Switchboard, from NRDC › Rich Kassel's Blog

EPA: Oil industry assumptions about Tier 3 are wrong

2012-01-27T17:50:07Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

Margo Oge, EPA’s Director of Office of Transportation and Air Quality, has confirmed what I wrote in my Tier 3 post last week, which described the agency’s possible approach in its upcoming proposal to create a new rule to reduce emissions from the nation’s cars, light trucks, and sport-utility vehicles (regulated together as “light-duty vehicles”).

According to a story published today at Inside EPA, Oge was speaking at the Washington Auto Show on January 26, and said that the oil industry’s study of the possible costs of a new Tier 3 program of cleaner fuels and vehicles is based on costs of a program “EPA is not planning to propose.”

I’m not going to repeat the details of the industry’s arguments. They are pulling out the usual “this will cost too much money, cost jobs, etc.” arguments that they always use, despite a long history of cleaner fuels and cleaner vehicles regulations that have consistently been extremely cost-effective investments to improve human health.

With respect to Tier 3, the industry really has its facts wrong.

Most of the industry’s presumed cost increases are due to tightened limits on something called Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), a measure of fuel volatility.

But Oge made it clear: there are no plans to tighten RVP in the Tier 3 proposal.

The industry study also assumed a drop in sulfur levels from today’s 30 ppm to 5 ppm.

But again, Oge confirmed that the industry is talking about a program that “EPA is not planning to propose.” She confirmed that the Tier 3 proposal would not include a reduction to 5 ppm. Indeed, sources have been saying that sulfur would likely be reduced to 10 ppm for months.

(This may not sound like a big difference, but refinery costs go up as you get closer and closer to zero sulphur, so the industry’s error is significant).

As I wrote last week, the bottom line is this:

If EPA implements a Tier 3 program that harmonizes its standards with the standards that will soon exist in California and other states that follow California’s standards, nitrogen oxides would be reduced by 29 percent, hydrocarbons by 26 percent, and carbon monoxide by 38 percent, according to an important study released last fall by a highly-respected association of state and local air regulators.

Tier 3 standards would help states meet existing clean air requirements without requiring costlier controls on other air pollution sources--and improve human health for millions of people around the nation.

Nobody—neither the EPA, nor the White House, nor consumers and drivers—should fall for the oil industry’s scare tactics, especially when they get the facts so wrong.

Cutting dirty diesel pollution can reduce global warming while it improves human health

2012-01-18T17:56:14Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

My colleague, Dan Lashof, just posted a great summary of the study, published in Science this week, that explained how cutting soot and smog pollution could help reduce the impacts of global warming in the short-term, while improving human health and buying time for critically important reductions in carbon pollution to take effect over the long term. The study included a list of 14 key strategies like cleaner diesel engines, improved cookstoves, and capturing methane releases from coal, oil and gas production.

Here’s the key take-away:

“[T]argeted measures to curb methane, black carbon, and carbon dioxide emissions would yield huge public health and environmental benefits. Pollution reductions from this strategy would prevent 700,000 to 4.7 million premature deaths each year, increase crop yields, and greatly reduce the risk of extreme climate disruption that lies beyond global warming of 2 degrees Celsius.”

Wow, that’s important news.

NRDC’s work to reduce dirty diesel pollution fits right into these measures.

Experts say that roughly one-quarter of the world’s black carbon comes from dirty diesel engines. By “dirty diesel,” we mean engines that run on high sulfur fuels and that lack the type of particulate filters that have been standard equipment on U.S. diesel trucks and buses since 2007.

For the past ten years, as regular readers of my posts know, NRDC has partnered with the United Nations Environment Program and a wide range of government, industry, and NGO stakeholders in the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles. The Partnership is working in dozens of countries, teaming up with local partners to help governments eliminate leaded gasoline, reduce sulfur levels in diesel fuel, and introduce cleaner vehicles.

By reducing sulfur levels, all diesel vehicles on the road get a bit cleaner, since the cleaner fuel leads directly to cleaner tailpipes.

But the real benefit is that, once ultra-low levels are reached (50 parts-per-million or less), particulate filters can be used that can eliminate more than 90 percent of the particulate matter that triggers asthma emergencies, cancers, and premature deaths—and that effectively filters out the black carbon emissions that accelerate the impacts of global warming.

We are making good headway, but there is more work ahead.

When the Partnership adopted a global goal of 50 ppm or less for the world’s diesel fuel in 2005, not even the U.S. had ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel nationwide (that would happen in late 2006). Many countries had sulfur levels of 2,000, 5,000 or even 10,000 ppm.

Today, many countries have adopted our 50 ppm, "ultra-low sulfur" goal as a long-term policy target. Countries like India and South Africa have reduced their sulfur levels to 500 ppm or below.

But high sulfur levels remain the norm in most developing and transitional nations.

In fact, only a handful of non-OECD countries, including Costa Rica, Chile, Morocco, and Tunisia, have ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel nationwide. You can get this cleaner diesel fuel in Hong Kong, but you can't get it in China unless you are in Beijing or Shanghai. You can get it in Delhi, Mexico City and a number of other large cities in India and Mexico, but it's almost impossible to find beyond their city limits.

Our goals for the next five years: just as we worked with our partners in the PCFV to eliminate leaded gasoline, we will now work together to reduce sulfur levels in diesel fuel, and we will work with countries to introduce the particulate filters that cut both particulate matter and black carbon.

When we started working with the Partnership, we were driven by health concerns of lead in gasoline and diesel particulates in urban air. Today, we are still compelled by those concerns, but increasingly, we see that this work is also a component of a comprehensive global warming strategy that addresses both the short-term pollutants like black carbon and the long-term, heat-trapping pollutants like carbon dioxide.

