Its true rural and some other less urban areas don’t seem to lend themselves to public transport the same way as cities. Forms of collective ownership of vehicle fleets (rather personal vehicles) is one possible way to reduce their number that is being implemented in some places. I also would argue that the way our population is dispersed may have to change and, in the end, the needs of sustainability and environmental justice must trump what is profitable or convenient.

Other types of vehicles and fuels are not in themselves a bad idea, nor is researching them. What is important is how much emphasis we put on that versus applying solutions we have and know to be effective. It is also crucial who controls the resources invested in and information resulting from that research! Both in terms of the effect it has on our scientific institutions and the way the science is conducted and presented which some of my colleagues here have written on regarding biofuels . I think this sort of conflict Hannah and Becky describe is evident in many debates over the development and application of technologies in the face of looming climate disaster, CSS for example.

Its true the automobile is embedded in American culture, but this was and is the product of larger economic forces. It has been constructed with commercial advertisements, diversion of public works, secret trusts and monopolies. If we are going to stop climate change we are bound to confront them. Harvard economist Paul Sweezey (a peer, friend, and political opponent of Schumpeter) wrote an essay Cars and Cities many years ago:

“The most obvious manifestations of this process—which the late Paul Baran and I have called the “automobilization” of society—are traffic congestion and pollution, and these are also the effects which have been most instrumental in focusing public attention on the social and environmental implications of automobilization. But congestion and pollution are essentially superficial phenomena, comparable to the outward symptoms of a disease with deep roots in the organs of the body. If we are ever to deal with the disease itself we must go beyond the symptoms and study its etiology.”

You write, “we should be giving priority to the chunks that will take the most carbon out of our economy and at the same time provide people with the most benefits.” I totally agree there. Guess we just disagree that cellulosic isn’t one of those. Cheers,

Jesse

As for cellulosic, I understand that it could be carbon neutral. But for some reason it is getting more press than the most important pieces of the game. In my opinion, it is special interests, but regardless of what it is, we should be giving priority to the chunks that will take the most carbon out of our economy and at the same time provide people with the most benefits. Cellulosic is not it, in my opinion.

As for why I don’t support combustion, we’ve all been saying that climate neutrality may in fact not be enough, that we probably have to go carbon negative (or positive, whichever one for you means us taking more carbon than we put out). If we are to achieve what Hansen et al. are saying about 350ppm being a dangerous level, then carbon neutral is not enough. We also have to consider the time lag between when a carbon is out there and when a tree finally absorbs the CO2 we originally burned from an earlier tree. That time lag, 20-40 years maybe, means 20-40 years of warming by the CO2 that eventually will be absorbed by those trees.

Another thing is that to take more carbon than we put out (and get to 350ppm), we’ll have to go crazy with trees and not take them down for combustion purposes (timber purposes are ok as long as they don’t disturb soils too much). We have to use trees to bring CO2 levels down. Right now, that’s the only feasible way of doing it after we eliminate all our emissions. Maybe someone will figure out how to efficiently absorb CO2 from the air and convert it into usable, solid products, but for now trees are what we have to accomplish that last wedge of the pie. So that’s why I’m against combustion in general.

This isn’t to say that breaking our reliance on the automobile isn’t our goal. But the way you message it to the public could probably use a little tweaking! Instead of railing against car culture (and throwing out our most viable alternative to power the cars we will still drive), perhaps an effort to emphasize the benefits of mass transit options, smart growth and getting trucks off our highways and freight back onto rail.

“Tired of congestion? Sick of losing your time (and $300 billion annually across the country!) stuck in traffic? Wish you had real, comfortable, convenient options to get to work?

Well then let me tell you about how we can use smart growth planning to build livable communities with multi-modal transit options, how we could get those annoying,huge, dirty trucks off our roadways if we invested in rail freight (which is, btw, 10 times more efficient than freight transit by truck, even if it’s not electric!), how you could get from San Francisco to LA in 3 1/2 hours on a comfortable high-speed rail line instead of spending 6 hours stuck on I5 in summer Central Valley temps…” etc…

Might work a little better than saying “the car is to blame for all those crises in the world and it’s time for the car to end.” That all may be true! But when you say “the car is to blame,” people hear my car is to blame, and that may not be the most effective way to win support for an investment in mass transit and transportation options… Just a thought.

