California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

Why Are There So Many Pickup Trucks on the Road?

by John Lawrence, September 17, 2018

The simple answer is that pickup trucks don't have to meet the same standards for fuel economy as do cars. Therefore, they can be manufactured and sold cheaper. Also in recent years they have added a rear seat so whole families can fit in them and other features to make them more comfortable. The bottom line, however, is that they are gas guzzlers that can be marketed to the American male to make him feel more macho.

In 1979 the government under President Jimmy Carter was concerned about high energy prices and the effect that CO₂ emissions were having on the environment. Jimmy Carter was prescient in a lot of ways. He even put solar panels on the White House which President Ronald Reagan prompyly took down when he became President. Jimmy Carter's government came up with the CAFE standards. CAFE (short hand for Corporate Average Fuel Economy) came as a result of the 1973 oil embargo, as a means to mandate fuel economy targets for cars and light trucks. As a result a vehicle classified as a truck didn't have to meet the same standard (and was therefore less expensive) than a car. Voila! The proliferation of pickup trucks, the cheapest and most gas guzzling vehicles on the road which could be marketed to American males as something inherent to their maledom.

In 1979, while there was a concern over high energy prices and to some extent the environment, there was not the concern about global warming and the fact that pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere via tailpipe emissions was not a good thing. Nevertheless, global warming deniers and fossil fuel advocates have paid no heed to the dire consequences of global warming some of which are being visited on the Carolinas todfay. There's also a destructive typhoon in the Philippines which makes Hurricane Florence seem like a tropical storm, albeit a tropical storm capable of dropping 40 inches of rain on a drainage system incapable of handling that much water in a short period of time. Hence, severe flooding.

The CAFE standards have caused the auto industry to morph into something that allows the same gas guzzlers to be manufactured and the same fuel emission standards to be bypassed. They are seen as something to be more honored in the breach than in the observance. The Trump administration openly flaunts and mocks environmental standards that would tend to alleviate global warming. They want more fossil fuel production and more tailpipe emissions. They want the good old days when cars got 10 mpg. They want no fuel economy standards whatsoever. Global warming be damned as far as they are concerned. But they and others like them including the whole planet Earth will reap the consequences of ignoring and trying to subvert Mother Nature. She will have the last word.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Wants to Deny California the Right to Set its Own Tailpipe Emission Standards

by John Lawrence, August 4, 2018

Trump wants more pollution for gas guzzling cars. The Federal government is lowering tailpipe emission standards for the whole nation. At the same time they are in the process of denying California the right to have higher standards than the rest of the nation. Governor Jerry Brown has vowed to fight. What right does the Federal government have to tell California that it must have more pollution. California has set the standard for lowering pollution and fighting global warming as well it should. The state is burning up from causes related to global warming.

It's all about states' rights. California has the right to join the rest of the civilized world and try and do something about global warming which is caused to a great extent by the pollutants emanating from your car's tailpipe. The carbon dioxide coming out of there is a greenhouse gas. The earth is becoming a greenhouse trapping huge amounts of heat in its atmosphere. The heat is causing massive wildfires in California and elsewhere.  But Trump wants to deny the science and say "full steam ahead with pollution."

Fortune magazine reported:

The tit-for-tat continues between President Trump and the state of California.

On Thursday, the administration proposed freezing vehicle fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level and revoking California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to set more stringent tailpipe emissions rules in the state.

But California, a state that has long prioritized lowering its emissions—even going so far as beating its 2020 emissions target four years early, will not take these changes lying down. California governor Jerry Brown vowed Thursday to “fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.”

“For Trump to now destroy a law first enacted at the request of Ronald Reagan five decades ago is a betrayal and an assault on the health of Americans everywhere,” Brown said. “Under his reckless scheme, motorists will pay more at the pump, get worse gas mileage, and breathe dirtier air.”

Since such a huge number of cars are sold in California, car manufacturers have to gear their production to California standards. They could make cheaper, dirtier cars for the rest of the nation, but it is not worth it. That's why Trump wants to insist on California lowering its standards so car manufacturers can lower them for everybody. They then can sell a cheaper, dirtier car.

The article continues:

California has previously sued the Trump administration over its auto policies, and the state announced plans for a new lawsuit following Thursday’s announcement. California attorney general Xavier Becerra announced that he would lead 19 attorneys general in a new lawsuit, saying that “California is about progress and 21st century innovation and technology. We’re not about backsliding.”

“The earth is not flat and climate change is real. Can someone please inform the folks at the White House?” he added.

A number of California lawmakers demonstrated their own intention to combat the administration’s proposal, with Senators Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein introducing a resolution in the Senate that would allow California to remain autonomous in its clean air policies. A similar measure was also introduced in the House.

