At GreenXchange: Bill Richardson wants 50 mpg by 2020

So Schwarzenegger's planned climate debate with presidential candidates apparently got canceled due to lack of participation, but individual speeches about the environment from said candidates keep coming. Today, Bill Richardson gave a pretty moving keynote speech at the GreenXchange Conference, calling for bold action from the US.

"Al Gore's been right, for years," he said, then joked, "I just hope he doesn't get into the race."

Richardson touched on the key points of his environmental platform: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2040 via a cap and trade system, and cutting oil demand 50% by 2020 -- in part by mandating a 50 mpg standard for cars by 2020. He called the 35 mpg standard proposed in the current energy bill "pathetic": "Our petro dollars are literally translating into terrorism."

"Rules often drive technological innovation and adoption," Bill said, then emphasized setting "strong standards and letting private markets respond." He said the US needs to lead by example -- "Nothing is going to happen without strong American leadership" -- and work with other countries to reduce carbon emissions.

In general, Richardson's platform's well-liked among environmentalists. Dave Roberts of Grist, for example, called Richardson "the boldest, most visionary Democratic presidential candidate on climate and energy policy." The chances of Richardson's actually getting elected appears pretty slim, however....

You can compare Richardson's enviro platform to those of the other candidates in this handy chart. I only wish there was a way to better weigh the likelihood of these platforms actually becoming policy....

And I wonder why it IS so hard to bring candidates together to discuss these issues. In addition to Schwarzenegger's scuttled plans, Grist's climate forum last month drew only 3 presidential candidates....

Photo courtesy of richardsonforpresident.com

Comments

[Mike]

If Mr. Richardson thinks that a 50 mpg fleet average is doable in ten years, maybe he should switch careers, because engineers don't see that. Obviously Bill has some sort of brilliant idea that all those people currently designing cars don't know. He could make a killing! Just because government declares something is possible doesn't make it so; look at the EU CO2 mandates which they had to drastically alter after realizing that no company was going to make it.

[Joe]

A 50 mph fleet may not be possible, but if we set it at 25 no one will try for 36. No one believed it possible when JFK set to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade either. If we had 50 mpg standards and the car makers "failed" by only coming up to 43mpg, we'd still be far better off and be closer to making middle east oil irrelevant.

[George Kaplan]

Mike--You need to expand your thinking more than a little.

The European fleet average for fuel mileage, converted to US CAFE standards, is already in the low 40s. Their goal is to hit 50 MPG by 2012.

Japan's is 46 MPG currently. China's is above 35 MPG.

Tell me again how the US can't do this by 2020?

Toyota and GM are examining plug-in hybrids and pure electric vehicles. Mercedes-Benz is just rolling out the new, clean diesels. There are many ways, not including still-unproven technology like fuel cells, for the US to reach this goal with relative ease.

And of course, Americans could end their love affair with truck-based SUVs used as casual transportation vehicles (e.g., used for solo commuting, solo errands, etc). Since light trucks and SUVs aren't bound by the same rules as passenger vehicles (due to Big Detroit and UAW interference with legislation), we can raise the passenger vehicle ave to 70 MPG by 2020 and still be leaking gas consumption through light trucks and SUV usage.

As Richardson said, our expenditures on foreign oil can fund terrorist activity against this country. JFK's mandate to land on the moon in a decade generated a huge wave of patriotism and national pride in 1969. Why can't being frugal with gasoline be a sign of the new patriot?

[Mike]

Joe- Last I heard 35 mpg was the target and that is do able. But Richardson seems to be jumping on the idea that if higher standards are good, even higher ones would be better still. If 50 mpg is good, isn't 100 better? 150? None are feasible, so what does it matter? In the end the government would be forced to roll back the fuel standards, because "failing" incurs heavy fines that would cripple the industry, American and foreign. We should be setting responsible policy that in 8-9 years we won't have to scrap and start all over (when it would become clear no company can make the standard). Even the Prius does not currently meet 50mpg, and Richardson wants the average car AND truck to be better than that in 2020.
PS The Apollo program alone cost over $25B in '60's dollars from the government. Please only make the comparison if you are prepared to spend that amount, out of your taxes, to fund the change.

