Can't Afford a Hybrid?: Reduce Your Carbon Emissions with these Cheaper, Better Investments

A great article for those who wish they could afford a Prius: there are many things you can do that cost less, but have as much or more impact on reducing your Greenhouse Gas emissions, including eating Vegetarian and local food and buying green energy. Having implemented many of these actions, I can tell you that they work.

h/t to LNeumann for spotting this article.

[Important Notice]

Go Vegetarian to Help Stop Global Warming!

The meat industry generates 18% of all Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions -- more than the transport sector, i.e. more than cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined! (UN FAO Report, via veg.ca.) In fact, a study has shown that eating just 1 kg of beef causes as many Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions as driving a European car for 250 km, or lighting a 100-watt bulb for 20 days (New Scientist). According to another study, a single person going vegan can save as much GHG per year as a driver switching to a hybrid car (New Scientist). Many households still (thankfully) have more people than cars, so the emission savings per household going vegetarian can be even greater! Also, unlike a new car, going vegetarian can save you money right away (Vegetarian Journal). It can also help you to stay healthy -- and it's the clear moral choice.

The ethical argument is simple, and it's actually related to the health argument: most people would agree that needlessly harming other people or animals for your own pleasure is wrong. For humans, eating meat is unneccesary. Meat-eating is obviously harmful to animals, it wastes crops that could be used to feed people, and it harms the planet. Therefore, eating meat is simply wrong.

First, let's bust the biggest myth about vegetarianism, the notion that you have to eat meat or fish to stay healthy. In fact, this is not necessary:

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases"

(American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, "Vegetarian Diets", June 2003 [emphasis added]; consult with your physician before changing your diet -- see below).

Therefore, for most people, meat-eating a luxury, not a necessity. Some luxuries, like getting a nice massage, are virtually pollution-free, and they harm nobody. But meat-eating is a luxury that definitely harms animals and the planet. Pound-for-pound, calorie-for-calorie, and nutrient-for-nutrient, a vegetarian diet results in less waste and pollution than a meat-based one. For example:

"Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis."

(Cornell Science News, 1997, "U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists. Future water and energy shortages predicted to change face of American agriculture" [emphasis added].)

In fact, getting enough protein on a vegetarian diet is easy (see vegetarian nutrition and cooking links below).

GHG emissions from fossil fuels are just part of the harm. Meat production also wastes enormous quantities of water:

"According to the USDA, growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United States' water supply and 80% of its agricultural land" (Wikipedia).

Meat production endangers drinking water quality, as well. Remember the Walkerton Tragedy in Ontario, Canada? The official report said that

“The primary, if not the only, source of the [E. coli] contamination was manure that had been spread on a farm near Well 5. The owner of this farm followed proper practices and should not be faulted” (CBC).

But would the tragedy have happened without any animal farming? Meat production can even make it lethal to eat vegetables that are grown nearby (remember the California Spinach tragedy in 2006?).

A needless luxury that harms the planet, causes the death and suffering of millions of animals every year, wastes land and crops that could feed people, and may even harm your own health simply must be unethical.

If you'd been following vegetarian literature, you might be wondering why I haven't even mentioned the livestock-methane connection. Others may wonder why I've ignored the religious angle. I think that these arguments are either conditional or unnecessary. Livestock farming produces an estimated 37% of human-released methane (LEAD [PDF p. 6 of 19, printout p. 271]), a very potent greenhouse gas (Wikipedia). But changing animal feed may reduce or eliminate this effect in the future (e.g. Reuters/USA Today via Green Car Congress). This might reduce the meat industry's GHG emissions, but even completely "methane-free" meat would not change any of the other points above, which I think are sufficient on their own. Many world religions happen to preach that vegetarianism is either mandatory or desirable (Wikipedia). But even if you're a "radical atheist" like Douglas Adams (interview), I think that you would find the case for vegetarianism to be compelling on its own terms.