Former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, also condemned the administration’s policy, noting that it was Reagan who had first requested California’s waiver. On Thursday, he tweeted that “this is a stupid policy and no one asked for this,” adding that “if the president thinks he can win this fight, he’s out of his mind.”

So we have a head-in-the-sand stupenagel for a President, and he has brought in other stupenagels to be members of his administration. He's put them at the head of every department. He's hell bent on making America not Great Again, but on the contrary the Laughing Stock of the world. But to some extent we get what we deserve. This is supposedly a democracy after all. If the Democrats ever get control of the government again, let this be a lesson to them. They will have to undo everything Trump has done just like he is endeavoring to undo everything Obama did.

Will the Price of Oil Collapse Within a Decade, Driven Off Cliff By Electric Vehicles?

Published on Monday, July 09, 2018 by Informed Comment

A million electric vehicles on the road reduces demand for petroleum by roughly 16,666 barrels a day

by Juan Cole

 

4 Comments

 

"We now have a pretty solid estimate for the beginning of the end of oil: 2030 at the latest." (Photo: mariordo59/Flickr/cc)

One of the reasons that Saudi Arabia’s plans for an Initial Public Offering (IPO) on its ARAMCO oil have not actually materialized is that investors are not dummies. Saudi Arabia’s oil is an asset with no future value, and the future in which its price collapses is nearer than the oil companies think. (I would argue that if you figure in the cost of coming climate lawsuits, oil already has a negative value, but is certainly already worthless).

A new report by Carbon Trackers gives us some key metrics.

A million electric vehicles on the road reduces demand for petroleum by roughly 16,666 barrels a day.

The world is now producing about 99 million barrels a day, but the price per barrel fluctuates wildly depending on demand swings of as few as 2 million barrels a day. In 2014, for instance, China’s annual rate of economic growth seemed set for a long term reduction from 10 percent a year to 6 percent a year, a result of a maturing economy. That reduction and its ripple effects through the world economy contributed to a fall in demand for oil of about 2 million barrels a day, which caused the price to plummet from a high of $110 a barrel to less than $50 a barrel.

A serial process goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … etc. An exponential process goes 1, 2, 4, 16, 32, 64, 128 . . . etc. Electric car adoption will be exponential, not serial. China sold 680,000 electric vehicles last year. But by 2020 it hopes to be selling 2 million a year, and then to go on up from there. That is, China alone will likely put more electric vehicles on the road than the oil companies expect the entire world to, by 2030. I also think analysts underestimate India’s drive to a national electric vehicle fleet, in part driven by the urban politics of air pollution in cities like Delhi and Mumbai. Europe will buy about 300,000 EV passenger cars this year, up 40% from last, and new, ambitious European carbon goals will almost certainly cause that market rapidly to take off. A key turning point will come when EVs are actually cheaper with regard to sticker price than internal combustion cars– possibly as soon as 2023. This milestone has already been reached in Norway as a result of tax policy, and the results are clear.

Carbon Tracker points out that internal combustion engines will also become much more energy efficient over the next decade, another way in which petroleum demand will be depressed.

So every 60 million electric vehicles on the road causes oil demand to fall by 1 mn. barrels per day. And Carbon Tracker (which collaborates with King’s College London) estimates that by 2027 or so there will be 120 million EVs on the road. They note that the automobile companies vastly underestimate the speed with which consumers will turn to EVs.

The process is already well under way. The International Energy Agency says,

• “Over 1 million electric cars were sold in 2017 – a new record – with more than half of global sales in China. The total number of electric cars on the road surpassed 3 million worldwide, an expansion of over 50% from 2016.”

Let me put this in perspective. A lot of trouble has been caused between Baghdad and Erbil over Norwegian development of Iraqi Kurdistan oil fields, which were licensed initially without reference to Baghdad. A Texas judge even refused to let Kurdistan offload its oil in the US because of Iraq’s objections. One of the fields at issue is Peshkabir, which produces 16,000 barrels a day of petroleum.

If we use Carbon Tracker’s estimates, it means that just in 2017 alone, enough EVs were sold to make the Peshkabir field redundant.

And at 3 million EVs now on the road, world demand has been reduced already by 50,000 barrels a day, enough to make redundant the initial production of 50,000 barrels a day by Brazil’s offshore environmental boondoggle, the undersea Libra field. To take 2 million barrels a day off the market, EV sales just have be be exponential this way, with 2017 being 1:

1, 2, 4, 16, 32, 64, 128.

