(Source: Wall Street Journal)

Efficient Drivers Cut Emissions, but Stir Up Hot Air

Cruising around this desert metropolis in her four-door pickup truck, Morgan Dresser doesn’t look like an environmental trendsetter.

Click here to read the entire article.

 (Source: Time)

A Lot Full of Old Clunkers For Sale

It’s no secret that one of the biggest reasons the U.S. auto industry is teetering on collapse is that, quite simply, Americans have stopped buying cars. U.S. auto sales were down 37% in March from 2008, the latest in a nearly unbroken year-and-a-half streak of falling sales. And if the cratered economy is the main culprit behind backed-up inventory at U.S. car dealers, another is that American automakers have failed to produce the more fuel-efficient vehicles that gas-price-conscious car buyers are beginning to demand. As a result, the U.S. still sends hundreds of billions of dollars overseas for oil — and adds ever more greenhouse-gas pollution into the atmosphere. 

Now what if there were a way to tackle both these problems with one policy: to stimulate demand for American cars while making the U.S. auto fleet cleaner, greener and more efficient? It sounds like the kind of slick two-for-one pitch you might hear from a used-car salesman, but that’s exactly what proponents of a “cash for clunkers” program are promising.

But is cash-for-clunkers really two-for-one? That depends. There are currently two main bills in the House and Senate, which, according to greens, are not created equal. One, sponsored by Democratic Ohio Representative Betty Sutton, allows any car from model year 2000 or earlier to be traded in, without any restriction on fuel economy. In return, car buyers will get $4,000 if they buy a new U.S. car that gets a minimum mileage of 27 m.p.g. and $5,000 if they buy a U.S. car with at least 30 m.p.g. Crucially, the new cars have to be made in the U.S. — foreign brands can qualify, but only if they’re manufactured on U.S. soil, which would disqualify super-efficient vehicles like Toyota’s Prius hybrid, made only in Japan.

Whichever bill is chosen — and others are being circulated as well — a successful cash-for-clunkers program wouldn’t be cheap. Germany’s program may end up costing the government some $6 billion, three times the initial price tag. Since Obama has said that money for the cash-for-clunkers program needs to come out of existing stimulus spending, that might take some creative accounting. But a cash-for-clunkers program, whatever its environmental benefits, would provide the government with a way to aid the domestic auto industry without giving Detroit any more direct handouts. “There’s a lot of justifiable taxpayer reluctance to keep helping the auto industry,” says Goldstein of the Center for American Progress. “Politically this is a viable alternative to sending them additional loan money.”

 (Source: Associated Press via Yahoo)

TRENTON, N.J. – Would you drive any differently if you knew there was a teenager behind the wheel of the car in front of you?

Click here to read the entire article.

 (Source: Wall Street Journal)

A Journal front-pager recently noted an Arizona man charged with attacking a freeway speed camera with a pick ax. Here’s the rest of the story: He was fined $3,500, not given a parade.

But don’t despair. We still live in a democracy. One Arizona sheriff recently proved you could get elected by opposing speed cameras. Meanwhile, the state legislature is considering bills to dismantle the system created by Gov. Janet Napolitano when she faced a gaping budget deficit, before she escaped to the Obama Department of Homeland Security. Petitioners in Arizona are also gathering signatures to put the question directly before voters — speed cameras have never won when submitted to voters.

Even the Scottsdale City Council recently voted not to oppose the anti-camera bills in the state legislature.

Why is this important? Because Arizona, specifically Scottsdale, is home to the two biggest companies, American Traffic Solutions and Redflex Traffic Systems, in the incestuous world of promoting and operating traffic cameras for revenue-hungry governments.

Laid to rest long ago should have been the pretense that the goal is “safety,” not chasing cash. New York State, sinking under budget shortfalls, last week authorized a batch of new red-light cameras around the state. A recent investigation by the Detroit News showed that even conventional ticket-writing is driven by revenue needs. Said one cop: “When you’re being told how many tickets you need to write, to me that’s a quota.”

Consider: Red-light running and speeding, the two main uses of traffic cameras, are implicated in fewer than 8% of accidents. A far more prevalent cause of nondrunken accidents is driver inattention — one study estimated, in a typical case the driver’s eyes are diverted from the road for a full three seconds or more, fidgeting with a cellphone, disciplining the kids in the back seat, snoozing, blotting up spilled coffee, etc.

