Zeno Swijtink
06-17-2008, 08:10 PM
ENVIRONMENT
A green contrarian view that adds up (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080604.REYNOLDS04/TPStory/Business)
NEIL REYNOLDS
[email protected]
June 4, 2008
OTTAWA -- Can more efficient cars lead the way during the next 22 years to larger reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than any other available technology? And can they do it - in a societal sense - for free?
Well, yes they can, according to a major report published in December by McKinsey & Co., the New York-based global consulting firm.
In this analysis of technological options, which was monitored by independent scientists, academics and environmental NGOs, McKinsey set out to determine (among other things) the most cost-effective ways to cut GHG emissions in the transportation industry.
Dollar-for-dollar, it concluded, lighter, more fuel-efficient cars will deliver the greatest environmental gains for the least cost, beating biofuels and hybrid gas-electric cars (to cite two alternatives) by a wide margin.
The McKinsey report says GHG emissions can be cut by 100 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO{-2}e) by 2030, at a society-wide cost of $18 (U.S.) a ton, by developing a cellulosic biofuel industry.
It says GHG emissions can be cut by 20 megatons of CO{-2}e, at a society-wide cost of $15 a ton, by going with battery-assisted hybrid cars. (One megaton is one million tons.)
On the other hand, the report concludes that GHG emissions can be cut by 95 megatons of CO{-2}e, at zero society-wide cost, by making cars more efficient (using "tested approaches and emerging technologies").
This doesn't mean car buyers individually wouldn't pay a price.
For a typical efficiency-enhanced car, the buyer could expect to trade an additional cost ($700-$1,400) for 38 miles per gallon (or 48 miles per gallon with diesel).
On a society-wide basis, however, this car delivers a net "profit" equal to $87 per ton of GHG emissions.
So while the cost of emissions abatement through fuel-efficiency improvements may appear as an expense, the report says it would still be a savings for society.
"Hybrid electric vehicles," the report notes, "are not a low-cost abatement option." Neither are next-generation plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which can be expected to deliver more than 100 miles per gallon. ("The new costs [of development]," the report says, "will not be covered by the fuel savings.")
By some calculations (check out the authoritative Antiplanner blog https://www.ti.org/antiplanner/ ("Dedicated to the sunset of government planning")), light-rail trains will be the most expensive of next-generation transit options in terms of the GHG emissions they can deliver.
Based on the actual cost of building and operating the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro, for example, a light-rail train service powered by electricity does indeed produce lower GHG emissions than other transit choices.
But it comes at a cost of $4,840 for each ton of CO{-2}e it eliminates - more than 50-fold the cost projected for the same emissions reduction delivered by the technology-enhanced family car between now and 2030.
The McKinsey report is yet another contrarian study that suggests extreme caution in developing heroic, national GHG strategies.
It will prove provocative, of course - precisely because the family car is intensely individual and (compared to global command-and-control) intensely humble.
In the crisis mentality that now grips the climate change debate, many people appear to think that private sector transit threatens an abrupt end to civilization itself.
Columns that appeared in this space during the past couple of weeks, dealing with the same theme as the McKinsey report provoked an extraordinary (and well-informed) response from both sides of the discussion. Here, though, is a small sample of comments from readers hostile to cars.
Tom: "With regard to the technology in cars, I suggest that it will make little difference. [In gridlock], stopped is stopped."
Anna: "I enjoy driving (especially a stick shift) as much as the next person but I don't pretend that the government doesn't subsidize it."
Francis: "Bicycles tend to work best in temperate, flat countries such as Holland. Adapting bicycles to Ottawa (for example) will be a challenge - yet hardly insoluble. The bicycle was the predecessor to the car. If we start again, knowing now what we didn't know then, the outcome could be very different."
Terry: "Make all local public transit free."
Eric: "The C-Train in Calgary is 100 per cent powered by wind farms, making their LRT system literally emission-free."
John: "GO is radically incomplete. It should extend all the way to Kingston. In Australia, there is electrified commuter service from Sydney, every hour, to Newcastle - the same distance as Toronto-Kingston. [Australia] has lousy roads but good commuter service. Maybe the answer is to make our roads worse."
Tim: "Cars as an answer to urban traffic congestion? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
Eric-2: "This [column] was a despicable hatchet job from the rabid right [but] useful ... because there are small hints of truth or valid questions lurking behind the stark political agenda."
Phil: "Cars may be superior to buses but does that mean cars are good? What difference does it make if we commit suicide by car or by bus?"