This progression is unrealistic as such. But add in 4 or five more years and it is perfectly plausible. The IEA expects 120 million EVs on the road by 2030, and points out that if government regulation mandates them, the number could be twice that by that year.

My guess is that as more catastrophes like the 2017 hurricane season or the current worldwide heat wave (which is killing hundreds of people) accumulate, there will be enormous public pressure during the coming decade on governments to mandate EVs and to put in the infrastructure to fuel them from wind and solar.

After 2027 (or maybe even 2025, only 7 years from now), the number of EVs will rapidly accelerate, as virtually all new vehicles bought will be electric (an effect of rapidly falling battery and other component costs and of the fuel for electric cars being essentially free; you can power one off your rooftop solar array).

So, we now have a pretty solid estimate for the beginning of the end of oil: 2030 at the latest. After that, it is a long or short spiral down to a cost set by the world need for hydrocarbon-based fertilizer and other lesser uses of oil (none of which come near to generating volume and prices similar to gasoline for automobiles).

The end of oil will be huge for US politics, economy and foreign policy. Stay tuned.

And if your retirement fund has a significant position in Big Oil, get out of it.

© 2018 Juan Cole

Off the Top of My Head

Trump's EPA Head Rolls Back Tailpipe Emissions Standards

by John Lawrence, May 2, 2018

Just what the climate needs now - more carbon dioxide coming out of the tailpipes of cars. More pollution, more global warming. Scot Pruitt, Trump's head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is protecting the environment by mandating that more tailpipe emissions go into it. That means that cars will be sold with lower mileage standards, and you will buy more gas to keep them running. But who cares as long as the oil and gas companies are in a position to sell more gas and make more money. The US is the biggest climate polluter in history. It set the stage for polluting even more when Trump walked away from the Paris accords on climate change. Now they are reducing tailpipe emissions standards so car makers can relax and not have to engineer cars that get better gas mileage.

California is fighting back. Long a leader in reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide pollution, California is suing the Trump administration which insists that California lower its emissions standards according to Pruitt's dictates. The New York Times put it this way:

California and a coalition of 16 other states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over its plan to roll back greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars, trucks and S.U.V.s.

The move comes days after reports that the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department plan to dramatically weaken federal auto emissions rules. California, which holds a waiver under the Clean Air Act that allows it to set its own standards for vehicle exhaust pollution, has pledged to stick with stricter Obama-era targets.

So the Trump administration which formally doesn't believe in global warming is insisting that all the states follow its dictates and pollute more. Of course states rights, which are always insisted upon by Red states, don't figure here. They are only taken seriously when the Red states want to do something which is counter to a Democratic administration. California has always wanted to have stricter rules regarding auto emissions standards. The Obama administration brought Federal guidelines into compliance with California's higher standards only to have Trump and Pruitt mandate that all the states including California pollute more. “My message to the E.P.A. and administrator Pruitt is simple: Do your job. Regulate carbon pollution from vehicles, defend the clean car standards, don’t tear them up,” Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general, said in a press conference.

California wants to get 5 million zero-emissions vehicles on the road by 2030. It is doing all it can to prevent a global warming crisis. The Trump administration wants to hasten that crisis. It doesn't care about global warming. In fact it could care less. If California outlaws the sale of gas guzzlers in the state, will Californians have to go out of state to buy their SUVs. Stay tuned.

Off the Top of My Head

I Wouldn't Trust a Self Driving Car

by John Lawrence

As an Uber and Lyft driver, I know that the navigation app leaves a lot to be desired. Sure it gets me to most pick-up locations and most destinations. But most isn't good enough. It has told me to pick up somebody or drop them off in the middle of the freeway. It has told me to turn right on a street where there was no right turn. It has told me to turn left on an impossibly busy street where turning right and then doing a U-turn was the only safe option. Then there are the streets and private roads without any names. It has led me into blind alleys and taken me on wild goose chases.

For the most part San Diego freeways are well laid out and the signage is excellent. The same can't be said for some of the back streets and private roads. Some streets come together at oblique angles and some navigation requires one immediate turn after another. There are all kinds of situations that befuddle humans and probably automated machines as well. Then there are other drivers on the road who driver aggressively, speed or do crazy things. A self driving car could only do so much to compensate for them, and in some situations compensating for the craziness of other drivers would be impossible for humans or machines.

For a self driving car there would be no way to compensate for a crazy or destructive passenger who was intent on vandalizing the car from the inside or the outside. I suppose if they threw up in the car, an automated self driving car would possibly be able to analyze that. If there were a medical emergency, would a self driving car know what to do or would it continue merrily on its way. There's no way to know, and passengers would probably have to sign there life away in the small print.