[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Let California Lead: the Green Economy and Lessons from 1990's Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate

by: Jonathan Kim

Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:59:37 AM PST


California has always represented a better future, and we seem more impatient to get there than anyone else. The examples are endless: the settlers risking everything to reinvent themselves on California's fertile soil, the surfers who decided they'd rather surf the streets on skateboards than wait for waves, to the dotcom boom that created the internet age. When California is ready to lead, it's best if you get out of the way. Because when California leads, it often benefits the entire country -- and sometimes the world.

And California is ready to do it again, with a plan to guide America to a greener, cleaner, more sustainable future, and pull the nation out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. That plan is AB 32 (aka the Global Warming Solutions Act), California's nation-leading initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) to 1990 levels through a mix of energy efficiency, clean/sustainable energy investment and regulations to force California's polluters to clean up their own messes. In addition to improving the environment and the health of Californians, study after study show that AB 32 will be a major job creator with little or no impact on small businesses. That's why over 2,400 large and small businesses, many in California, have joined American Businesses for Clean Energy, a diverse coalition calling on Congress to pass clean energy and climate legislation. And with the green/clean economy creating job growth and venture capital investment at a faster rate than the rest of the economy, California could position itself to lead the nation and the world in exportable green technology and solutions, just as it has with computers, software and the internet.

But this is not the first time California has attempted to lead the nation with a pioneering piece of legislation to reduce GHGE. In 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate. It stated that any large automaker selling cars in California would have to derive at least 10% of its overall sales from cars that produce practically zero emissions -- with 2% of the cars producing no emissions at all -- by 2003. That meant that unless an automaker wanted to lose the huge California car market, they would have to begin making all-electric vehicles.

Jonathan Kim :: Let California Lead: the Green Economy and Lessons from 1990's Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate
A great cry went up from defenders of the status quo -- eerily similar to what is happening now with AB 32 -- predicting economic doom if the legislation was enacted. "Electric cars with broad consumer appeal are an idea whose time has come and gone, much like eight-track tapes, Betamax, and New Coke," said Jo Cooper, president of a major auto industry lobbying group. "It's not that we can't [build electric cars]. It's that we don't think it's the right thing to do. In financial terms, it's insane," said Donn Walker, a regional spokesman for General Motors, adding, "The internal combustion engine is here to stay. It's what customers want." Automakers warned that plants would shut down, jobs would be lost and businesses would flee the state. Many claimed that it would be pointless for a single state (albeit the world's 8th largest economy) to take such an ambitious step on its own -- all claims currently being made about AB 32.

While automakers and lobbyists filed lawsuits to derail the mandate, they also quietly prepared to comply with it should their efforts fail. And in the case of General Motors, they succeeded in creating a great electric car called the EV1, which was leased to a few hundred lucky Californians (including celebrities like Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson) who quickly fell in love with it. Because of California's leadership, it seemed like the automotive future had finally arrived and America could begin the long farewell to smog, dependence on foreign oil and one of the major contributors to global warming.

Then George W. Bush was elected, with an administration full of former oil executives, as well as Andrew Card, the former CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association and GM's VP of government relations, as chief of staff. The ZEV mandate was killed and GM took back and destroyed every EV1, despite the leasees' offer to purchase them. This sad tale of potential lost is told in the excellent, must-see documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? See my ReThink Review of WKTEC? below and my post about it here.

California was denied the opportunity to lead the nation into a new generation of auto fuel efficiency. And look what happened.

The auto industry went in the opposite direction, creating gas-guzzling SUVs that actually decreased America's overall fuel efficiency. Our dependence on foreign oil increased, enriching countries like Saudi Arabia (home of Osama bin Laden and nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers), as well as Iran and Venezuela, handing them hundreds of billions as we fruitlessly rattled our sabers at them. Stratospheric spikes in oil prices coupled with the Bush recession left many SUV drivers unable to even fill their tanks, causing demand for gas guzzlers to seemingly evaporate overnight. With hundreds of thousands of SUVs left on their lots and few fuel-efficient or hybrid cars on their rosters, GM and other American carmakers were decimated, declaring bankruptcy, closing dozens of plants, laying off tens of thousands of workers and shuttering or selling off several of their brands. In the meantime, Toyota, which continued their investments in fuel efficiency with hybrid cars like the Prius, became the world's number one carmaker for the first time in 77 years. Nissan's electric car, the Leaf, will be onsale in December 2010. This week, GM announced it would stop making Hummers, the worst gas guzzler and an "automotive pariah", forever.