Dan’s post summarizes a very important addition to our knowledge base on the many complementary strategies that will be needed to improve human health and combat global warming around the globe. I highly recommend you take a look at it—and if you like reading about science, take a look at the study itself.

EPA Tier 3 will cut emissions, improve human health, and put money in people's pockets

2012-01-17T15:22:32Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

Last week, I wrote about the need to move Tier 3 forward, which followed up on a letter that the leaders of NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists sent to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson earlier in the week.

Predictably, over the weekend, I read skeptical remarks in the trade press from the oil industry and their friends in the U.S. Senate.

So, today, I’m going to hit some of the major facts to set the record straight.

Fact No. 1: Our nation’s air is still too polluted for too many people.

More than 125 million people still breathe air that is too polluted for their health, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. They live in areas that don’t meet EPA’s health-based standards for either ozone, particulate matter, or both.

People who live in these areas face higher risk of increased asthma attacks, bronchitis, cancer, heart disease, and premature deaths.

Fact No. 2: Cleaner cars are a cost-effective way to help states and communities get cleaner air.

Summertime smog (or ground-level ozone) is created when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (or hydrocarbons) combine in sunlight. Cars and other light-duty vehicles are a major source of these gases.

In fact, these vehicles contribute roughly half of the nitrogen oxides generated on our highways, and more than ten times as much of volatile organic compounds as all of our heavy-duty trucks and buses.

As Bill Becker, the long-time executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), explains it, “There is no rule that will provide states and localities with as significant and as expeditious reductions in NOx as the Tier 3 regulations.”

His organization did a study a few months ago, which looked at the key question of cost-effectiveness. In other words, they looked at all of the likely ways that states could get cleaner air and achieve the EPA health-based standards. They looked at new strategies and solutions for power plants, small gas boilers, municipal waste incineration, and other strategies that are on the table.

Their key finding: a national program to reduce nitrogen oxides from cars and other light-duty vehicles would deliver nitrogen oxides reductions at a cost of approximately $3,300 per ton. Other strategies went all the way up to $300,000 per ton.

Fact No. 3: Cleaner cars won’t significantly add to the costs of driving.

The average new car costs almost $30,000 today. The estimated cost of the improved catalysts that will meet Tier 3? Less than $150 per vehicle. That’s ½ of one percent.

In other words, it is hard to imagine that anybody will skip buying a new car because it comes with a Tier 3 catalyst.

Aahhh, but six U.S. Senators, all from oil states—Senators James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), and Mark Begich (D-Alaska)—say that Tier 3 will add to the cost of driving by driving up the cost of gasoline. In a letter they sent to the White House last week, they pointed out that the average cost of gasoline is currently $3.38.

They also cite a study bought by the oil industry, which estimates the potential price increase as 12 – 25 cents per gallon. What don’t they cite? Most of that estimated price increase is due to a change in something called the “Reid Vapor Pressure” of gasoline.

Guess what?

According to every source I can find, EPA isn’t planning to change to the “Reid Vapor Pressure” in its Tier 3 proposal. They are planning to reduce sulfur levels, but Reid Vapor Pressure changes are not anticipated.

What’s the cost estimate for reducing sulfur in gasoline to 10 ppm? Less than a penny per gallon, according to the expert refinery consulting firm MathPro, which did a study that looked at the sulfur reduction costs specifically.

Listen, I’m sensitive to cost increases. I’ve got two kids, a mortgage, and a very old car that doesn’t get replaced because I’m part of the 99% who delay car purchases when things seem a bit tight.

But a penny a gallon? If gas costs $3.38/gallon, that is an increase of 3/10ths of one percent of the current cost of gasoline.

I can take a ten minute drive past a half-dozen gas stations stretched along a single road, and see far bigger price differentials in the market right now.

Plus, according to a very impressive study by CNT, the average cost of owning, fueling, and maintaining a car today is more than $7,000 per year.

Adding ½ of one percent to the cost of buying a car and 3/10 of one percent to the cost of fuel is not going to significantly change that whopper of a hit to most family budgets. And, I think that adding ½ of one percent to the cost of buying a car and 3/10 of one percent to the cost of fuel is a reasonable cost to pay for significantly cleaner cars, cleaner air, and the health benefits that go along with those cleaner cars.

The bottom line:

If EPA implements a Tier 3 program that harmonizes its standards with the standards that soon exist in California and other states that follow California’s standards, we could see nitrogen oxides reduced by 29 percent, hydrocarbons by 26 percent, and carbon monoxide by 38 percent according to the NACAA study. Plus, particulate matter would be reduced, which should ease the concerns of people who wonder whether their health concerns about old, dirty diesel school buses in their communities should extend to the new, fuel-efficient diesel cars that are entering the market.

In other words, the costs would be reasonable, and the benefits would be great.

Nobody—neither the EPA, nor the White House, nor consumers and drivers—should fall for the oil industry’s scare tactics.

When will EPA release its new car pollution proposal?

2012-01-12T15:59:25Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

This is a post about an EPA proposal that hasn’t been proposed. It’s a post about a proposal that environmentalists, state air regulators, and industry stakeholders have been waiting a year and a half to see. And, it’s a post about an important issue that has not received much attention, so it may be news to you.

Here goes:

On May 21, 2010, I joined my colleagues at EPA, in the health and environmental communities, and in the vehicle emissions industries in the White House Rose Garden to hear President Obama announce a three-part plan to reduce pollution from our nation’s vehicles.