[Mike]

George, sorry didn't see your post before I responded. The new 35 (or Bill's 50) mpg rule DOES include trucks. And it is based on what is sold, not what is available. That is if a company sells 3 cars at 40 mpg they will need to sell another at 80 mpg to balance it out. Since hybrids and other expensive fixes haven't sold well that is a problem (only the Prius has sold in big numbers, all other hybrids have been a let down with some models canceled and others in only limited release, even with government subsidies). Europeans get better fuel economy because they run cars which are more polluting; yes, European diesels put out more nitrogen and sulfur oxides and particulates than is permissible in the US, which is why they can't be sold here. Japan is low because they sell kei cars, which could never be safety certified here in the US. Same with Chinese cars, a recent Chery Euro crash test gave a 99.9% driver fatality rate.
I am not saying that we don't need to improve current fuel standards or expand public transportation or encourage people to get out of SUVs. I believe all those things, but setting ourselves up for failure isn't the way to go. If you think 50mpg is easy, please, change careers and design cars.

[George Kaplan]

Mike--again, you're thinking small. That $25B in 1969 dollars is $142B today. The US government misplaces more money in the sofa cushions than that annually. We spend slightly less than $2B *per week* in Iraq on the cost of war and reconstruction. $142B spread over a decade is nothing to the size of the current US budget.

That misses the larger, more important picture. The Space Program engaged some of the brightest minds in the US, which led to all sorts of technological breakthroughs which we use today. Mylar is one item which comes to mind, along with development in computer technologies. Those developments created patents, and those patents brought millions of dollars into US to the companies holding the patents. Imagine what a breakthrough in battery technology would bring in patent rights, a battery which would take an electric car which passes all crash safety tests and is non-polluting, and expand its range on a single charge from, say, 40 miles to 200 or 400 miles, while reducing weight. Just as it was a huge task to design a capsule which could reenter the Earth's atmosphere without cooking the people inside and splashdown safely at a specified target area, this would be an undertaking which, when accomplished, would be game-changing.

These days, the big R&D seems to be taking place in other countries, but a mandate like this directs talent towards a common goal. Just as the idea of a man walking on the surface of the moon seemed like an insolvable problem--actually, getting that man home safely was seen as the insolvable problem--the seeming mutual exclusivity of safety, fuel economy and carbon neutrality is viewed by you as impossible to reconcile.

That's the whole point: This country has raised generations of men whose purpose is to tackle the unsolvable and the impossible. It is time to set these men and women loose on their new challenge. This isn't the impossible task you characterize it to be, it simply isn't possible with the narrow thinking utilized by Detroit. Saying stubbornly that it can't be done betrays the ideals and history of this very country.

[George Kaplan]

Sorry, I neglected to mention this:

The new generation of diesel engines now finding their way to market are designed to maximize the benefits of the low-sulfur diesel fuel already being distributed. The Blutech diesels being sold by Mercedes-Benz will be 50-state certified for 2008 (they're sold in most states but not currently in CA with its more stringent laws). Honda is likewise ready to introduce its own spin on Blutech. In the next decade, more and more diesel vehicles will employ this or similar technology. Those vehicles will spread like wildfire in Europe, which is already predisposed to driving diesels, and will reduce the pollution factor inherent in old-tech diesels.

In 2004, the EPA estimated that just 1/3 of the light duty trucks in the US, running diesel instead of gasoline, would save the US 1.4M bbl per day of fuel, the amount we import from Saudi Arabia. Further deployment of these engines, among a host of technologies, is one way the achievement of a fleet-wide 50 MPG is possible.

Beyond that, the goal of any patriotic American should be to use less fuel in his or her daily life, and help enable this country to move further and further from spending US dollars with countries which seek to do us harm. Downsizing our vehicles and using the right tool for the job--i.e., *not* a 14 MPG SUV to solo commute in daily--will help accomplish that task.

[Siel]

If car companies just stopped focusing on selling big SUVs, getting to 50 mpg -- even on average -- wouldn't be such an issue. We already have plug-in hybrids with amazing gas mileage that people're making rogue b/c the big car companies won't make them. All a car company would have to do is to produce and market similar vehicles -- the tech's already there.