Happy motoring, everyone.
A green contrarian view that adds up (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080604.REYNOLDS04/TPStory/Business)
NEIL REYNOLDS
[email protected]
June 4, 2008
OTTAWA -- Can more efficient cars lead the way during the next 22 years to larger reductions in greenhouse gas emissions than any other available technology? And can they do it - in a societal sense - for free?
Well, yes they can, according to a major report published in December by McKinsey & Co., the New York-based global consulting firm.
In this analysis of technological options, which was monitored by independent scientists, academics and environmental NGOs, McKinsey set out to determine (among other things) the most cost-effective ways to cut GHG emissions in the transportation industry.
Dollar-for-dollar, it concluded, lighter, more fuel-efficient cars will deliver the greatest environmental gains for the least cost, beating biofuels and hybrid gas-electric cars (to cite two alternatives) by a wide margin.
The McKinsey report says GHG emissions can be cut by 100 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO{-2}e) by 2030, at a society-wide cost of $18 (U.S.) a ton, by developing a cellulosic biofuel industry.
It says GHG emissions can be cut by 20 megatons of CO{-2}e, at a society-wide cost of $15 a ton, by going with battery-assisted hybrid cars. (One megaton is one million tons.)
On the other hand, the report concludes that GHG emissions can be cut by 95 megatons of CO{-2}e, at zero society-wide cost, by making cars more efficient (using "tested approaches and emerging technologies").
This doesn't mean car buyers individually wouldn't pay a price.
For a typical efficiency-enhanced car, the buyer could expect to trade an additional cost ($700-$1,400) for 38 miles per gallon (or 48 miles per gallon with diesel).
On a society-wide basis, however, this car delivers a net "profit" equal to $87 per ton of GHG emissions.
So while the cost of emissions abatement through fuel-efficiency improvements may appear as an expense, the report says it would still be a savings for society.
"Hybrid electric vehicles," the report notes, "are not a low-cost abatement option." Neither are next-generation plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which can be expected to deliver more than 100 miles per gallon. ("The new costs [of development]," the report says, "will not be covered by the fuel savings.")
By some calculations (check out the authoritative Antiplanner blog https://www.ti.org/antiplanner/ ("Dedicated to the sunset of government planning")), light-rail trains will be the most expensive of next-generation transit options in terms of the GHG emissions they can deliver.
Based on the actual cost of building and operating the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro, for example, a light-rail train service powered by electricity does indeed produce lower GHG emissions than other transit choices.
But it comes at a cost of $4,840 for each ton of CO{-2}e it eliminates - more than 50-fold the cost projected for the same emissions reduction delivered by the technology-enhanced family car between now and 2030.
The McKinsey report is yet another contrarian study that suggests extreme caution in developing heroic, national GHG strategies.
It will prove provocative, of course - precisely because the family car is intensely individual and (compared to global command-and-control) intensely humble.
In the crisis mentality that now grips the climate change debate, many people appear to think that private sector transit threatens an abrupt end to civilization itself.
Columns that appeared in this space during the past couple of weeks, dealing with the same theme as the McKinsey report provoked an extraordinary (and well-informed) response from both sides of the discussion. Here, though, is a small sample of comments from readers hostile to cars.
Tom: "With regard to the technology in cars, I suggest that it will make little difference. [In gridlock], stopped is stopped."
Anna: "I enjoy driving (especially a stick shift) as much as the next person but I don't pretend that the government doesn't subsidize it."
Francis: "Bicycles tend to work best in temperate, flat countries such as Holland. Adapting bicycles to Ottawa (for example) will be a challenge - yet hardly insoluble. The bicycle was the predecessor to the car. If we start again, knowing now what we didn't know then, the outcome could be very different."
Terry: "Make all local public transit free."
Eric: "The C-Train in Calgary is 100 per cent powered by wind farms, making their LRT system literally emission-free."
John: "GO is radically incomplete. It should extend all the way to Kingston. In Australia, there is electrified commuter service from Sydney, every hour, to Newcastle - the same distance as Toronto-Kingston. [Australia] has lousy roads but good commuter service. Maybe the answer is to make our roads worse."
Tim: "Cars as an answer to urban traffic congestion? This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
Eric-2: "This [column] was a despicable hatchet job from the rabid right [but] useful ... because there are small hints of truth or valid questions lurking behind the stark political agenda."
Phil: "Cars may be superior to buses but does that mean cars are good? What difference does it make if we commit suicide by car or by bus?"
Happy motoring, everyone.