First, the President directed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation to create the first-ever fuel economy and greenhouse gas requirements for our nation’s trucks.

Second, the President directed these two agencies to collaborate on the next round of fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for cars, light trucks, and sport-utility vehicles, which would cover these so-called “light-duty vehicles” for model years 2017- 2025.

Third, the President directed EPA to create a new set of emissions standards to reduce tailpipe pollution from these light-duty vehicles—pollution that leads to more summertime smog and soot. These standards would update the so-called "Tier 2" standards that EPA set way back in 1999 - so they quickly became known, in the world of jargon, as the "Tier 3" standards.

Today, the truck rule is complete, and the fuel economy proposal for light-duty vehicles is moving through the regulatory process. Together, these are the biggest steps on fuel economy ever taken. Collectively, they will save consumers and businesses money and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global warming. The President, EPA, and DOT all deserve our thanks for their leadership and action on these issues.

But the Tier 3 proposal to reduce the vehicle emissions that contribute to asthma, cancer, heart attacks and premature deaths has not been released yet.

The need for the new Tier 3 standards is clear: Despite continued progress over the past forty years, more than one-third of all Americans still live in communities where the air pollution levels exceed EPA’s health-based standards for smog and soot. Cleaner cars are the one of the most cost-effective ways to help states deliver cleaner air to their communities.

Over the past year, there have been many reports that EPA’s work is almost done. The word on the street is that EPA will harmonize its Tier 3 standards with the new vehicle pollution standards about to be finalized in California, so automakers can make the same car in all fifty states.

That means that sulfur levels in gasoline will be reduced from today’s levels (a cap of 80 parts-per-million, and an average of 30 ppm) to a cap of 10 ppm. With lower sulfur fuels, cleaner tailpipe standards that reduce smog-forming gases (nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon) and soot (particulate matter) could be introduced at minimal cost to consumers—costs that will be dwarfed by the resulting health benefits.

But the rule hasn’t been proposed.

And the regulatory process takes time.

EPA has to send its proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. Then, OMB has up to 90 days to review it. Then, EPA has to formally propose the new rules, hold hearings, review and respond to public comments, and then, it gets to finalize the rule.

And then, the Clean Air Act, reasonably enough, gives auto makers four years of advance time to get ready for major new rules like Tier 3.

So, there are a lot of steps and the process takes time, but the math is actually simple: the sooner EPA proposes its Tier 3 rule, the sooner Americans will get cleaner cars and cleaner air.

Tomorrow, I will post again on the specific components that we hope to see in the proposal, as well as provide additional information on expected costs and benefits. NRDC looks forward to working closely with EPA and the Obama administration, as well as all stakeholders, towards the best possible rule.

For today, though, the message is simple: it’s time to get the EPA proposal out the door, and start the regulatory process.

Latest Japanese fad gives new meaning to the term "Light Trucks"

2011-12-16T16:41:55Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

Are you watching the family next door trick out their front lawn with holiday lights and inflatable lawn Santas, and wondering whether you can top them?

In the spirit of the not writing something serious today (NRDC’s holiday party is tonight, so it’s a good day for a light-hearted post), check out the latest fad in Japan...

According to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Mail that I just read, families in Japan spend months installing so many lights and designs that they are too bright to drive legally on Japanese highways. The designs can cost more than $150,000. They use so much power that they typically need a special generator underneath the chassis, and they can only be turned on for 20 minutes before they overheat.

This is just one example from the article:

I’ll be writing later about EPA’s Tier 3 proposal, wondering why it hasn’t come out yet, and that’ll be more serious.

But for now, you gotta check this out.

Time to move forward with the right plan to clean up Mexico's dirty diesels

2011-11-30T21:01:30Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

Earlier this week, the Teamsters, Public Citizen, and the Sierra Club filed their latest lawsuit (read more here) in their longstanding dispute about whether Mexican and U.S. trucks should be able to deliver goods in each other’s countries.

NRDC is not involved in this lawsuit. But since 2004, I have been working with Mexican environmental groups like the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA) and the Center for Sustainable Transport (CTS) to help move Mexico towards cleaner diesel trucks and buses.

The need is clear – more than half of Mexico City’s high rates of combustion-related particulate matter come from these dirty diesel vehicles, leading to avoidable asthma emergencies, bronchitis, lost work days, and premature deaths. According to a review of the World Health Organization’s most recent data by our coalition partners at el Poder del Consumidor, outdoor air pollution is linked to 14,000 premature deaths every year in Mexico. (I first wrote about this new WHO data in September).

The solution is also clear—if Mexico adopted fuel and emission standards that are comparable to those of the U.S., Canada and Europe, thousands of lives, as well as 270,000 cases of chronic bronchitis and 15 million lost work days, would be saved every year.

Earlier this week, CEMDA, CTS and el Poder del Consumidor joined together to call on Mexico’s environmental agency, once again, to move forward on a longstanding plan to bring Mexico’s standards up to the U.S., Canadian, and European levels.

Here’s the situation: In 2006, Mexico adopted the same ultra-low sulfur diesel standard (ULSD) as the United States and Canada (a limit of 15 parts-per-million, rather than the current 500 ppm), and theoretically has required this fuel nationwide since the fall of 2009.

With ULSD in place, diesel particulate filters could be used that will eliminate more than 90 percent of the harmful particulate pollution that comes from incomplete diesel combustion. Since 2007, all new truck engines sold in the U.S. have these filters, thanks to EPA’s stringent emission standards.