In case you're wondering, we became lacto-ovo vegetarians in 1989-90, and we have gradually moved to a mostly vegan diet (Wikipedia). Our health is good, and the animal-related ethical considerations are the same as ever. Our daughter is growing up healthy, strong, bright, caring -- and vegetarian. Meanwhile, the number of environmental reasons supporting our choice keeps increasing.

Here's an idea: read up on vegetarian nutrition and cooking. Consult your physician -- in fact, have a full check-up. Discuss your plans with your physician. Make sure that you're getting enough physical activity. Now, try going without meat for a day. Then try a week. Then a month. Then three months. At any time, consult your physician if you have any health concerns or questions. Have regular check-ups. Look at your bank account. Look at yourself in the mirror.

If you still decide to go back to eating meat after a year, I'd love to know why. If the objective reason is your own health, then you would have something like a "necessity defence" (Merriam Webster/FindLaw). I suspect that this would be fairly rare. Otherwise, what would be your excuse?

[Important Notice]

Toronto Clues In, Plugs In Hybrids

The City of Toronto is showing real leadership in helping to test plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV). "Regular" hybrid cars will be converted to PHEV by
Hymotion and tested under different use patterns.

How it works: you plug in a PHEV for charging at night just like a pure electric vehicle (EV) -- or like your cell phone. A Hymotion converted Prius can currently go on pure electric drive for 35-50 km, depending on how much air-conditioning is used (see Q8 in the Hymotion FAQ). Those are typical commuting distances for many people. But PHEVs can also switch to hybrid gas/electric for longer trips, becoming "regular" hybrids.

Here are the PHEV advantages:

• While you keep your PHEV in EV mode, you use 0 L per 100 km! For these trips:
  

• You'd cut carbon emissions from driving by an estimated 40% if you use conventional Ontario electricity today -- or 100% if you're on renewable Bullfrog Power. ("A car running on 100% green electricity: priceless!")
  

• You'd start thinking in electricity used per trip, like an EV driver (Tesla Motors Presentation [PDF], via http://www.whnet.com/4x4/hybrid.html).
  

• You'd be "free at last" from rising gasoline prices, the oil companies, OPEC, tar sands, biofuel debates, oil spills, oil-related human rights abuses, and oil wars.

• For trips combining EV and hybrid mode, you'd still get over 100 MPG (US) or under 2.35 L/100 km in a PHEV car.
  

• The added range and ability to refuel at a regular gas station removes one of the usual objections to pure EVs: the fear of running out of battery and being unable to recharge quickly.

• For very long car trips, you'd get something like "regular" hybrid mileage. For example, the 2007 Prius is rated in Canada at 4.0 L/100 km (city) / 4.2 L/100 km (highway) or 71 MPG (city) / 67 MPG (highway) - as usual, "your mileage may vary".

The conversion kits for the Toronto program are made by Hymotion. It's a (formerly) Canadian-owned company, located just north of Toronto, that was recently acquired by U.S.-based A123 Systems. Right now, PHEV car conversions use additional battery packs and software modifications to "regular" hybrids. GM's Chevy Volt would be built on a similar concept from the ground up, although delivery would not be before 2010, depending on battery technology. Other PHEVs under development or testing include Daimler Chrysler Sprinter PHEV delivery vans, modified Cleanova EVs, and probably a PHEV (Prius?) made directly by Toyota.

PHEV technology is not perfect, but many of the down-sides would be temporary, or may be alleviated:

• Cost: larger batteries can be expensive. Hymotion projects a conversion cost of US $ 9,500 (see Q3 of their FAQ) -- on top of the cost of a 2004 or newer Prius. GM is projecting their Volt to be priced under US $30,000. That's more than a typical small car or even a regular Prius, but less than any highway-capable pure EV available today. Eventually, mass-production and/or kaizen (continuous improvement) may drive battery costs down. (That's already happening for "regular" hybrid technology like the one used in the Prius).

