
Your idea is quite interesting, however, please illustrate the crumple zone box within the 3-D model of a real car, with floor pan, seats, gas tank, etc. to see how everything will fit. For a car as small as a Kei car, every cubic inches of space is valuable...how would you convince the buyer to sacrifice valuable space for an additional crumple box and other hardwares? Would that make the car taller and would become even more unsightly?
Collision data show higher collision casualty risk from side collision vs. front or rear collisions in small cars...imagine hit on the side by the higher bumper of a 6000-lb SUV...How would you address that issue? Ban SUV's altogether?
Posted by: Roger Pham | 10 August 2009 at 02:35 PM
Roger: The problem with asking Big Oil to invest in the Green Economy is that they see this as an 'either/or' situation. If they push for a green economy too soon they might have to give up the dirty profits they're making now. But by waiting until oil profits have run their course and then pushing for the green economy they know that they will again reap huge dividends. It's called "having your cake and eating it too."
Posted by: ai_vin | 10 August 2009 at 03:41 PM
"we are concerned about is the effect of the vast amount of anthropogenic CO2 released into the atmosphere over a geologically-short time frame."
Ridiculous. Read Plimer on volcanic release of CO2 over geologic time. Far higher volume and in in far shorter time frame than a hundred years of anthro industry. If you study geologic time you'll also find huge increments with CO2 at levels five times what we have now. The Devonian at 1800-2100ppm helped the emergence of plant life on Earth with NO thermal runaway recorded.
At present man-made CO2 is about .000340 percent of Earth's atmosphere. Sober scientists recognize that without wildly exaggerated "feedback" the heating capacity of this volume is negligible. AGW is a myth.
As to the job-making greening process - all well and good. We have long supported alternative energy of every stripe, especially sustainable biofuels. But there is no need to attempt to sell these reforms via "climate change/global warming." Get honest. Four simple reasons to change our energy profile:
1) Economy - $700B US annually for foreign oil
2) Jobs - domestic non-fossil energy grows jobs
3) Security - energy independence IS national security
4) Environment - low carbon energy is cleaner & sustainable
Forget the warming babble and get to work on the issues human beings respond to. The list is above.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 10 August 2009 at 05:37 PM
Ree$$ said: "We have long supported alternative energy of every stripe" AHA! So you DO work as a mouthpiece for the oil industry! The truth comes out!!!
"The Devonian at 1800-2100ppm helped the emergence of plant life on Earth with NO thermal runaway recorded." You neglect to mention that the Sun was also much dimmer back then.
"At present man-made CO2 is about .000340 percent of Earth's atmosphere." Actually, it's about 0.038% of the atmosphere.
Keep it coming -- the more you talk the more you discredit yourself.
Posted by: Mark_BC | 10 August 2009 at 07:19 PM
Thanks, Reel$$, for the re-assuring 4 reasons for "changing our energy profile."
However, Coal, a domestic fuel that can be converted to liquid fuel, is still being burned at a fast rate, far too fast for those who are knowledgeable about AGW. And we have about 200-year reserve of coal at our current rate of consumption, enough to give nightmares to those who are environmentally-conscious. Thank God that petroleum has hit its peak, but, without a strong conviction about the role of CO2 in AGW, I am very much afraid that those who are in power will not act fast enough to avert global catastrophe, by continually allowing escalating consumption of coal, like in China, beside the USA, since coal is cheap and domestically produced.
You mentioned "The Devonian at 1800-2100 ppm helped the emergence of plant life on Earth..." That was before the emergence of higher life forms, which are more sensitive to heat. Human brain is very sensitive to heat (so is the Pentium processor!). Human's higher culture and intellectual achievements were mostly developed in the cooler temperate zone and not the miserably hot tropics, with all those tropical diseases, parasites, and mosquitoes and malaria...etc. I think that Rome in BC era, and Mesopotamia was cooler back then, than now.
