The National Research Council has released a new report assessing the prospects for massive reductions in GHG emissions from light duty vehicles (e.g., cars, SUVs, pickup trucks). It’s a great read if you are interested in the future development of a variety of vehicle technologies. The report explores potential efficiency gains and emissions reductions that could be achieved with different vehicle engines types (advanced internal combustion engines, hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, compressed natural gas vehicles, and fuel cell electric vehicles).

The authors conclude that by 2050 we should be able to cut light vehicle GHG emissions by 60% to 70% from 2005 levels. An 80% reduction should be technologically achievable but would be very difficult. The authors do a good job exploring the relevant issues without taking their projections too seriously, making it a useful read. (And the report was commissioned in part to assess whether it is possible to cut GHG emissions by 80% relative to 2005 levels by 2050.)

The NRC report recognizes a wide range of options available to policymakers from policies directly related to decreasing emissions per mile driven to policies that affect how much people drive, such as land use rules and taxes on fuels. Among other things, the authors suggest strengthening fuel economy standards, establishing a “feebate” system (buyers of inefficient new cars would pay a fee while buyers of highly efficient cars would receive a rebate), continuing mandates that biofuels be used, and establishing a carbon tax or a (presumably traditional) cap-and-trade system.

The wide scope of the report highlights the fact that we need to fix an entire economic system, not just adopt a few new technologies. Consider, for example, the potential of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles – they used to sound futuristic but the report notes that General Motors, Daimler, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai have all recently reaffirmed plans to commercialize such vehicles within the next few years.

Driving a car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell results in no direct GHG emissions. (The only emission is water.) Indirect emissions, however, could be considerable. It all depends upon how the hydrogen used in the fuel cell is produced (and delivered to the vehicle). Reforming natural gas into hydrogen (now a popular method for generating hydrogen for industrial uses) results in significant GHG emissions, as does generating hydrogen by gasifying coal. Carbon capture and sequestration technologies could be used to reduce or eliminate the GHG emissions from fossil fuel sources but it is expensive. Another option is to use the process of electrolysis (running a current through water to generate hydrogen and oxygen) to produce hydrogen. Electrolysis is also costly, though it could be done with electricity from renewable resources – virtually eliminating indirect GHG emissions.

The point is that we need to look at the big picture – it’s not just about emissions from the vehicle itself, but also emissions used to produce the fuel used by the vehicle, and the decision to use the vehicle in the first place. A Pure Cap-and-Dividend program would help overcome the complexity of the challenge because it would weigh greenhouse gas emissions equally, whether they are tailpipe emissions or result from the production of fuel.

In short, GHG emissions are an economy-wide problem; Pure Cap-and-Dividend is an economy-wide solution.

Use the link below to access the National Research Council’s report.