In my description of the situation above, I used the word "theoretically" because PEMEX, the state-owned oil company, has dragged its heels, with no apparent enforcement actions or penalties for its long delay. In fact, as we approach 2012, the cleaner diesel fuel is available only in the border zone, Mexico City, Guadalajara, and a few other places.

PEMEX’s lack of progress suggests strongly that, despite the legal requirement to do so, it believes that it does not need to provide ULSD so long as Mexican trucks are built to weaker standards than American trucks, and therefore don’t need the cleaner fuel to operate properly. Engine makers, of course, do not sell U.S.-quality engines in Mexico, since the emission control systems on those engines will be damaged by Mexico’s high-sulfur fuel.

Everybody I talk to in Mexico knows the solution—create a new regulation that gives PEMEX some extra time to implement a nationwide USLD plan but that includes the right enforcement and implementation measures so the necessary refinery upgrades actually happen this time, and concurrently upgrade Mexico’s emission standards so trucks and buses in Mexico are as clean as they are in the U.S., Canada, and Europe.

Mexican Environmental Secretary Juan Rafael Elvira Quesada has said that the agency is in the process of updating its fuel and emission standards, although it’s not clear what the timetable for finalizing the new standards will be. With President Felipe Calderon entering his final year in office, there is very little time for further delay.

Let’s hope that our coalition partners’ call for action will help move the process along.

NRDC joins UNEP to celebrate global elimination of leaded gasoline--A huge step forward for children's health

2011-10-27T15:45:19Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

NRDC Executive Director Peter Lehner and Director of Global Strategy & Advocacy Jacob Scherr joined UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner at the United Nations today to declare victory in the decades-long campaign to eliminate leaded gasoline worldwide.

At the event, Dr. Thomas Hatfield of California State University, Northridge, released an independent, peer-reviewed study, which found that eliminating leaded gasoline worldwide will avoid 1.2 million premature deaths and $2.4 trillion in health and economic costs every year.

This is huge news for children and families worldwide. The dangers of airborne lead are well-known, especially with respect to lead’s impacts on brain and other development in children. As Peter said at the event, “Doctors tell us even small amounts of lead can lower a child’s IQ level and shorten attention span.” In countries that have used leaded gasoline, this fuel is usually the largest source of airborne lead.

That’s why NRDC has worked on the leaded gasoline since the 1970s, first in the U.S. and then at the global level. We filed the lawsuit in the 1970s that led to the start of the U.S. phase-out of leaded gasoline in 1978, worked in the 1990s to put the agenda on the international environmental agenda, and co-founded the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles (PCFV) in 2002, which has led the global campaign to eliminate lead for the past decade.

As regular Switchboard readers know, I’m in Nairobi right now, attending the 9th annual meeting of the PCFV.

There’s an incredibly exciting mood within the PCFV right now. Ten years ago, we were just sketching out the ideas for the global lead campaign, which first focused on Sub-Saharan Africa, and was officially “launched” at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002.

Rather than relying on international negotiations among UN member states to solve the leaded gasoline problem, our partnership model brought together like-minded organizations from international organizations, national governments, industry, and civil society organizations to work together, voluntarily, towards a shared goal.

From the beginning, the PCFV had discrete, definable, quantifiable goals. Eliminate lead in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2006, globally by 2012. At the time, several dozen African countries still used leaded gasoline, as well as more than 100 countries around the world.

After a few years, we added a goal related to cleaning up dirty diesel fuels – to reduce sulfur levels to ultra-low levels globally (less than 50 parts-per-million).

With these goals, we could create work plans, assign tasks, and measure performance.

Today, as I wrote above, NRDC joined UNEP at the UN to celebrate the global elimination of leaded gasoline. But all of the PCFV partners contributed to this great victory.

And today, more than 185 countries around the world use unleaded gasoline. (Here’s a map of our country-by-country, year-by-year progress).

Of the remaining six, we believe that they will be unleaded by the end of next year, based on conversations with the oil industry, governments, and others. Indeed, PCFV staff have been working in each of the countries (they have even been to North Korea and Myanmar, two of the holdouts) to help their governments move towards unleaded gasoline.

At NRDC, we know that there is sometimes a big difference between announcing a plan and actually implementing it. Indeed, we’ve often wondered whether we could trust the statements of a “leaded country” when they said they were going “unleaded.”

Our partners in the PCFV had the same concern. That’s why the Partnership developed a monitoring plan to scan industry databases and do actual, on-the-ground spot checks of gasoline samples to see whether the gasoline was unleaded.

We have two years of data now, and the picture is clear: in countries that say they don’t sell leaded gasoline, there is no lead in the gasoline we sampled. And, in countries that said they still used some lead in their gasoline, like Myanmar, we found the lead in our samples.

Another way we know that lead is really out of the world’s gasoline: Innospec, the only remaining producer of the lead additive that is used in gasoline, says so.

In its 2010 Annual Report to its shareholders, Innospec stated that it expected to end all sales of TEL (the lead additive added to gasoline) for use in automotive gasoline by 2012, and that their once-flourishing market in automotive lead additives had been reduced to a few countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

I call that verification.

There is still far too much vehicle pollution in the world. Cities are increasingly congested, and the vehicle population is exploding in many parts of the developing world. Forecasters predict that the car fleet will grow by tenfold in the next 20 years.

Most of those cars will be in developing countries, where emissions standards are generally weak. Dirty diesel vehicles, in particular, contribute to increasing asthma rates, as well as to the estimated 1.3 million premature deaths that are attributable to urban particulate pollution every year—not to mention the black carbon emissions that are accelerating critical impacts of global climate change like melting of snow, ice and glaciers in the Arctic and the Himalayas.