• Uphill struggle: for long uphill drives in "regular" hybrid mode, the extra weight of the large battery pack might offset the initial advantage of the EV mode. Regenerative breaking on the downhill drive would recapture some of the lost energy (a PHEV is not a perpetual motion machine :-)
  

• Cold emissions: catalytic converters require a certain minimum temperature to work properly in cutting down smog-forming gases. But after an extended EV-only drive, a PHEV would switch on the gasoline engine / exhaust system without warm-up. This can produce more emissions (at least initially) than a "regular" hybrid, which uses the gasoline engine frequently. Still, even "regular" hybrids have to takes other measures to heat the catalytic converter. Some people have suggested pre-heating the catalytic converter in a PHEV with an electric heater (see the comments below this Green Car Congress post). This which would use up some battery reserves to improve emissions performance on longer trips.
  

• Still Cars: "Regular" hybrids, pure EVs and PHEVs are still cars. They don't offer the health benefits of walking or cycling, or the sociability of public transit. PHEVs would also not encourage higher-density development that would make walking and public transit easier (more in my previous blog post). Having said this, PHEV cars would be a great transitional technology for urban and suburban areas, and may be a longer-term technology for rural areas. Carpooling in a PHEV would be greener and more social than driving one alone. PHEV buses would better yet.
  

• In "Beta": PHEV technology is still in experimental or prototype stages. Focusing on PHEVs exclusively might obscure the usefulness of current technologies like "regular" hybrids. For example, Toronto is unwilling to mandate the conversion of its entire taxi fleet to "regular" hybrids, a move which is expected to help New York City to reduce emissions signigficantly over the next few years.

On balance, by supporting emerging PHEV technology, the City of Toronto is showing real leadership and imagination. One day, higher levels of government in Canada and elsewhere will catch on. Until then, "Plug In, Toronto!"

[Important Notice]

Federal green levies and rebates for cars

The US has had rebates for hybrid vehicles available for a while now, and we are finally catching up. In fact, yesterday's budget brings in both rebates for efficient cars, and a new "green levy" on the most inefficient of cars sold in Canada. (See Annex 5 for details. Search way down at the bottom for "green levy") This levy is comes into effect immediately on any new cars delivered or imported after March 19, 2007. (However vehicles already on dealer lots are exempted.)

So, how inefficient does a car need to be to get hit by the levy? And will it stop people from buying these cars? According to the Dept. of Finance:

Vehicles that have a weighted average fuel consumption of 13 or more litres per 100 kilometres will be subject to the levy at the following rates:

* at least 13 but less than 14 litres per 100 kilometres, $1,000;

* at least 14 but less than 15 litres per 100 kilometres, $2,000;

* at least 15 but less than 16 litres per 100 kilometres, $3,000; and

* 16 or more litres per 100 kilometres, $4,000.

Note that this is a weighted average fuel consumption:

"taking into account 55 per cent of city fuel consumption and 45 per cent of highway fuel consumption, as determined in accordance with information published by the Government of Canada under the EnerGuide mark, such as the 2007 Vehicle EnerGuide."

So, which vehicles will get hit with this levy? If you look at the National Resources Canada Vehicle Energuide site, you can get an idea. Of course, you'll have to do a bit of calculating to figure it out, as they haven't yet added the weighted average calculation to the tables. As an example, I looked at 2007 mid-size vehicles, and sorted by fuel consumption. It looks like anything from the Audi S6 (15.2 l/100 km city/10.4 l/100km hwy) on down will be "levied".

Now, given that the Audi S6 pricing starts at $100,000, how many buyers are likely to be deterred by a $1,000 (or even $4,000) levy?! In fact, this is probably the case for most of the cars likely to be hit with the levy (whose brand names include Mercedes-Benz, Cadillac, Rolls-Royce, Ferrari, etcetera).

