Vehicle Emissions Standards vs Vested Interests

 

Question time in Parliament today was soporific. I dozed after listening to Ministers batting off questions on the Electoral Finance Bill, so missed Jeanette Fitzsimmon’s question on vehicle exhaust emission standards. Thankfully there is Hansard for the transcript.

To recap, this was Ms Fitzsimmon’s question to the Associate Minister of Transport:

Q. “Does she expect proposed vehicle exhaust emissions standards to reduce the number of premature deaths from air pollution from vehicle exhausts; if so, how many lives does she expect this rule change could save?”

The Minister’s reply was the expected ‘Yes’. What was more interesting was Ms Fitzsimmon’s first supplementary question, and the Minister’s reply:

Q. “Will the Government stand firm on its proposed schedule for emissions standards in the face of industry pressure from both the Imported Motor Vehicle Dealers Association and, more surprisingly, the Consumers Institute of New Zealand, which both seem to believe that cheap cars are more important than saving lives?”

A. “Yes. The Government will stand firm on its proposal to improve the quality of the fleet coming into New Zealand by ensuring emissions standards are put in place. It is notable that the proposals being put up by the used-car dealers are simply aimed at having every sector of the car industry pay the costs, except those who import used cars. We are far too used to having shonky, old, worn-out, “clocked” vehicles brought into this country and foisted on the public; it is time we had some better-quality vehicles.”

Let’s hope the Government holds the line. For too long, New Zealand has imported second hand, clapped out and polluting vehicles from Japan – we’ve become a dumping ground for wrecks. This scheme benefits used car dealers, while the rest of us pay the costs, such as air pollution, traffic congestion, and declining use of public transport.

Hydrogen car hits the streets

 

I’m not a car lover. I have no empathy with petrol heads. I usually toss the motoring section of Saturday’s newspaper straight into the recycling bin. But I must admit that Honda’s move to mass-produce a hydrogen fuel cell car in 2008 is exciting.

As this article in the Times explains, “the fuel cell has long been the holy grail of eco-motoring because it produces a smooth, almost silent ride and zero emissions”. The idea that you can drive your car without polluting the environment or plundering the resources of a foreign country has a lot going for it – guilt free motoring.

Before fuel cell cars hit the streets in large numbers there are big obstacles to overcome. Honda may have resolved issues of cost and storage. But there are others, including public perceptions of safety, and lack of infrastructure (e.g., hydrogen-filling stations, pipelines and tankers).

Then there’s hydrogen production. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a primary energy source. It has to be made from something, and at present most hydrogen is made from oil, coal and natural gas. This takes lots of energy and emits a lot of greenhouse gases.

Ideally, hydrogen would be made from renewable or nuclear energy. But the energy infrastructure required to make hydrogen for a large transport fleet is of mind-boggling dimension. To fuel the American transport fleet (some 230 million vehicles) with hydrogen instead of oil, a wind farm covering most of North Dakota, a solar panel array the size of Massachusetts, or 430 nuclear power plants would be needed.   

This is probably why Toyota continues to push hybrid-electric vehicles. The Prius can be fuelled through existing infrastructure – the national electricity grid. There is something very cool about a car that you can recharge overnight by plugging into the mains. But if the electricity is generated by coal, oil or natural gas, the environmental benefit of green cars is offset by increased carbon emissions.

To work, hybrid-electric cars have to run on electricity generated from renewable energy. But this strikes the same problem as fuel cell cars – can you build enough wind farms or solar panels to run a large vehicle fleet? More likely the pressure would come on for environmentally destructive hydro dams or coal fired plants to be built. There’s also a resilience aspect – if a national grid is sabotaged by a hostile foreign power or terrorists, or is damaged in a natural disaster, transport would grind to a halt.

Possible solutions include distributed generation – generating electricity near the point of demand – and micro-generation, where houses, offices and farms generate at least some of their electricity through solar panels and wind turbines. Combined with energy efficiency and conservation measures, this would reduce demand on the grid and eliminate the need for large new power stations. It would also ensure local resilience in times of trouble.

(Photo: The Times)