So our work is not done. More on that issue in an upcoming Switchboard post.

But, today, we applaud the global elimination of leaded gasoline. As I wrote at the top, this step will avoid 1.2 million premature deaths every year, and will save $2.4 trillion in health and economic costs every year, according to the independent, peer-reviewed study released today.

That’s incredible progress, and it should be welcome news for the world’s children and families.

Bravo to our friends and partners at UNEP and the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles.

Heading to the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles annual meeting in Nairobi

2011-10-23T02:01:53Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

One of the great things about working on international vehicle issues is that my work takes me to fascinating places.

This week, I’ll be in Nairobi, where I will be attending the Ninth General Partners Meeting of the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles (PCFV).

The PCFV was launched at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, with the objective of working with policy-makers in developing countries who are striving to introduce cleaner fuels and vehicles.

More specifically, the Partnership was co-founded by a diverse and committed group of leaders from government, industry and the environmental community who were dedicated to:

eliminating leaded gasoline where it was still used;
phasing down sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline fuels;
introducing policies and programs to increase the use of catalytic converters, diesel particulate filters and other vehicle pollution control technologies; and
working with countries to develop action plans to reduce vehicle pollution.

NRDC was there at the beginning, working closely with our partners at the United Nations Environment Program, U.S. EPA, oil and gas companies and industry associations, auto industry and emission control equipment makers, and others to create the new organization.

Indeed, the annual partners’ meeting always feels like a bit of a reunion week for me.

Every year, we gather in one of the countries where we work, review the past year’s work, and map out key goals and priorities for the next year. Thanks to the PCFV, I have passport stamps from Kenya, South Africa, India, Ecuador, and China, among others. Friendships have been made, and post-PCFV meeting trips to the Masai Mara, the Taj Majal, and the Great Wall have created lifelong memories.

Even more important than this travelogue is knowing that our small group of people have achieved great things in cities and nations around the world.

When we started more than 100 countries still added lead to their gasoline. Just in sub-Saharan Africa, more than 40 countries used leaded gasoline. By 2006, lead had been eliminated in sub-Saharan Africa – the first region to be truly lead-free. And we’ve made a lot of progress since then.

At this week’s meeting, two key issues will be on the agenda, and I hope to be able to blog on both of them.

First, we will be reviewing our campaign to eliminate leaded gasoline, including some research that has been done to quantify the health and economic benefits of the global switch to unleaded gasoline.

Second, we will be reviewing a year-long effort to create a roadmap to cleaner vehicles, focused on reducing sulfur levels in fuels and concurrently introducing cleaner emissions technologies and standards that become feasible at each key sulfur level.

Recently, the World Health Organization released data that showed that 1.3 million people die prematurely—and unnecessarily—in the world’s cities every year, thanks to the current levels of particulate pollution

From New York to Mexico City and Bangkok, and in every other city we’ve ever looked at, at least half of the particulates that people breathe come from vehicles, mostly diesel-fueled vehicles.

The PCFV has been leading the global campaign to eliminate the global health impacts of leaded gasoline over the past decade. Now, I look forward to working together to reduce sulfur levels in fuels, en route to reducing the harmful particulate and other pollution from the world’s growing vehicle population.

Follow-up to yesterday's post: Here's how industry leadership spreads

2011-10-19T15:46:22Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

Yesterday, I wrote about how Maersk was leading the pack in greening its shipping fleet, by switching to low-sulfur fuels and investing in energy-efficient vessels, far in advance of regulatory mandates to do so.

I also wrote about how their leadership made it easier for advocates to demonstrate that such practices and investments could be made cost-effectively, and that Maersk's examples can become the basis for policy actions that make these practices the industry standard.

What I didn’t write about, but should have, is that industry leadership by one company often leads to additional voluntary actions by other companies in the industry. When company A shows that a cleaner way of doing business is feasible and works well for the bottom line, company B is more likely to follow suit.

So, here’s an example of how that works.

Today, I read in Sustainable Shipping, a website and blog that I follow, that Neptune Orient Lines (NOL) has announced that all of its 79 vessels have switched to lower-sulfur, cleaner-burning marine gas oil while at berth in Singapore.

Just switching to the new fuel will cut sulfur dioxides by NOL’s ships by roughly 90 percent—and with more than 900 calls to Singapore annually, this will be a meaningful step to reduce air pollution in and near the Singapore port.

When they announced their move back in April, a company executive explained that the company felt a “responsibility to manage the environmental impact of global trade.”

NOL deserves credit for taking this step, and for showing that the low-sulfur fuel model works for them.

There is an important lesson here: first, Company A shows that the more sustainable behavior works; then Company B follows suit; eventually, it becomes the industry standard.

Meet the Change-Makers: Maersk leadership is cutting global ship pollution

2011-10-18T22:38:42Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

Today's online edition of OnEarth, NRDC's award-winning magazine, includes an interview with Jacob Sterling, who leads the climate and environmental initiatives at Maersk, the global shipping fleet.

It's part of a continuing series, "Meet the Change-Makers," that highlights business leaders who are moving their industries to a more sustainable future, in advance of government requirements to do so.

As OnEarth writer Adam Aston explains, "If global commerce has a circulatory system, it's the network of thousands of container vessels that ply the world's oceans, moving goods from port to port."

These ships bring us what we want, when we want it. Our coffee from South America, our iPods from China, and so many other things in our homes and offices come to us onboard these ships.

And it's not a one-way business: ships leave our shores loaded with grain, cotton or other commodities.

But the flip side of all of these goods moving around the globe is a lot of pollution.