I can recall that 30 plus years ago, there was ice, snow, and sleet every winters where I lived. Now, in the same geographic area, there is hardly any ice, snow, nor sleet in the winter...Summer now is miserably hot, whereas back then, summer was quite enjoyable...Please give me back the earth that I've experienced just 30 years ago... That's why the AGW is a very personal and emotional thing for me, aside all the theoretical and abstract information.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 10 August 2009 at 11:03 PM
sulleny, congrats on sticking to your pathetic little conspiracy theories. There has never been any attempt to cover up the work of Milankovic. His theories about the ice ages are well known and broadly accepted by climate scientists.
Posted by: Arne | 11 August 2009 at 01:41 AM
Dear Friends... You do bring a touch of blue to a cloudy day! MarkBC, you and IPCC have flogged the residence time of CO2 for far too long. IPCC models require CO2 RTs of 50-200 years, but the latest research shows for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule (12)CO2, RT is ~5 years. Such a short RT does not allow for observed rate of rise in atmospheric CO2.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef050276y
My man-made CO2 number was incorrect. Essenhigh et al (2009) finds 96% atmospheric CO2 is naturally occurring (from ocean, volcanic, interior degassing)- meaning 4% of the .038% is man-made, or .00152 total atmosphere. Still a number statistically insignificant.
As for, "AHA! So you DO work as a mouthpiece for the oil industry! The truth comes out!!!" Frankly, I think the overzealous use of exclamation points demonstrates the preposterous content of the statement. But that's me.
Roger, if genuine, I appreciate your remarks. Summer temperatures in the cradle of civilization for 8,000 years have been 110-130F, with long dry spells. Rome somewhat cooler. Climate and weather change naturally, barely influenced by man-made activity. Man-made pollutants are another issue. There is no good reason to emit gas and particulates that pollute the atmosphere. If China and India are pressured to scrub their coal stacks - that's a beginning. Any attempts to limit their industrial growth due to "climate change" will be met with what we've got - refusal.
I suspect, considering natural variability that you will get to return to your cool summers. By all appearances we are already in a new cooling phase. The four reasons remain at your enlightened disposal.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 11 August 2009 at 10:07 AM
"Cischke cited the recent agreement on one national standard for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions regulations as an example of how the government, the auto industry and the environmental community can work together toward common goals."
Common goals are not always common. In an article published on America. gov - http://www.america.gov/cars_shift_green.html
experts - Rob Farrington of NREL and John Heywood of MIT among others - say that energy security goals and climate change goals in the transportation sector are not always compatible. Technology may not be the ultimate solution. Farrington says: "The most promising solution to our dependence on imported oil and the climate change challenge is to get people to use transportation other than individual vehicles."
Posted by: azan | 11 August 2009 at 10:44 AM
The 0.038% of the atmosphere that is CO2 is not insignificant because the majority of the atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, do not have greenhouse properties. Humanity has increased CO2 concentration by about 30%. Additionally, about 1/3 of the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, the majority of the rest by water vapour. And, as I have already explained, when air temperature rises, so does its potential to hold more water vapour.
Posted by: Mark_BC | 11 August 2009 at 11:50 AM
Anne, claiming those skeptical of your theory (AGW) to be conspiracists is a page from the discarded Debunk Manual. Old fashioned. Outdated.
A simple search of mainstream media will show total disregard for solar and orbital variations typical of the Milankovic cycle. And while climate scientists may be aware of its significant influence - they too singularly disregard it to the public.
Posted by: sulleny | 11 August 2009 at 01:08 PM
The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is defined as the time required to restore equilibrium following an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere. Individual atoms or molecules may be lost or deposited to sinks such as the soil, the oceans and other waters, or vegetation and other biological systems, reducing the excess to background concentrations. It would take far longer than just 5 years. It takes 30 years to remove 50% of the CO2 and it decreases in a non linear fashion. In centuries, 70% persists. (national geographic). The 50 years is the best estimates given in mainstream science and it goes up after that. 5 years is total nonsense but then what did you expect from the poster who constantly posts nonsense.