If California had been allowed to lead with the ZEV mandate, America could have been selling electric cars in the late 1990s instead of fumbling to get their half-baked hybrids and electric concept cars into showrooms as they are now. GM's electric vehicles and the pioneering technology they were based on would be sold around the world, saving and creating thousands of jobs in the US while reducing pollution from tailpipe emissions.

AB 32 has the same potential, if not more, as the ZEV mandate. And despite high unemployment and economic uncertainty that would seem to breed timidity, Californians are still prepared to lead, and are, in fact, proud of their reputation for doing so. In a recent poll by Tulchin Research, 79% of Californians said they are proud of the state's leadership in innovation and technology, with a staggering 96% seeing it as an essential part of the state's economy and 66% feeling strongly that policymakers should boost the tech sector and encourage innovation to strengthen the state's economy.

California is ready to lead. It's in our DNA. Don't listen to the scaremongers defending the status quo, who have been so disastrously wrong in the past. Just let us do it.

(with research by Sarah Phillips)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

I'd wish they stop running that "Who Killed The Electric Car" nonsense (0.00 / 0)
 GM crushed a money loser some Progressive can't face the fact that the car cost more to make that to even let them sell and frankly who beside a couple of former "Flower Children" and some of Hollywood's "Liberal" Elite wanted these things?

It had two seats and it was UGLY and impractical!

The Volt is going to cost $40K, which tax credits and so on it will cost roughly $30k. The Leaf is going to cost rough $30K maybe $20-25k after discounts.

This is apart of the solution there is no magic bullet, not everybody wants an Electric car and nobody should be told that they only have the choice of electric cars and nothing else. Homes and Business are still the largest polluter and users of energy.

Plus you'll still have a base of roughly a few million cars built before 1990 still on the roads mostly owned by the Working Poor and worst. You going to all of sudden empower them to turn into their cars for clunker rebates high enough for them to afford one of these electric cars?

I am encouraging my parents to trade in both cars for (2) Volts though we'll be likely limited to 1 car per family. I could entertain a Nissan Leaf, but not before I get my Fiat 500 Abarth!

 


the Leaf (0.00 / 0)
I like It, It has the ability to recharge in 25 minutes at 480v AC, Longer at 240v or even longer at 120v of course, But still 100 miles(range between chargings/fill ups) is a start and It only has 580lbs of batteries.

[ Parent ]
On batteries (0.00 / 0)
The cost should go down as mass production goes in, But the industry needs to standardize this technology to cut the costs, As the current technology has benefited from this standardization and mass production.

[ Parent ]
I think you're missing the point a bit. (0.00 / 0)
GM killed the EV1 as part of killing further R&D into electric cars -- that's the problem.

Imagine how much further along we might be in this technology if the auto corps hadn't switched back to big gas-guzzlers premised on the ongoing beneficence of the oil states whose governments we prop up.


[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
 We could be further along on many things, want examples?

The people that made the Sky Cars in Montreal for the World's Fair offered the City of LA FREE installation of Sky Cars and would then hand it over to the city after 5 years of demonstration use.

Ummm - FAIL, it choose to expand the freeways, look what that got us.

If we didn't spend the last 30 years spending ideas overseas for quick profit we would be much further along.

The Leaf is more of s show piece for Nissan to show they are a player in the game. 100 miles range is basically impractical for anything but hermits. You can forget family car trips to say the Grand Canyon it won't make it on one charge, its a city car period end of story.

The EV1 would have no driven better options in battery technology. Others could have developed an Electric car, who stopped them? Many other more Progressive minded Governments would have given them money to do it. The problem was NOBODY WANTED TO DO IT, demand is TINY.

The Volt will sell out in California because the Prius does well here and could go to the Grand Canyon on ONE charge.

No matter how fast they make an electric car, the lack of noise (engine roar at speed) and missing exhaust burble will honestly limit the scope of Electric Only and Extended Range Cars like the Volt. I suppose you haven't heard of the Otto Cycle engine, basically a Gas engine that runs like a Diesel. Benz says it will be in their cars by 2012 I think. Gas engines have never run cleaner, like I said their life cycle will not be shorten by Electric car and no breakthrough technology or push from Green Zealots will get mass acceptance of these things.

 


[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox