newsroom

TODAY Wednesday 6 August 1997 Each weekday. Conn Nugent on what's new in the world, on the site.

 

TODAY IN THE WORLD: Big Victory, I Guess

"This is a victory for clean air," said New York Governor George Pataki yesterday. He was referring to a decision in federal court to uphold the 1991 state law mandating the sale of certain numbers of "zero-emission vehicles" (ZEVs). According to the statute -- a virtual copy of a California law that's now been modified -- auto manufacturers must see to it that two percent of all the vehicles they sell in New York in model year 1998 will be ZEVs. The quota gets ramped each year so that by 2003 ten percent of all auto sales will be ZEVs.

This news was reported on the first page of the Metro section of this morning's New York Times, in an article by James Dao. Among the interesting elements of the article is that Dao doesn't cite the "zero emission" language of the statute until his ninth paragraph, back on page B4, when he says that a zero-emission vehicle is a synonym for an electric vehicle. "Electric Cars Get a Big Push in New York," reads the headline. It's not wrong, but that's one of the problems.

The statute in question measures emissions as they come out of a car's tailpipe. Until portable hydrogen power systems are commercially available, the only vehicle technology that qualifies as zero-emission is the electric battery. Charging electric batteries does cause emissions, of course; it's just that they come out of the smokestack of a power plant instead of the rear end of the car. But Governor Pataki isn't wrong, either, for the emissions from smokestacks occasioned by charging batteries is less than the emissions from tailpipes occasioned by operating a typical automobile. Plus there are lots of congested places like metropolitan New York where concentrating on tailpipes makes a lot of sense, not least of which is that it helps a locality meet stringent federal Clean Air regulations. So, as we say around here, wussa maddah? Gotta problem?

Well, there's this interesting question of mandating technologies. Like most environmentalists, I am in favor of many government interventions in the marketplace, on the theory that current arrangements do not internalize the costs of damage done to nature. Carbon taxes, pollution taxes, consumption taxes, user fees. The only questions are what's efficient, what's fair, and what can you get away with politically. In some cases, it also seems to make sense for the government to set certain standards so as to impel manufacturers to adapt or create technologies that can help meet those standards. Examples are air-pollution and fuel-economy regs. It even makes sense sometimes for government to compel the installation of technologies clearly demanded by the public health, e.g. seatbelts and air bags, and damn the expense. It is less desirable when an environmental law says that it is setting a standard -- zero emissions -- but defines the standard in such a way -- measured only from tailpipies -- that in fact it is mandating a particular technology -- electric battery systems -- that may not be as good environmentally as other systems.

Make no mistake, electric cars can be wonderful. Ask anyone who's driven the General Motors EV1. It's fast, sleek, and maneuverable. But you can't carry much in it, you can't go more than 90 miles without re-charging, and you have to pay almost $35,000 to buy it. For high-income childless urban couples with a secure place to re-charge and another car (or a willingness to rent cars) for jaunts to the country, I would unhesitatingly recommend one of the new electrics. I just don't know anybody like that.

I do keep a close and hopeful eye on the commercial development of so-called hybrid automobiles, where a high-efficiency gasoline engine charges an electric motor that drives the wheels and recaptures the energy dissipated in braking. Amory Lovins and his colleagues at the Rocky Mountain Institute say that it is engineering child's play to produce something that goes 100 miles per hour and gets 100 miles per gallon. Next year Toyota is going to introduce a hybrid pioneer to the Japanese market ("Toyota Steps Out"). It doesn't meet Amory's specs, but it should get about 60 miles to the gallon, and auto writers have had fun driving it. And off in the distance one glimpses the strange alchemy of cars powered through hydrogen fuel cells, emitting only water as a byproduct.

But it's an imperfect world, fellow enviro drivers, and we should be glad for the electric car mandate at a time of appallingly cheap oil and no-end-in-sight global demand for gas guzzlers. At least the mandate compels the automakers to put some smart guys on the quest for alternative technologies. So I don't say we should blink yet, but sooner or later it might make sense to "settle" for the hybrids.

 

TODAY ON THE SITE:

Our High Fives is a great place for automobiles. Love 'em, hate 'em, love/hate 'em -- whatever your psychological predisposition, you'll find our collection of experts can tell you where to go on the Internet to find out more than you're likely to want to know about cars and their future.

 

Recent "Today" columns:

8/05: Necessary Vulgarization
8/04: More Crime, Please
8/01: Wise Use, Smart Use
7/31: DC Blues
7/30: Atlanta and Salina
7/29: Herons and Frogs
7/28: Golf
7/25: Climate Chess: Arkansan Opening
7/24: Top and Bottom
7/23: Smart Exxon

To access more "Today" columns, click "Archives" below.