The U.S. automobile industry has shown admirable ingenuity in developing new technologies to reduce the greenhouse gases produced by its cars and trucks. The problem is that a religious devotion to bigger, glitzier and more powerful vehicles and increased output have undercut the industry’s advances.
Data included in a recently released report by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (2019) shows that new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. saw a 90 percent increase in average fuel economy between 1975 and 2017, which is that last year that full data was available. That translated into a 48 percent decrease in average CO2 emissions per vehicle.
That might sound pretty good, particularly when 2017 saw all-time best numbers for both average fuel economy and CO2 emissions. Indeed, the EPA concluded that the auto industry “has made strong progress . . . in recent years” (2019; p. 5).
Transportation emissions are still growing
The problem with this spin is that greenhouse gas emissions aren’t coming down nearly as fast as U.S. targets established prior to the current president’s election (Rhodium Group, 2019).
Another recent federal report, The Fourth National Climate Assessment, concluded that “without substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and regional adaptation efforts, there will be substantial and far-reaching changes over the course of the 21st century with negative consequences for a large majority of sectors, particularly towards the end of the century” (2018, Chapter 1).
Transportation is one of the largest U.S. sources of greenhouse gases (EPA, 2018). In 2016 that sector made up 28 percent of emissions. Light-duty vehicles (including passenger cars and light trucks) comprised 60 percent of transportation emissions, dwarfing medium- and heavy-duty trucks (23 percent), and aircraft (9 percent). The EPA noted that “emissions in the transportation sector increased more in absolute terms than any other sector (i.e. electricity generation, industry, agriculture, residential, or commercial) due in large part to increased demand for travel” (EPA, 2018).
Also see ‘All-time best climate change coverage by auto media?’
The EPA would be reporting a considerably larger CO2 reduction for autos in 2017 if the industry had not doubled down on larger sport-utility vehicles. And engaged in a horsepower race. And if annual output of vehicles with conventional internal-combustion engines had not grown to 15-17 million units.
Fatter and faster overpower technological tricks
The EPA report quite rightly places a major emphasis on discussing technological advancements that have helped the industry reduce CO2 emissions, particularly for larger vehicles.
For example, use of gasoline direct injection, multi-valve engines, turbocharging and start/stop technology has grown rapidly over the last half decade, as have continuously variable transmissions and those with seven or more gears.
The result? “The amount of fuel consumed by a gasoline engine, relative to the total displacement, has fallen about 15% since model year 1975, and fuel consumption relative to engine horsepower has fallen more than 65% since model year 1975,” stated the EPA (2019, p. 43).
Perhaps the most clear-cut example of technological innovation is with the pickup truck, which saw its average CO2 emissions fall by 12 percent between 2000 and 2017.
That is a meaningful reduction, but average emissions for pickups were still quite high — 470 grams per mile in 2017. In contrast, sedans and wagons (an EPA category that includes everything from subcompacts to two-seat sports cars) averaged only 293 g/mi.
Fancy technology will only take you so far
All those bells and whistles have not been able to make up for vehicles getting bigger and heavier. In 2017 the average weight of new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. was slightly higher than back in the bad old days of 1975, when land yachts ruled (EPA, 2019).
In the late-70s and early-80s domestic automakers downsized their entire passenger-car fleet in response to CAFE fuel economy standards. This resulted in the industry’s average weight for all light vehicles dropping 21 percent — from 4,060 to a low of 3,202 pounds. However, within a decade average weights were growing again, primarily due to larger SUVs and trucks.
By 2004 the average weight surpassed that of 1975 and has hovered around 4,000 pounds ever since. This has been heavily driven by what the EPA classifies as trucks, which the agency breaks down into three categories: pickups, minivans and vans, and truck SUVs. Pickups saw their average weight increase by 29 percent between 1975 and 2018. This is despite Ford shifting its F-150 to a lighter aluminum body in 2015 (EPA, 2019).
All-wheel drive and horsepower race drive emissions
Automotive obesity has been spurred by four- and all-wheel drive, which has grown from 3.3 percent of the car and light-truck market in 1975 to 41 percent in 2017.
