|
CO2 ruling heats up debate on emissions
Costly changes seen for cars, appliances
Apr 5 - McClatchy-Tribune Business News Formerly Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Robert Manor and Rick Popely Chicago Tribune In the coming years everything from cars to dishwashers to steel mills is likely to be required to consume energy more efficiently as a result of stricter environmental regulations expected to come on line to combat greenhouse gases. "It's a wonderful decision," said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, an environmental advocacy group based in Chicago. "It makes very clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and the EPA is required to regulate it." Because of the court's ruling Monday that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, industry will almost certainly be required to change some of the ways it works, said David Friedman, research director for the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In one important example, cars are apt to become smaller and electric hybrids more popular because the higher a vehicle's mileage, the lower its output of carbon dioxide. Automakers signaled that making vehicles more fuel efficient will cost more. For example, the industry is lobbying against a Bush administration proposal to raise the fuel economy standard 4 percent annually. Cars would have to average 34 miles per gallon in the year 2017 under that plan instead of the current 27.5. Bob Lutz, vice chairman of General Motors Corp. and GM's global product development director, predicted that the cost to consumers to accomplish that fuel-economy goal would be at least $5,000 per vehicle. In an interview at the New York Auto Show, Lutz also downplayed the expectation that car companies can save the day. "Anyone who thinks the auto industry can invent something to make CO2 go away is just dreaming," he said. But Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, indicated that the rush would be on to find ways to improve gas mileage to reduce emissions. She said there was no way to estimate the cost, partly because no one knows what the new standards might be. She did know this: "The only ways to reduce CO2 are to drive less or use less fuel." That means more gas-electric hybrids, smaller cars and electric vehicles, which the industry had given up on several years ago because of the high cost and the short driving range of batteries. Higher fuel economy standards and tighter emissions rules might spur development of fuel-cell vehicles that run on hydrogen and emit only water. The notion behind the Supreme Court ruling -- that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and its emissions must be regulated -- was once seen as radical. But in recent years many scientists have concluded that CO2 is partly responsible for the warming of the Earth. Billions of tons of carbon dioxide spew into the atmosphere each year, much of it from motor vehicles and coal-fired electricity-generation plants. There are critics of that theory, however. And the Bush administration is cool to the idea of regulating CO2 emission because of its economic impact. No immediate limits are expected, but some observers say regulation of CO2 emissions is inevitable, most likely after Bush leaves office. "Climate change is an issue that can't wait," said John Rowe, chief executive of Exelon Corp. "Exelon has been an early and vocal advocate for regulation of carbon dioxide." Businesses are concerned that the onus being put on the EPA will lead states to begin enacting their own, disparate anti-pollution measures, complicating the ability of firms to comply with a hodgepodge of rules. The car industry hopes the Supreme Court decision puts the issue in front of the EPA instead of before state courts in California, Massachusetts and Vermont, where lawsuits are pending that would force automakers to meet stricter rules on carbon dioxide emissions. The electric utility industry is also hoping for federal regulation of CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, rather than a patchwork of different rules and goals in different states. Illinois, for example, wants to reduce the state's CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, a reduction of about 25 percent, said Ron Burke, associate director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Many states have no announced goal, however The nation's 618 coal-fired plants produce about half the nation's electricity. They and other fossil-fuel plants account for about 40 percent of the carbon dioxide in the U.S., according to the Edison Electric Institute, a trade association for utilities. "Conservation and efficiency, those are two important pieces," said Dan Riedinger, an Edison Institute spokesman. He said more efficient use of electricity by consumers and businesses will reduce demand for it from coal-fired plants. That would mean ever-more energy-efficient appliances and lighting for consumers. Riedinger also said the U.S. must increase output from renewable sources, such as the wind, or sources that give off no CO2, such as nuclear energy or photovoltaic cells. "Today our focus should be on using clean energy rather than making dirty energy clean," said Friedman, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. That goal is becoming more feasible as renewable sources of electricity become cheaper. "The cost of wind power has dropped like a rock," said Learner of the Environmental Law and Policy Center. Scientists are also working on ways to capture CO2 from generator smoke stacks and permanently store it underground.
rmanor@tribune.com To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.tribune.com |