ethanol itself was fossil-carbon free. The problem with this and other assertions is that it ignores the emissions, pollution, and other significant environmental impacts that come with such steady, heavy production of one type of fuel. There are no solutions proposed by anyone yet that are free from questions about trading in one negative aspect for another outside of the idea that we simply stop driving; as much as possible, for that matter—and starting now. Despite their assertions that the goals of the emission reduction proposed in California with a blended approach using multiple existing technologies simultaneously, Pacala and Socolow, (2004) nonetheless also suggest that one of the most successful approaches is to vastly reduce the use of vehicles in the United States. Their estimates suggest that “if the average fuel economy of the 2 billion 2054 cars were 30 mpg, but the annual distance traveled were 5000 instead of 10,000 miles” (p. 971). What this means is that there is the possibility for the damage to be undone but there is still not enough incentive for this to become a top priority with manufacturers or consumers.

Some researchers such as Bandivadekar (2008) take an analytical look at the current state of alternative fuel technologies, differing propulsion systems, as well as related issues to vehicle size and reducing travel demand. What is detected in this study is that there are many viable alternatives to current fuel and propulsion systems but these projects, even if more mainstream than they are currently, will not make significant inroads to working toward the 80% reduction goal and are themselves going to be difficult changes to implement technologically, at least at first. Furthermore, many of the alternative fuel technologies proposed are themselves contributors to the greenhouse gas problem, thus the pollutants still exist but are the responsibility of the energy rather than transportation sector. With these difficulties in mind, the policy approach suggests that “Measures that could stimulate consumer desires for fuel economy without picking a winning technology would ease both the costs and uncertainty borne by the vehicle manufacturers” (Bandivadekar, 2008, p. 2760). What is being suggested then in similar to what Yang et al. (2008) proposed about diversifying the “portfolio” of new transportation fuels is supported here as well.

The problem is, it appears that with the growing crisis, a more direct focus on at least one or two of these possible technologies should be given so that more time is not wasted. This should be a well-funded initiative by both states and the federal government. In fact, any money that is being proposed to go to the automobile manufacturers at this point should be withheld and given to viable possible mass producers of fossil-fuel free technologies. The current standard of fossil fuel-driven cars, trucks, and buses, with few exceptions, was established in the first half of the past century and continues to dominate, although there is an apparent paradigm shift afoot—and not simply because of a widespread recognition of the disastrous environmental impact of such continued reliance on such modes of transport. The fact is, with each passing day, it is becoming less viable to have an economy that hinges on the wide availability of affordable, plentiful diesel and gasoline. With the mortgage crisis and other economic troubles in mind, the collapse of the economy is also riding on problems with affordable fuel for the masses. While there is a current break in the crushing prices of the earlier part of 2008, even three years after the signing of S-3-05 there are few developments and no concrete plan of action. While this is not to suggest that it is due to a lack of desire to cut greenhouse gases, as this paper argues, there is still little genuine incentive to work toward an immediately implementable solution. In other words, we have not hit “rock bottom” yet. With the “big three” automobile companies lining up at the government’s door looking for a financial bailout, a new round of alarming questions about whether or not the industry is reaching its inevitable end are emerging. Many argue that the automobile industry has been far too slow to innovate and react to critical changes such as the rising price of fuel, the increased sense of environmental responsibility that is gradually appearing in mainstream contexts, and of course, the definite recognition that soon enough, there will simply be no more fuel to drive lumbering SUVs, no matter how much residual income someone wants to spend on fuel.

The U.S transportation sector cannot do its fair share to meet this [80% reduction] target through vehicle and fuel technology alone. We have to find a way to sharply reduce the growth in vehicle miles driven across the nation’s sprawling urban areas, reversing the trends that back decades” (Ewing et al., 2007, p. 11). In line with this idea, the suggestion about “reducing travel demand” is quite vague, especially when considering the specific nature of the target of 80% emissions reductions. The only way to reduce demand for transportation is to make it prohibitively expensive. There are no ways that exist that spur change quite like a revolution in cost and unfortunately for all of us Americans who are used to the joys of travel, with environmental problems reaching a critical stage, this is a luxury we will need to sacrifice. Ewing et al, (2007) states that as Americans who have planned our cities and towns based on the idea that everything we needed, our schools, churches, and shopping we just a short drive away. Over time, especially with urban sprawl, these things became farther away, thus causing us to drive longer distances. We have painted ourselves into a corner and need to completely revise the base structure of our lives, our communities, and out ways of thinking about travel. While the concept proposed by Ewing (2007) of compact development is viable, it will take several years and a complete paradigm shift in almost every aspect of our social, consumer, and other ingrained habits.

Although this will be a incredibly and historically unprecedented shift in business, consumer culture, and countless other ways–from where we buy our groceries to where to choose to live so we do not lose touch with our families—the state of California in it’s (overly) ambitious projections does try to offer some incentive. They state that the planned reduction will provide savings for consumers and business, stating that “the emphasis on increasing energy efficiency throughout the economy will help mitigate impacts from likely moderate increases in the prices of energy and fuels that result from moving away from more polluting fuels” (California Air Resources Board, 2008). What this “disclaimer” is stating is that it is going to be a very rough several years as the transition to a new paradigm in transportation manifests fully and that there are a few positive sides for consumers.

While the economic effects stemming from the death of the automobile industry are guaranteed to be far-reaching and drastic in scope, this potential reality is not without a ray of light to brighten the situation. Optimists suggest that without having the possibility of relying on the good old American standards (Ford, GM, etc) of fossil-fuel driven cars, a clear path will be paved for automotive and transportation innovators as the race to see how can produce widely-affordable, viable, and sustainable mass and individual transportation solutions. It will be a difficult transition and American’s current preeminence in manufacturing, part of which stems from a booming automobile industry and all of the related industries that rely on its health, will no longer be present. The only solution, both for the health of our planet and for the more present sake of our economy, will be combine sustainable and clean energy-using cars, trucks, and modes of mass transit. In other words, the greenhouse gas standards that are ideal in 2050 might come about as a result of pure necessity rather than a concentrated policy-driven action.

References

Bandivadekar, et al., 2008. “Reducing the fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of the US vehicle fleet” Energy Policy.
California Air Resources Board (2008). Parts I and II. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan.
Ewing, et al., 2007. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change.
Pacala and Socolow, (2004). “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies” Science, August 13, Vol 305
Yang et al., 2008. Identifying Options for Deep Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from California Transportation: Meeting an 80% Reduction Goal in 2050. Report UCD-ITS-RR-08-23. http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=1197