Meanwhile, the auto industry has engaged in an unprecedented horsepower race. Whereas the average vehicle had 137 horsepower in 1975, by 2017 it had jumped 70 percent to 233 hp.
Here again trucks were the primary reason for those increases. Between 1975 and 2017 horsepower was up by 83 percent for vans and minivans, and 141 percent for pickups. In contrast, horsepower for sedans and wagons increased by only 49 percent (EPA, 2019).
To give you a sense of the magnitude of opportunities lost, consider the following alternative scenario for 2017. If the U.S. industry had the same proportion of passenger cars as in 1980 — 84 percent rather than 53 percent — the average gas mileage for all cars and trucks in 2017 would have been 28.5 mpg rather than 24.9 mpg. That would have translated into average CO2 emissions of 319 grams per mile — substantially below the actual figure of 357 g/mi.
The graph below shows how trucks have become the tail that wags the dog of the U.S. auto industry (EPA, 2019). Although pickups have had a fairly stable market share — around 12 to 15 percent — production of truck SUVs has grown to the point where in 2017 they comprised almost 32 percent of the market.
More ICE autos mean more greenhouse gases — duh
This brings us to the biggest problem with the EPA’s contention that the auto industry has recently “made strong progress” in cutting CO2 emissions. When the agency crows about a 23 percent reduction between 2004 and 2017, that only represents a per-unit figure. Even though individual vehicles may be less polluting, increased industry sales have partially erased those gains.
The EPA report does not include the graph below, which takes U.S. automotive production data and multiplies it by the average CO2 emissions for each of the EPA’s five major categories of vehicles. This paints a very different picture than the EPA graph shown near the top of this story.
To a significant degree, CO2 emissions have followed the ups and downs of industry production. As a case in point, emissions were 47 percent lower in 2009 — which was at the bottom of the Great Recession — than in 1975.
Comparing 1975 and 2017 better reflects the general trajectory of emissions. Average CO2 g/mi declined by less than 13 percent.
This graph also shows how all categories of trucks have had an outsized impact on overall emissions since the early-90s. For example, even though they represented 47.5 percent of production in 2017, trucks contributed 66 percent of CO2 emissions.
What if vehicle output hadn’t grown so much?
Let’s go back to our above-mentioned scenario for 2017 where the auto industry had the same mix of cars and trucks as it did in 1980. At 2017 output levels, that would have resulted in CO2 emissions dropping by almost 22 percent from 1975 levels — a 7-percent improvement over actual emissions.
Now let’s replace 2017’s output, which totaled more than 17 million units, with 1980’s, which was roughly 11.3 million. That would have resulted in 48 percent less CO2 emissions than in 1975. Or plug in 1982’s output, which was 9.7 million, and emissions would have dropped more than 55 percent from 1975. Either scenario results in more than a four-fold improvement over actual emissions.
The bottom line is that as long as the market largely consists of vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines, the easiest way to cut emissions of new vehicles is to reduce the number sold.
Auto executives would presumably argue that significantly lower output would be disastrous for the industry. Some automakers did suffer greatly in the early-80s as well as during the Great Recession, when output bottomed out at 9.3 million in 2009.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the post-war period has often been pointed to as the golden age of the U.S. auto industry. Yet between 1950 and 1969, domestic automakers never hit 10 million units (go here for further discussion).
One could argue that continuing annual output of 15-17 million would help reduce CO2 emissions because new vehicles are generally less polluting than the vehicles they replace. This logic has merit but would be stronger if new vehicles had dramatically lower — or zero — emissions. At least thus far, that has often not been the case.
Everyone’s going bigger, glitzier and more powerful
Toyota has cultivated a “green” reputation because it showed early leadership in developing hybrid technology. However, Toyota was the only major automaker whose average CO2 emissions increased between 2012 and 2017 (EPA, 2019). Why? Because of a greater emphasis on larger SUVs.
To be fair, Toyota’s CO2 emissions were still below the industry average of 357, putting it in fifth place. In addition, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, General Motors and Mercedes-Benz had much higher average CO2 emissions.