According to Aston, recent EU estimates suggest that in a single year, a single container ship can vent the same amount of sulfur oxide (SOx) gases as 50 million cars annually--and roughly twice the global warming pollution of the world's aviation fleet.

Maersk has long been an early adopter of environmental technologies and best practices in the shipping industry. Their success has made it easier for NRDC and other advocates to push for policies that require cleaner practices across the entire industry.

Indeed, Maersk's pioneering use of low-sulfur fuels helped pave the way to the adoption of an Emissions Control Area around North America that will eliminate 14,000 premature deaths and $110 billion in health costs, annually, by 2020.

Earlier this year, they contracted with a Korean ship building company to build the world's most energy-efficient container ships. These super-huge ships will carry 18,000 containers apiece, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions per container by 20 percent and fuel costs per container by 35 percent.

Reading the environmental news coming from Washington these days can be incredibly discouraging. Check out OnEarth's interview with Jacob Sterling, for a breath of fresh air.

New WHO Report: 1.34 million premature deaths from urban air pollution worldwide

2011-09-28T16:28:47Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

1.34 million urban dwellers face premature deaths every year, according to a new report from the World Health Organization (WHO). According to an AP report in Forbes and elsewhere, cities in Iran, India, Pakistan and Mongolia top the list of the world’s most polluted cities.

The WHO report is based on country-reported measurements of airborne particulate matter (PM10, or particles smaller than 10 micrograms per cubic meter). This pollution triggers asthma emergencies, bronchitis, cancer, emphysema and heart disease, in addition to premature deaths.

Here’s the thing to always remember about premature deaths from air pollution—they aren’t just early deaths—they are preventable deaths.

In the U.S., our PM10 levels are at the cleaner end of the spectrum.

How much cleaner? Santa Fe wins the prize at an annual average of 6 micrograms per cubic meter, but even big cities like NYC average below 13 micrograms, well below the WHO recommendation of 20. In contrast, Ahvaz, Iran was the dirtiest city in the study, averaging 372 micrograms per cubic meter.

There are a number of reasons why our air is cleaner than in much of the developing world.

Among the top reasons are our nationally-required ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels (capped at 15 parts-per-million) and the world’s cleanest tailpipe emissions standards for diesel engines, the latest chapters in a 40-year march towards cleaner air made possible by the structure and certainty of the Clean Air Act.

Thanks to these fuels and standards, we are en route to eliminating almost 26,000 premature deaths annually, as yesterday’s dirty diesel trucks, buses, construction and farm engines, locomotives, and marine diesel engines are replaced by newer engines that meet EPA’s current standards.

How much cleaner are today's new engines? Today's new diesel engines are 90-95% cleaner than they were just a few years ago. Not just lower in PM emissions, but also in the emissions of nitrogen oxides that form summertime smog and in the toxic pollutants that trigger cancer and other diseases.

Despite what people might hear in the echo chamber of anti-EPA rhetoric flying around lately, these programs are extremely cost-effective. In fact, both the Bush and Obama administrations have found them to be among the cost-effective steps taken by our government over the past two decades, according to White House Office of Management and Budget studies done during both administrations.

Every dollar spent to implement these standards will yield between $16 and $40 in health benefits. It’s hard to find a better investment in the public’s health.

In contrast, sulfur levels that exceed 5,000 ppm are common in the developing world, and the types of pollution-cutting catalysts and filters that we take for granted simply don’t exist in dozens and dozens of developing nations.

This latest report from the WHO reminds me of three things: first, that we know how to solve our urban vehicle pollution problems; second, that we need to work harder to adapt successful programs from the U.S. and other developed countries to the developing world, especially as they become more and more car-dependent and motorized; and third, that we should be thankful that EPA had the foresight and diligence to adopt the cost-effective fuels and vehicles standards that are making our lives a bit more breathable every day.

Come back and read more in part 2 of this post next week, where I’ll look in more detail at the situation in Mexico and China– two countries where NRDC is working with local partners to reduce urban air pollution.

TRAIN Act Now Aiming at EPA's Successful Clean Fuel and Vehicle Programs

2011-09-21T15:55:40Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

It was bound to happen.

Sooner or later, somebody in the House of Representatives had to watch colleagues pour on the anti-environmental riders and decide to go after EPA’s successful clean fuel and vehicle programs.

Sooner or later, somebody in the House of Representatives had to take aim at one of the most cost-effective environmental programs of the past two decades.

Sooner or later, somebody in the House of Representatives had to wonder why colleagues who were aiming at EPA’s power plant programs that cut the pollution that leads to asthma emergencies in kids were leaving EPA's vehicle pollution programs that cut the same pollution and the same asthma emergencies intact.

So, it’s now happened.

In yesterday’s debates on the TRAIN Act (H.R. 2401), which my colleague, John Walke, has called “the most dangerous attacks on clean air since the Clean Air Act was signed into law 40 years ago”, an amendment from Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX) that would delay upcoming EPA regulations on sulfur levels in gasoline won its way to the floor. (A list of approved amendments: http://bit.ly/nhNhqo.)

John has exhaustively covered the many reasons why the TRAIN Act is dangerous, and the many ways that it attacks EPA’s plans to reduce harmful pollution from power plants and other stationary sources. The Kinzinger-Gonzalez Amendment expands the attacks to the programs that have effectively and dramatically cut pollution from our vehicles.

Here’s the background: In May 2009, President Obama announced, in a Rose Garden ceremony, that he was directing EPA to adopt a new set of fuel and emissions standards to cut vehicle pollution. (I attended the ceremony and blogged about it here).