What’s more, if not for the idiotic diversion of research dollars to fuel economy, the most highly touted auto-industry breakthroughs today would be exactly in this area. Available now or coming soon are devices that warn a driver when he’s wandering out of his lane or when another car is in his blind spot, even applying the brakes to prevent a collision.

(Source:  Greenwire – New York Times; AutoBlogGreen)

Chuck Hurley - Image Courtesy: Dickinson College

Hurley has served as CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving since 2005 and has spent more than three decades working on a host of driving safety initiatives. He previously held senior leadership posts at both the National Safety Council and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group funded by auto insurers.

The insurance institute has been critical of past CAFE proposals and has backed an auto industry argument that a disproportionate focus on increasing fuel mileage would lead to smaller and less safe cars (See a related article on TransportGooru that discussed the latest IIHS crash test results correlating vehicle safety during crashes to the size and fuel effieicency factors of small cars). The group helped lead a successful industry push for CAFE standards that use an attribute-based system that requires cars and trucks to achieve different standards depending on each vehicle’s footprint.

Hurley’s work with the institute during the 1990s was enough to worry Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, which has advocated for fuel economy increases. “It would be awkward to have an administrator of NHTSA who’s spent much of his career attacking fuel economy standards that NHTSA administers,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

With exception of the fuel economy concern, Hurley’s nomination drew near-universal praise from highway safety advocates.  In addition to his extensive work on drunk-driving issues, Hurley has also worked with law enforcement agencies on air bag and seat belt issues, child passenger safety and teen driving initiatives.  “Chuck is a passionate safety advocate whose career has been dedicated to reducing motor vehicle deaths and injuries on the highways,” said Vernon Betkey Jr., chairman of the Governors Highway Safety Association.

(Source: Washington Post) 

Without higher gas taxes, ‘cash for clunkers’ won’t do the job 

CAR SALES in Germany jumped an astonishing 40 percent in March, thanks in large part to a “cash for clunkers” program in which the government gave those handing over old-model cars roughly $5,000 toward the purchase of newer, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Lawmakers in the United States have crafted similar proposals, hoping both to provide a boost to the U.S. auto industry and to spur sales of environmentally friendlier cars. But even the best of these proposals is not likely to provide the punch of the German initiative.

Click here to read the entire article (free regn. required).  

Note:  Below is a list of articles on this issue, previously published on TransportGooru.  This compilation of articles offer an insight into state of various “Cash for Clunkers” style programs implemented (or currently being debated) across the globe (Germany, UK, etc,). Stay plugged in to TransportGooru for more on this topic in the days to come.

 Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Act revives “Cash for Clunkers” scrapping plan in U.S

Germany plans to extend Abwrackprämie aka “Environmental Bonus”

The bickering starts over the implementation of the Cash for Clunkers legislation

Obama Favors “Cash for Clunkers”

Germany increases subsidy to 5 Billion Euros, tripling incentives for its “Cash for Clunker” (Abwrackprämie) program

Britain mulls implementation of “Cash for Clunkers” scheme to boost ailing auto sales 

Where the US stands in pushing “Cash for Clunkers”- Four bills in Congress; Details Needed

One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds

(Source: Guardian via Tree Hugger)

The Guardian has a pretty shocking piece about giant cargo ships and the pollution they emit. The title of this post is a line from “confidential data from maritime industry insiders”, and according to them, the low-grade ship bunker fuel that powers cargo ships has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US, and European automobiles and emission control is practically non-existent.  Here we can see that the primary concern with shipping is air-pollution (“US academic research which showed that pollution from the world’s 90,000 cargo ships leads to 60,000 deaths a year in the US alone and costs up to $330bn per year in health costs from lung and heart diseases”). It does contribute significantly to global warming, but about 5-6 times less than land-based transportation.

Shipping by numbers (From Guardian)The world’s biggest container ships have 109,000 horsepower engines which weigh 2,300 tons.

Each ship expects to operate 24hrs a day for about 280 days a year

There are 90,000 ocean-going cargo ships

Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world’s nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution.

