This was my response to the Farm Bureau editorial, both to the author and
to the Bull's Eye. If any of you know of  other publications which have
carried this editorial, I'd be glad to send this to them.

Eric G. Hurley

~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mr. Putze:

I read your editorial "Fuel economy/global warming link minimal" July 18,
2001.
I believe your conclusions are based upon inconsistencies in what is commonly
defined as "emissions" from vehicles. Unfortunately, vehicular "emissions" is
commonly used to actually mean "emissions of officially recognized
pollutants."
Since carbon dioxide (and water vapor for that matter) is not currently
considered a pollutant it is commonly not included in official statements
about
vehicular emissions, though it is emitted from the tailpipe of almost all
vehicles. It is definitely not included in current EPA emission standards.
As of now fuel efficiency standards and emission standards are unrelated
regulatory issues, they deal with a different list of gases.

I've laid out my argument below in a response to your editorial. I hope you
find it clear and convincing. I would be happy to talk with you further on
this, though I am not an expert on vehicle emission standards. I'm also hoping
that if your editorial was printed elsewhere that you will write a follow-up
correcting the information.

Thank you for your consideration.

Eric G. Hurley
802 Burnett Ave #3
Ames IA 50010
515-232-2568
Work: 515-294-9602

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bull's Eye
P.O. Box 292
Polk City, IA 50226
[log in to unmask]

Dear editor:

Aaron Putze's argument that raising fuel mileage standards will not reduce
greenhouse gas emissions is incorrect ("Fuel economy/global warming link
minimal" July 18, 2001). His argument is based on the fact that "[emission
standards] are identical for every car or light truck regardless of their fuel
economy." From this he concludes, "therefore, a Cadillac that gets 25 miles
per
gallon on the highway by law cannot emit any more pollution than a Geo Metro
that can tally 58 miles per gallon" and thus increasing vehicular fuel
efficiency will not impact global warming.

This conclusion, though seemingly reasonable, is based on an unfortunate lack
of clarity in the definition of "emissions" and "pollution." Commonly in the
press and even official government documents, the definition of "emissions"
and "pollution" does not include the carbon dioxide coming out of the
tailpipe.
Carbon dioxide is one of the most important greenhouse gases. Yet,
only "official pollutants" have emission standards. In the past we have not
considered carbon dioxide as an "official pollutant" because we were not aware
of any adverse consequences to emitting it. Therefor, current U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency emission standards do not apply to carbon
dioxide nor to attempts to control global warming.

The current emission standards, and the definition of pollutants, are based on
immediate health impacts of certain unintended products from our vehicle
engines. Ideally a car engine takes a fuel which is made up of carbon and
hydrogen (a hydrocarbon), combines it with oxygen from the air and emits
carbon
dioxide, water (hydrogen and oxygen), and the energy we use to move the car.
Since engines aren't perfect converters and the air contains mostly nitrogen,
other emissions can include carbon monoxide, various nitrogen oxides
(sometimes
referred to as NOx), unburned hydrocarbons, and particulate matter. These
emissions cause health problems from carbon monoxide poisoning to smog induced
respiratory problems. Catalytic converters were added to cars in the 70's and
80's to reduce these emissions and, as Mr. Putze states, all such vehicles, no
matter their fuel efficiency, are required to achieve specified standards.

This gets us to the crux of the current debate. Should we consider carbon
dioxide a pollutant since its increased concentration in the atmosphere is
implicated as a primary cause of the global warming we are experiencing?
Should
we then set carbon dioxide emission standards which, for vehicles, is
synonymous with setting fuel efficiency standards?

Each gallon of gasoline we burn produces about 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide.
This is the immutable consequence of burning fossil fuels including gasoline,
diesel, coal, propane, and natural gas and is currently not regulated. No
technology can change this emission. The more we burn, the more carbon dioxide
is emitted into the atmosphere where it can trap the sun's warmth and heat the
earth.

However, using clever technology we can change the amount of work we achieve
from burning that gallon of gasoline. The relationship is really quite simple.
Mr. Putze's Cadillac will produce roughly twice as much carbon dioxide on a 50
mile trip than his Geo Metro. If we raise fuel efficiency standards 40%, as
Mr.
Putze suggests, we'll produce 40% less carbon dioxide emissions while still
getting from Marshalltown to Des Moines.

As Mr. Putze argues, increased vehicular fuel efficiency will only provide a
modest decrease in our carbon dioxide emissions and thus provide only a
partial
solution to preventing continued global warming. We must continue to seek out
and implement other technologies to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. We must
dramatically increase the efficiency of our materials and machines, our
factories, our agricultural systems, our communities, and our way of life. We
must develop renewable sources of energy from biofuels to wind energy.
There is
tremendous economic opportunity for those of us with the vision to grasp and
exploit this new economy.

Eric G. Hurley
802 Burnett Ave #3
Ames IA 50010-6130
515-232-2568


At 10:44 AM 8/1/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>I thought you would be interested to see the Guest Editorial that apppeared
>in "The Bull's
>Eye", a small newspaper in Johnston, Iowa on July 18, 2001.
>
>Material for the Bull's Eye must be signed and include an address and phone
>number for verification.  Mail to Bull's Eye, P.O. Box 292, Polk City, IA
>50226; or fax to 515-984-7985; or e-mail to [log in to unmask]
>
>Jane Clark
>
>===================================================
>
>"Fuel economy/global warming link minimal"
>
>By Aaron Putze
>Iowa Farm Bureau
>
>These who believe the use of trucks, sport utility vehicles and full-sized
>cars and sedans contributes to global warming continually advocate higher
>fuel mileage standards.They argue that such vehicles emit greater amounts of
>pollutants than more fuel-efficient vehicles.  However, a closer look at the
>relationship between fuel economy and alleged global warming reveals that
>any possible link is weak at best.
>
>The Department of Transportation sets standards requiring every auto maker
>to meet an average fuel economy level for the entire fleet of cars or light
>trucks it sells annually.  Separately, the Environmental Protection Agency
>sets emissions standards for the same vehicles -- standards that are
>identical for every car or light truck regardless of their fuel economy.
>
>Therefore, a Cadillac that gets 25 miles per gallon on the highway by law
>cannot emit any more pollution than a Geo Metro that can tally 58 miles per
>gallon.  Any additional emissions generated by the larger vehicle must be
>controlled through hardware on the vehicle.  The point is that the Cadillac
>cannot pollute more than the Geo Metro.  This fact spurred the National
>Academy of Sciences (NAS), an independent, nonprofit reseach orgnaization,
>to state in a 1992 report that fuel economy improvements will not directly
>affect vehicle emissions.
>
>In addition, even if scientists agreed that significant global warming is
>occurring, cars and light trucks subject to fuel economy standards make up
>only 1.5 percent of all global man-made greenhouse gas emissions.  A 40
>percent increase in fuel economy standards would produce at most, a
>reduction of less than one-half of 1 percent of that portion of man-made
>greenhouse gasses.
>
>This reduction is so neglible that even the NAS stated that greenhouse gas
>emissions from the production of substitute materials used to increase fuel
>economy (such as aluminum) could substantially offset decreases of those
>emissions achieved through improved fuel economy.  The NAS study concluded
>that while some incremental improvements in vehicle fuel economy is
>possible, it will not come without significant trade-offs for consumers in
>terms of vehicle safety, price, performance and utlity.
>
>Higher fuel economy standards will continue to be discussed by some as a way
>to curb global warming.  The facts show however, that such an argument may
>not be valid.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
>to [log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]