The so-called Tier 3 rule would follow the “systems approach” of the successful fuel and vehicle rules of the past 12 years: the Tier 2 rule for cars, light trucks and sport-utility vehicles adopted by EPA in 1999, and the diesel rules for trucks and buses (adopted in 2001), construction and other nonroad engines (adopted in 2004) and locomotive and marine diesel engines (adopted in 2008).

These rules treated fuels and engines as a single “system” to be regulated together: first, sulfur levels in fuel would be reduced, which would enable the rapid introduction of improved catalysts and filters that would dramatically reduce particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons. Reducing sulfur levels was the key to cleaner vehicles, because the sulfur that exists naturally in petroleum damages or even destroys the most effective catalysts and filters.

By addressing the fuels side and the engine side together in a “systems” approach, EPA was able to cut pollutions levels faster and far more cost-effectively than addressing either side on its own.

How effective are these rules?

Today’s vehicles are 90-95% cleaner than they were a decade ago, thanks to these rules. By 2030, when all of today’s older, dirtier vehicles have been replaced by vehicles that meet these newer standards, more than 26,000 premature deaths, many more asthma emergencies, and 3.2 million lost work days will be eliminated every year.

How cost-effective?

In several studies, the White House Office of Management and Budget has found that these rules were among the most cost-effective environmental programs of the past two decades. Collectively, these rules will add up to $186 billion in health and other benefits, with only $11.7 billion in implementation costs – a nearly 16-to-1 ratio. Frankly, it’s hard to find a better investment in the public’s health.

That’s a big part of the reason why these rules moved ahead under both President Clinton and Bush.

But, in the political climate in the House today, none of that matters. What matters is that the oil industry and its supporters are aiming at every environmental program they can. Whether it’s convincing the White House to withdraw a scientifically-sound ozone rule or working with their friends in Congress to attack some of EPA’s most cost-effective environmental programs, there is no issue or program that is off-limits.

The Tier 3 rule, if it goes forward, will reduce sulfur levels and open the door to the cleanest cars, light trucks and SUVs in the world. It will eliminate thousands of asthma emergencies, cancers, and premature deaths every year. And, like the other fuel and vehicle rules of the past 12 years, it will be extremely cost-effective.

Congress should not stand in the way of the Tier 3 rule. The TRAIN Act should not become law.

Biking on LI: More dangerous than biking in NYC

2011-07-21T19:46:00Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

Biking on Long Island is more dangerous than biking in New York City, or anywhere else in the tri-state metropolitan area. That’s the take-away from an important new analysis on bicycle safety from the great advocates over at the Tri-State Transportation Campaign today.

As NRDC alum and current TSTC staffer Renata Silberblatt explains, “While roadway improvements have made biking safer in the tri-state area, in many places bikers must still take their lives into their own hands when they ride. In particular, bicyclists on Long Island have a much higher fatality rate than others in the tri-state region.”

TSTC analyzed bike fatalities from 2007-2009 in the twelve counties of downstate New York. They found that Long Island’s bike fatality rate is more than one and a half time higher than the downstate region’s rate. Looking at the individual counties, Suffolk County tops the list, followed by Brooklyn and Nassau County.

TSTC Analysis of Bike Fatalities (2007-2009)

Region	Population	Bike Fatalities ’07-’09	Bike fatality rate per 100,000
Long Island	2,869,094	32	1.1
Suffolk County	1,514,547	21	1.4
Nassau County	1,354,547	11	0.8
New York City	8,349,629	59	0.7
Kings County	2,552,082	27	1.1
New York County	1,628,635	11	0.7
Queens County	2,291,022	13	0.6
Bronx County	1,390,575	8	0.6
Richmond County	487,316	0	0
Lower Hudson Valley	2,020,936	3	0.1
Dutchess County	292,626	2	0.7
Westchester County	950,787	1	0.1
Putnam County	99,122	0	0
Orange County	379,759	0	0
Rockland County	298,642	0	0
All Downstate NY	13,239,659	94	0.7

*Population is average population from 2007-2009. Bike fatality rate rounded to nearest tenth. Sources: Tri-State Transportation Campaign, based on data from Census Bureau and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s FARS database.

Newsday, the Long Island daily paper, took the TSTC analysis further and compared federal crash statistics for bikers in New York City, New Jersey and Connecticut. Their article noted “the bicycle crash death rate on Long Island far exceeds that of New York City, New Jersey and Connecticut.”

This is important work here.

Personally, I remember cycling on Long Island in the 1970s when I was too young to drive. On weekend afternoons, my rides spanned from the southern tip of the south shore to the rocky cliffs of the north shore, as I rode north to find hills that existed only north of the glacial boundary formed by Hillside Avenue and Jericho Turnpike. After school on hot June days, I rode my trusty Motobecane Super Mirage over the Long Beach Bridge to meet friends who had driven (or hitchhiked) to get there.

Since the mid-80s, I've been riding in Manhattan. I’ve shopped in Chinatown with a bike and a backpack, and trained after work on hot summer nights in Central Park. More recently, I’ve become a periodic bike commuter along the Hudson River bikepath, as I travel from the upper west side to NRDC’s office near the Flatiron building.

Colleagues, friends and family have questioned my sanity, riding in Manhattan for all these years. But to tell the truth, I have often have felt that riding on Long Island was less safe than riding in the city.

Why?