[Actually, the CHRYSLER SEBRING FFV (15.5 l/100km city; 10.0 l/100km hwy) looks like it would fall under the levy as well, however the FFV stands for "flex-fuel vehicle", which means that it can run on 85% ethanol, and is therefore eligible for the rebate instead; see below. However, there aren't many places yet in Canada to buy E85 fuel. A lot of the time owners of this car would likely end up using gasoline; and the gasoline consumption ratings alone certainly wouldn't have qualified this car for a rebate.]

In addition to the levy, Flaherty will give you a rebate of up to $2000 if you purchase a more efficient car. (See Chapter 3 of the budget for details.)

The basic rebate amount will be $1,000, and an additional $500 will be added for each half litre per 100 km improvement in the combined fuel-efficiency rating of the vehicle below these thresholds. The maximum rebate value will be $2,000. Efficient E-85 fuel vehicles will be eligible for a rebate of $1,000. Eligible new vehicle purchases or leases as of March 20, 2007, will qualify for the rebate.

Eligible for the full rebate are the Toyota Prius (4.1 l/100km weighted average, MSRP starts at $31,280), Honda Civic Hybrid (4.5 l/100 km weighted average, MSRP starts at $26,250), and Ford Escape Hybrid (7.4 l/100 km weighted average, MSRP starts at $31,499).


These rebates are on top of any provincial rebates that you may have available. (Described in this post, and this post.)

Note the fine print:

While the introduction of rebates for eligible fuel-efficient vehicles is proposed to take effect March 20, 2007, the payment of rebates will be made once administration and delivery systems have been put in place. The Government is aiming to make rebate payments by fall 2007.

So, to sum up, while it's nice to reward people for buying Priuses, it's unlikely that the levy on highly inefficient luxury cars will have any effect on reducing pollution or GHG emissions.

Electric Cars - Ontario, Canada vs. Ontario, California

Contrary to recent reports, the electric car is not dead. Never mind concept cars like GM's Chevy Volt, with their undefined production times. Smaller car makers are almost done road-testing actual prototypes. They are poised to start shipping breakthrough electric vehicles in 2007-2008. Even more revolutionary electric car technology is on the horizon. Some governments around the world are waking up to the economic opportunities. But are Ontario's car industry and its government backers doing anything to get on board?

"Ontario is North America's 2nd largest motor vehicle assembler, after Michigan" (Source: Government of Ontario, Canada). Many thousands of jobs and billions of dollars are at stake in this industry in Ontario, Canada -- but it also happens to produce one of the most visible sources of greenhouse gas emissions, smog and other hazards. Sadly, it seems that many of the players in the industry remain mired in the past, instead of taking a bold, imaginative approach to help ensure a technology lead. Usually, it is the car companies that object to any mandatory emissions rules. More recently, it was the turn of the Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW):

"Canada's largest private sector union said on Thursday that thousands of jobs in the auto industry could be at risk if a left-leaning opposition party [the NDP] succeeds in persuading the government to quickly introduce binding emissions standards on vehicles. " (Story: Reuters via ENN. Original CAW Press Release, January 11, 2007 [corrected link].)

It seems to me that we have a choice between fighting the future or embracing it. We can be dragged into the new era of green vehicles kicking and screaming, or we can take the lead while we still have time. For example, is there a single hybrid car being built in Ontario, Canada? As far as I know, the Ford Edge small SUV (Crossover), assembled in Oakville, Ontario, would be the first one. It is scheduled to have a hybrid version sometime in the "2008 to 2010 time period" (Source: Ford Motor Co.).

Meanwhile, in Ontario, California, Phoenix Motorcars is already taking orders for a new all-electric (not hybrid!) Sports Utility Truck, with an all electric SUV to follow in "late 2007" (Source: Phoenix Motorcars). The vehicles reach "95 mph [153 km/h] carrying five passengers and full payload". They go from "0 to 60 mph [97 km/h] in 10 seconds" (Source). And unlike previous generations of electric vehicles, this one will go the distance:

"The range is approximately 130 miles [209 km] ... currently working on an expansion pack extending the range to 250 miles [402 km], available in 2007" (Source).