Just to be clear: cellulosic ethanol, if derived from perennial grasses or fast growing trees, agricultural residue or any number of other sources is just about carbon neutral. There are potentially some fossil fuel inputs for farming and harvesting of dedicated energy crops, but if you count the fact that cellulosic ethanol plants can run without fossil fuel inputs and actually have enough lignin and other biomass residues to burn they can generate carbon-neutral electricity to export to the grid as well. If this electricity offsets typical American grid-mix electricity (i.e. 50% coal), you have a huge net carbon benefit in fact.

Plug-in Hybrids can cut carbon emissions by 40-50% even when running on the typical American electricity grid (which is 50% coal; as the grid gets cleaner, PHEVs will get cleaner too). When running on E85 made from switchgrass or another cellulosic source, they can cut emissions 75%. When running on E100, they can cut emissions 80-90%.

(BTW, I researched all this pretty heavily (see here) in 2006).

So I guess I’m still curious why you’d oppose cellulosic ethanol research? Because it involved combustion? The electricity for plug-ins involves combustion. The combustion for cellulosic ethanol is carbon neutral (just about). Sure seems like this is a tool we need in our toolbox.

Transportation solutions will require all of the above I think:

-Smart growth practices to build walkable, bike-able livable communities with mass transit options
-Excellent urban mass transit options
-Commuter and long-distance high speed electric rail
-Move freight from trucks to rail (preferably electric rail)
-PHEVs
-Cellulosic ethanol
-Probably some more!

This is a HUGE problem and will require a multi-pronged solution. If someone wants to throw out one of the above, you probably need to propose something to replace it.

Uh…I would appreciate some elaboration. First off, restoring them just to cut them down isn’t all that “mean” (not sure what you’re getting at there). Like I explained, prairie grasses and plants have extensive root systems. They can easily survive fire, and cutting isn’t a problem as the above-ground plant dies each year. So no, I don’t think it’s mean. It’s quite nice actually, quite a bit nicer than corn.

Yeah, monsanto is an issue – but it’s not the only company or the only way that cellulosic technology could be developed. Just because monsanto touched something doesn’t make it evil.

Carlos, there are serious ecologic concerns with vehicle-to-grid/plug ins as well, especially in the battery technology and the electricity generation. I understand your concern with the whole hybrid/biofuels/”clean” cars thing, but at the same time, I don’t think that should stop us from investing/researching. However, if technology is successful then citizens should have the opportunity to voice concerns and approve or reject of the technology. Technology isn’t inevitable…

As for investments in cellulosic ethanol, I’m totally against. I agree they’re better than corn ethanol, and so I’d support cellulosic before corn ethanol, but in general I think combustion will have to end if we want to bring the level of carbon in the atmosphere back to 350. If we don’t agree to that goal, then I’d rather not put a cent of my tax dollars in any solutions to global warming because we’re dealing with a lose all or win all situation (i.e. tipping points are the things to avoid at this point). Plug-in electric vehicles? I support investments in these, as long as they’re for the purpose I’ve described rather than high car dependence.

But as Kai points out, we’re going to need a both/and solution. Wee need investments in mass transit AND cellulosic ethanol/plug-in hybrids. Cars are going to be with us for a long time, particularly in developing countries like China and India, who are massively increasing their car ownership. We can’t just put on the rosy-colored glasses and wish it weren’t true.

You say “The part I disagree with is the one about figuring out how to power existing cars in an eco-friendly way.” So just to be clear, do you OPPOSE investments in cellulosic ethanol and plug-in hybrids?

Restoring the native prairies is a great idea. But restoring them just to cut them down, well that’s a bit mean isn’t it? Plus, who’s developing this grand technology to use prairie grass as biofuel? One of them is MONSANTO. Hopefully I don’t need to say more

kodama