Long Island roads were designed for cars, and only for cars. It’s main arteries are always busy, with drivers often driving at much higher speeds than the roads were designed for. (And as the current NYC DOT ads explain, if a biker or walker is hit at 40 mph, there is a 70% chance that he or she will die. But if hit at 30 mph, there is an 80% chance the biker or walker will live). Plus, there is hardly any bike infrastructure at all, in contrast to the well-painted and signed bike lanes that are increasingly covering much of the city.

For better or worse, the TSTC puts some meat on the bones of my admittedly personal, subjective opinion.

More important, it underscores the need for Governor Cuomo to sign Complete Streets legislation that is currently on his desk. This bill would require road planners to consider how major road projects will impact all users, including pedestrians and bicyclists.

Let’s hope that these analyses help convince him to sign this important bill.

----

One more note: If you like to read about NRDC's New York regional work, check out our website at www.nrdc.org/newyork or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

News flash: Air Quality Health Alerts Ahead

2011-07-20T21:27:52Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

New York City, New Jersey, and much of the eastern seaboard will have another “Air Quality Health Advisory” tomorrow.

Right on schedule.

It’s hot and sunny, so the ozone levels are shooting up.

As I type, the Air Quality Index in New York City (where I live) is 116. That means that the air is unhealthy for children, the elderly, and people with heart and lung ailments. That covers a lot of people.

Tomorrow, they predict that the AQI will be 130.

Here’s why:

Ground-level ozone (or “smog”) is formed when hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide pollution from vehicles, power plants and other combustion combines in sunlight and heat.

So, if there’s more sunlight and heat, there will be more ozone in the air. Today was hot, and tomorrow will be hotter.

As you can imagine, ozone levels have been too high for comfort at many points up and down the eastern seaboard during this week's heat wave.

Want to know how high?

Go to http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.local_city. This is a site that enables you to input your zip code and get both real-time and forecasted pollution levels for ozone and particulate matter.

If you look on the lower right side of the homepage, you can even sign up for a daily “EnviroFlash” email that provides this information on a daily basis. (That’s how I got my email alerting me to tomorrow's air quality forecast, just a few minutes ago).

If you are asthmatic or have any heart or lung conditions, if you have children or elderly family members that you care for, or if you like to exercise outdoors, you might want to consider keeping up to date with your local pollution levels, especially in these heat waves.

The timing of this ozone alert is a potent reminder of the need for EPA to implement key programs to reduce toxic and smog-forming pollution.

What's ironic is that, just before I got my ozone alert email, I had just read Pete Altman’s excellent, but troubling, post about how the House is trying to delay efforts to reduce toxic pollution from power plants and his post about the new NRDC analysis about how states rank in terms of the amount of toxic pollution they breathe.

Air pollution is a solvable problem. Cleaner cars, cleaner trucks, and cleaner power plants are the big three steps. Over the past decade, cars and trucks have gotten dramatically cleaner.

It’s time for power plants to do their fair share. Congress should let EPA do its job.

And, if you live in an area with high ozone levels this week, please try to avoid heavy outdoor exertions or exercise, especially if you are young, old, or have any heart or lung ailments.

News from London: First-ever greenhouse gas regulations for ships adopted by IMO

2011-07-18T21:36:54Z

Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, New York City

On Friday, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the first-ever greenhouse gas regulations for new ships. This is the first industry-wide, global agreement on GHGs ever.

The agreement covers new ocean-going ships that weigh more than 400 tons. Ships built in or after 2013 will have to improve their efficiency by 10 percent; starting in 2020, new ships will have to be at least 20 percent more efficient than today’s new ships; and after 2024, new ships will have to be at least 30 percent more efficient. The IMO will use a metric called the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) to measure compliance.

Although the mandatory measures will enter into force on January 1, 2013, developing countries will be able to waive compliance until 2019, due to late changes to the proposal that create extra time for technology transfers to occur.

In addition to the EEDI agreement on new ships, the IMO members agreed to add a mechanism to help ship operators improve the energy efficiency of all of their ships, including their existing ships. This Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) will cover all ships.

In real world terms, ship operators should save $5 billion in fuel costs in 2020 and the regulations are estimated to lead to GHG reductions of 45-50 million tons/year by 2020.

This is a very important step forward, and certainly sends a strong signal throughout the shipping world that it is time to find ways to reduce emissions and fuel costs, while increasing overall ship efficiency.

But the work is not done.

First, the EEDI agreement covers only new ships, and doesn’t cover rebuilt ships. According to the Carbon War Room, including rebuilt ships in the program would save another $45 billion in fuel costs annually—and would avoid 220 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2020.

Second, the European Commission appears to remain on track to add their own steps to reduce GHG emissions from ships, including a possible carbon tax or extending its Emissions Trading System to the shipping sector too.

Third, ports and other key stakeholders need to take steps to incentivize the use of the most efficient ships. Right now, an increasing number of U.S. ports have incentive programs to reduce pollution in their communities (including lower sulfur fuels, voluntary speed reduction programs, clean truck programs, and others). In the months to come, it would be great to see ports and their customers create incentive programs that create new market demand for the most efficient ships.

In sum, this is an important step forward, and it sets an important precedent. But clearly, there is significant work ahead of us as we work with all key stakeholders to improve the efficiency of the ship industry.

In the meantime, today is a day to congratulate everybody who played a role in taking this important step forward.

So, congratulations to everybody at the IMO who helped make this happen—with special kudos to the U.S. delegation that fought hard for the agreement for years. (As a former member of the delegation, I can attest to the hard work, creative energy, and intense dedication of this team).

And a special note of thanks goes to Andreas Chrysostomou, Chairman of the IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee, for driving the parties towards a resolution that received the support of more than 80 percent of the IMO’s 59 member states.