To a certain degree it made sense that Mercedes-Benz had the fourth-highest CO2 emissions because the automaker specializes in larger luxury vehicles. However, its arch-rival BMW had lower average emissions. This was because its vehicle fleet weighed less, had less horsepower and got better gas mileage even though its average 0-to-60 time — 7.0 seconds — was identical to that of Mercedes.
It is not surprising that the Big Three automakers had by far the highest average CO2 emissions because they also had among the highest average weights and horsepower. This was mostly a result of the Big Three producing the largest proportion of trucks of any major automaker.
After all these years, Detroit is still obsessed with bigger, glitzier and more powerful vehicles. And unlike in the 1970s and 80s, the largest Japanese automakers are playing follow the leader.
For example, even though Toyota’s sedans and wagons had lower average CO2 emissions than the Big Three’s in 2017, that was not the case with its pickups. Toyota’s average emissions were 476 g/mi, which was higher than Ford and GM’s — and the industry average of 470 g/mi. In addition, pickups represented 15.6 percent of Toyota’s total production, which isn’t that much lower than Fiat Chrysler’s 18.1 percent and Ford’s 19.8 percent (EPA, 2019).
Electric vehicles could save big SUVs and trucks
How much longer will bigger, glitzier and more power vehicles overshadow the increasingly pressing need for major CO2 reductions? The Trump administration presumably wants the party to continue by relaxing fuel economy standards (Beene, 2019).
However, a handful of automakers such as General Motors and Volkswagen are making major investments in electric vehicles. Meanwhile, upstart automaker Rivian is launching an electric pickup and SUV (go here for further discussion).
If the Rivian sells well, the fledgling automaker would help bring down CO2 emissions for trucks. However, aside from the electric powertrain, Rivian’s first two products are not paradigm challenging. The dimensions of its R1T four-door pickup are similar to a Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado. By the same token, the R1S is a seven-passenger SUV that is in the same ballpark as the Ford Expedition and Chevy Tahoe.
The “bigger, glitzier and more powerful” religion has a savior, and its name is electric power. The crowning touch would be for Cadillac, which is shifting to electric, also brought back a luxury coupe with the baroque grandeur of the 1975 Eldorado pictured at the top of this story. Imagine: All the gratuitous excess without the greenhouse gases!
With electric vehicles, the 1970s could become the party that never ends.
NOTES:
Gas mileage figures used a “real-world” methodology that is not comparable to a regime used to establish automaker compliance with CAFE standards. For example, compliance mpg uses a simpler methodology and may “encompass credits and other flexibilities that manufacturers can use towards meeting their emissions standards,” according to the EPA (2019, p. 3).
Estimated CO2 emissions from vehicles with gas-powered engines were calculated by dividing 8,887 grams per gallon by the vehicle’s average real-world fuel economy. Diesel emissions were calculated by dividing 10,180 g/gal by a vehicle’s average real-world mpg.
Specifications for 1975 cars and trucks were drawn from John Gunnell (1993, 2002). Production and market share figures for 1950-69 were calculated from data in Wikipedia (2013).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Beene, Ryan; 2019. “Trump, environmentalists seize on fuel efficiency gains.” Automotive News (subscription required). Posted March 6; accessed March 28.
- EPA; 2018. Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990-2016. Environmental Protection Agency. Posted July; accessed March 28, 2019.
- ——–; 2019. The 2018 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975. Environmental Protection Agency. Posted March; March 28.
- Gunnell, John; 1993. Standard Catalog of American Light-Duty Trucks, 1896-1986. Second Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- ——–; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Rhodium Group; 2019. Preliminary US Emissions Estimates for 2018. Posted January 8; accessed March 29.
- USGCRP; 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment, Chapter 1: Overview. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Posted November 23; accessed March 28, 2019.
- Wikipedia; 2013. “U.S. Automobile Production Figures.” Accessed July 5.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcaradvertising.com: Cadillac Eldorado (1975); Ford LTD (1975)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet Suburban (1975); Dodge D-50 (1980)
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Rivian Automotive: R1S and R1T
Be the first to comment