By the time the industry in Ontario, Canada turns around to make vehicles like this, would California upstarts like Phoenix Motorcars own the market?

Another California-based contender is also ramping up: Tesla Motors has developed a super-premium all-electric sports car (the Tesla Roadster), with funding and support from an all-star cast of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. They claim to have pre-sold their very first production run of 200+ cars for delivery in 2007 -- priced at US $92,000 each!

Tesla Motors has recently announced plans for a 4-door all-electric coupe car to go into production in 2009. After musing on locating facilities in various places (the reported list did not include Ontario, Canada), they opened a Technical Center in Rochester Hills, Michigan (Source).

Curiously, there is already an electric car company with headquarters in Ontario, Canada: Feel Good Cars (also known as ZENN Motor Co. or ZMC) They make the ZENN, a small, two-seater Neighbourhood Electric Vehicle or NEV, with a speed limit of 40 Km/h (Specifications). It won the 2006 Michelin Challenge Bibendum gold medal in the Urban Vehicle category (Press Release in PDF). Actual assembly takes place in Quebec, but this seems to be the closest we have come to having our own electric car industry.

The ZENN may be small, but its makers dream big:

"It is Feel Good Cars' vision to become the worldwide leader in the electric vehicle industry."

Part of their big strategy has been revealed recently: they are betting on what would be a stunning breakthrough in electricity storage. (Also known as "the battery issue", or "travel range before recharging", this had been the biggest problems facing electric cars for almost a century.) The claimed breakthrough is an electric super-capacitor from Texas-based start-up EESTOR, Inc., which reportedly

"...contains no hazardous materials whatsoever. Yet it acts like a battery in that it stores electricity. If it works as it's supposed to, it will charge up in five minutes and provide enough energy to drive 500 miles [805 km] on about $9 worth of electricity."

And unlike today's batteries, this device would be "recharged in a matter of minutes" -- according to Feel Good Cars. Moreover, Ian Clifford, the CEO of Feel Good Cars, predicts that using this technology,

"A four-passenger sedan will drive like a Ferrari."

Four-passenger car? Drive like a Ferrari? Ambitious words for somebody who now makes only slow two-seaters! But according to a Press Release (PDF),

"Under its Technology Agreement with EEStor, Inc., ZMC holds the worldwide exclusive license for EEStors batteries for small and medium-sized vehicles (up to 1,400 kgs curb weight). The Technology Agreement is in good standing.

"ZENN Motor Company continues to enhance and market its current Low Speed Electric Vehicle product using existing lead-acid battery technology. We have the expertise and capability to integrate EEStor technology into our existing and future vehicles should the EEStor batteries become available says Mike Bergeron, VP of Engineering for ZENN Motor Company."

So apparently, an Ontario, Canada company holds a world-exclusive license to use a "...power source... that could blow away the combustion engine" (source) -- "for small and medium-sized vehicles".

Still, there is no indication yet of when they hope to produce a regular-sized electric car that would be "street legal" regardless of speed limit -- never mind "drive like a Ferrari". And there is no word on what they would do if the EESTOR technology does not live up to its promise.

Meanwhile, the California electric car industry is ramping up production based on conventional or modified Lithium-Ion batteries.

Governments and leaders in other countries are starting to court future electric car producers. A Chinese government fund has recently signed a deal to make the French Cleanova II electric vehicle in Inner Mongolia, Northern China (Source in French, English translation by Google). This car's engine is made by a Canadian company, TM4, a subsidiary of Hydro Quebec (Source in PDF). More recently, Israeli Vice-Premier and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Shimon Peres went to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to talk to Renault (supplier of the Kangoo base vehicle for the Cleanova II testing program) and Toyota about making future electric cars or batteries in Israel (Source).

But is any of this even on the radar screens of the mainstream car industry in Ontario, Canada? Do the Provincial and Federal Governments who had long supported (read, subsidized) this mainstream industry have any clue about the coming electric car revolution?

[Important Notice]