Pilmer's book is hardly science and certainly not accepted peer reviewed science. I can see the appeal to the fundamentalist streak of Reel though but otherwise unremarkable except to the straight jacket, frothing mouth types.
The CO2 creates favourable conditions for feedback effects that overall create a total GH effect of 33K. Instead of living on an iceball that averages -18C, the temp on earth in 15C. CO2 is pivotal in this aspect.
Fertile cresent climate was more amiable 5000 BC at the start of agriculture than the present climate. It was the desertfication of the area that pushed the innovation of the agricultural revolution. Your assertion of climate 8000 years ago for the area are a complete fabrication.
Your sober scientists are decrepted old semi retired windbags who can't stand the fact that science passed them by. Name a recognizable instituition and not the blogs that you seem addicted to.
Posted by: aym | 11 August 2009 at 07:27 PM
Sulleny, read Reels' post and then say the denialists don't think there is a conspiracy.
As for the Milkanovitch cycle and it's contributions. It's ignored because it doesn't take long to relize that in the present context of climate, that something that takes such a long time, isn't a present contributor to the present warming conditions. There is even written papers stating that we are in a cooling period according to their calculations outside of anthropogenic sources. The obvious denialist tactics of blaming the sun is old and tired and easily shown to be nonsense because we can measure the solar energy actually impacting the earth. And denialists keep ignoring recent solar decreases in light of recent increases in recent years.
Posted by: aym | 11 August 2009 at 07:37 PM
I would also point out to the energy self sufficiency crowd that this post by a business puts it very simply.
People won't buy vehicles strictly in terms of self sufficiency only.
You get that you dogmatic myoptic ideologues?!?! It didn't work in the past. It won't work in the future or the present. That prius-pious complaint? Well people buy things for more reasons than the closed minded neo-conservative line and the people who have already been willing to pay, didn't do it exclusively for the small number of reasons that Reel-fundamentalist can't see out of their box. They did for their vision of the earth and doing something and being green. And yes they paid and will be willing to pay for AGW.
Posted by: aym | 11 August 2009 at 07:48 PM
Um... Obviously a nerve has been plucked since AGW's premium debunker/attack dog has been summoned to the ring.
"Your sober scientists are decrepted old semi retired windbags who can't stand the fact that science passed them by."
Even allowing for emotional alarmist stridency - this statement evidences the unsuppressed misanthropy of alarmists. When outargued with facts, data and evidence they retreat to infantile ad hom attack.
"It takes 30 years to remove 50% of the CO2 and it decreases in a non linear fashion. In centuries, 70% persists. (national geographic)."
Use Reel's link to the Essenhigh et al peer-reviewed paper. It's there to enlighten your misinformed (by National Geographic!) mind. You might also take your meds and then re-read your last post. It appears to stray dangerously close to incoherence. Sorry to sound so harsh')
Posted by: sulleny | 11 August 2009 at 08:27 PM
Um... Obviously a nerve has been plucked since AGW's premium debunker/attack dog has been summoned to the ring.
"Your sober scientists are decrepted old semi retired windbags who can't stand the fact that science passed them by."
Even allowing for emotional alarmist stridency - this statement evidences the unsuppressed misanthropy of alarmists. When outargued with facts, data and evidence they retreat to infantile ad hom attack.
"It takes 30 years to remove 50% of the CO2 and it decreases in a non linear fashion. In centuries, 70% persists. (national geographic)."
Use Reel's link to the Essenhigh et al peer-reviewed paper. It's there to enlighten your misinformed (by National Geographic!) mind. You might also take your meds and then re-read your last post. It appears to stray dangerously close to incoherence. Sorry to sound so harsh')
Posted by: sulleny | 11 August 2009 at 08:28 PM