One large ship can generate about 5,000 tonnes of sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution in a year

70% of all ship emissions are within 400km of land.

85% of all ship pollution is in the northern hemisphere.

Shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions

The calculations of ship and car pollution are based on the world’s largest 85,790KW ships’ diesel engines which operate about 280 days a year generating roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx a year, compared with diesel and petrol cars which drive 15,000km a year and emit approximately 101gm of SO2/SoX a year.

Smart USA quickly responds to IIHS crash test results

(Source:  Autoblog, Jalopnik & IIHS)

“There are good reasons people buy minicars,” says Institute president Adrian Lund. “They’re more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be compromised. However, there are ways to serve fuel economy and safety at the same time.”

The three tests we have are between the Honda Accord and the Honda Fit, the Toyota Camry and Toyota Yaris, and finally the Mercedes C300 and the Smart ForTwo. With each we get a full speed offset frontal crash with both cars traveling at 40 MPH, destruction and carnage ensue and rightly so, there’s a lot of energy involved here. These are hardly scientific tests, and they represent the absolute most extreme crash scenario for these speeds, especially for the smaller cars. Ratings got from “Good” at the top of the scale through “Acceptable” and “Poor.” Considering this is one car bashing into another, the evaluation is somewhat subjective, but it gives an idea of relative performance. Let’s take a closer look at each.

 Click here to read the entire article and to watch two other awesome videos.  Seen below is the IIHS report in PDF format.  To download the report, please visit the IIHS website. 

P.S:  According to AutoBlog, folks over at Smart USA were not pleased to see the results of the latest batch of crash testing from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS did a series of frontal offset crash tests between small and mid-size cars, one of which included a smart ForTwo versus a Mercedes C300. While the results may have been what most people expected, they don’t correlate with the ForTwo’s results in standardized tests where the IIHS rates the smart as good in front and side impacts. The feds at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration give the smart 4 stars on frontal impact and 5 on side impact. 

The problem, as Smart USA sees it, is that the IIHS devised a test that no automaker has designed to and that they claim only represents about one percent of real world accidents. Smart has even set up a site for customer testimonials about the crash safety performance of their ForTwo. Typically, in the past, Smarts have actually done quite well in similar vehicle-on-vehicle tests, such as the ones conducted by Mercedes and Auto Motor und Sport after the jump.

(Source: BBC via Autoblog; Photo: Saudi Jeans via Autoblog)

Saudi Arabia recently instated a new type of license plate that is expected to be fitted to 49 million cars in the kingdom. As opposed to the old Arabic-only plates, the new plates feature Arabic and Latin letters and numbers. Drivers can even request that the three letters on the lower right form certain 3-letter English words, like “nut.”

But according to the BBC, authorities have published a list words that definitely cannot be placed there, and heading the list of words like “SEX” and “ASS” is this one: “USA.”  It hasn’t been explained why “USA” is on the list of Saudi Arabia’s banned words, but such plates and 90,000 others like it are being recalled and replaced with something more acceptable.   Personalised plates are popular with wealthy young Saudis. One plate recently sold at auction for 6m riyals ($1.2m), the newspaper reported.

Such license plate controversies are not new in many parts of the English speaking world.  Often plates implying profane matter are restricted in the U.S. and for those who remember the recent one from Colorado touting a woman’s love for tofu got a lot of media attention.  PETAf iles blog reports that no one driving through Colorado will be seeing the personalized license plate “ILVTOFU” anytime soon, thanks to the DMV’s rejection of the message as “possibly offensive to the general public.”  Wait, what? How is loving tofu offensive? As it turns out, the license-plate approver had an entirely different interpretation of the message, as in I-LV-TO-eff-you.

While it’s a creative interpretation, it’s not exactly what the Colorado mother of three vegetarian kids had in mind. Coffman-Lee is a vegan, and as she puts it, “I’m very expressive. I’m anti-fur, anti-rodeo, anti-circus when they come to Denver, and I thought, ‘Here’s a chance to be positive and say I love something.'” She even says that a friend at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PETA) liked the idea so much they were willing to pay the $60 plate fee.Hopefully, with a little explanation and maybe even a tasty sample of the jiggly white stuff, the rejection will be overturned and her car can become the vegetarian-message-on-wheels that it was meant to be.