Green car plan one small step in the right direction
Blog Post | Christine Milne
Thursday 20th November 2008, 2:58pm
by ChristineMilne in
This post was first published at ABC's Unleashed site:
With the global financial meltdown meeting the climate meltdown head on, the potential to deal with both crises using the same solutions has been gaining support.
Last month, the United Nations Environment Program joined with Deutsche Bank and others to promote a 'Green New Deal' based on investing billions of dollars in the four pillars of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean transport and ecosystem protection, reducing greenhouse emissions, building infrastructure and creating millions of new jobs. World leaders such as US President-elect Obama, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon have publicly embraced the proposal, with Obama listing a $150 billion clean energy plan as his top priority.
The 'Green New Deal', taking its inspiration from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 'New Deal' to build the USA out of the Great Depression, is only the most recent embodiment of strategies put forward from Hobart to London over the last few decades, recognising that investing in protecting the environment is the only sensible economic plan.
The Greens have long been arguing that Australia's economic future depends on investing our current wealth in a clean, zero emissions future. Since the beginning of the current economic crisis, we have been calling for a 'Green New Deal' at home and for any economic support package to be directed at sustainable alternatives. A key aspect of this is our proposal to retrofit every home in the nation with energy efficient technologies such as solar water heaters and insulation.
That's why, after weeks of silence from the Rudd Government, I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister and his Industry Minister, Senator Carr, at least start using this language in launching their Green Car Package last week. Both noted that it was only by building environmentally sustainable cars that Australia's car industry can have a sustainable future - something I have been telling them for years.
But the devil, as always, is in the detail. And so much of that detail is still missing - right down to what is the definition of a 'green car' that will benefit from the package.
I welcomed the plan as the first step in recognising the importance of linking economic stimulus measures to the effort to build a new, zero emissions economy. But, in doing so, I noted that it was a small first step and that the Greens look forward to working with the Government to flesh it out.
Here is what we would propose:
In rethinking transport for a zero emissions Australia, the fundamental points are to help people to drive less and, when they do drive, to drive more efficiently and with the least polluting vehicles possible.
There is no reason why the Green Car Plan could not have been presented as a Green Transport Plan that would shift car manufacturing onto a green base and drive investment and job creation in rolling out buses, trains, ferries, trams and cycleways. Instead of thinking small, with changes at the margins to make cars that little bit more fuel efficient, we could see a plan to roll out an electrified vehicle fleet and all the infrastructure that will have to go with that - powered by a massively increased renewable energy grid, of course. American entrepreneur Shai Agassi has already proposed rolling out electric vehicle infrastructure in Australia. He should be given all the help he can to make it a reality. Agassi is only one of many entrepreneurs promoting intelligent networks, such as digital control systems for railways and smart electricity grids, which create significant efficiencies and make it easier to have an energy system powered entirely by renewable energy.
As well as investing in the infrastructure for public transport and electric vehicles, the Government should be investing in R&D and commercialisation for second generation biofuels which present a real potential for zero emissions transport without reducing availability of food crops or replacing standing forests with oil palm plantations, for example.
Aside from direct spending, there are plenty of big changes that can be encouraged through the tax system. The Greens achieved a small win by exempting fuel efficient vehicles from the Luxury Car Tax, already leading Audi to sell more efficient cars in Australia, but we propose a much broader tax shift to drive cleaner transport. We would replace the Luxury Car Tax altogether with a tax based on the fuel consumption of vehicles rather than their sale price. We would remove the Fringe Benefits Tax Concessions that encourage people to drive more. We would also take the GST off public transport fares.
When it finally decides how to define a 'green car', we will be calling on the Government to implement mandatory vehicle fuel efficiency standards. China and Europe are powering ahead of Australia with stringent standards in place and, without them, Australia will be left behind, regardless of the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and Industry Minister.
One policy the Government has ignored altogether is the tremendous impact of changing government procurement policies to buy more efficient and hybrid cars for the government fleets. Because of the fast turnover in these fleets, this simple change has a large flow-on effect by driving many more efficient vehicles into the second hand market.
The Government has not yet embraced very much of this obvious agenda. But, with the Green Car Plan, they took the first step of recognising that the economic meltdown and climate meltdown could be addressed at the same time. There is much more to be done but, perhaps encouraged by the election of Barack Obama, we can have some hope of stronger action in that direction in 2009.
Bookmark and share
Green Car Plan
The biggest problem that the Feds will have with encouraging Green Cars ( past the level of diesels, with their known faults ), is the distance Australians need to travel.
I believe that in Europe, if you drive 300km, you are likely to have driven through 2 or 3 countries, while in Australia, you would need to drive 300km just to get from Shepparton to Melbourne and return.
Twice a year I need to go from Melbourne to Brisbane, and this would be impossible in any of the current batch, of what you may call green cars, and even more impossible in any electric car. I could fly, but the cost of airline tickets, plus the need to hire a car in Brisbane, just makes this option uneconomic. There is also the problem, that, unless you intend to just stay in the inner city areas, you generally need quite a large car or driving any distance will send you nuts.
We have tried hybrid cars in Australia without much success over the past few years, with sales being about only 0.5% of new vehicle sales (refer Vfacts), mostly to Government Fleets. Part of the problem has been the distances people travel, and the running costs (plus resale value) of the current hybrids (according to the motoring experts one particular hybrid vehicle needs new battery packs approx every 7 - 10 years at a cost of around $5k, and the current pack needs to be returned to Japan for recycling). Obviously environmentally friendly cars (green type) will become more viable in the next 10 years as manufacturers develop new technology allowing longer distace travel, so I agree with the Feds that they need to support better efficiency research of the current crop of Australian cars, to act as interim measure.
To me, I also suggest that, with the expected increase in transport (trucks) of around 50% over the next 10+ years, the Feds should also encourage truck manufactures to develop cleaner, more efficent diesels, although it is acknowledged that most manufactures are already working on reducing emissions by their engines. Some long distance transport loads can be reduced by rail, although rail is so slow, many businesses shy away from this mode (businesses need door to door service over short periods which current rail cannot do). Unfortunately around cities rail is not practical for transport loads, so more efficient / cleaner trucks are the only alternative.
In summary, today, the Federal Government announced support for the Ford 6 cyclinder engine plant in Geelong Victoria to keep it open past 2010, saving 1,300 jobs (and I suspect a heafty welfare bill), with Ford advising that they are actively working on cleaner engines to assist in reducing emissions. This I believe is a move in the right direction while new viable technogies are developed.
Re: Green car plan
Just one thing Grant. It is a myth that Australians travel great distances. You say you travel twice a year from Melbourne to Brisbane but you are in the minority. Most Australians rarely cover those distances. If they do, it is for the once-in-a-lifetime holiday around Australia. Taking averages, the average Singaporean drives further in a year than the average Australian. The vast bulk of us live in cities and rarely get out of them. Most car journeys are very short and could be done by bicycle.
I disagree that the Commonwealth (or any government) should be subsidising car companies to produce more efficient cars. VW's Golf TDI has amazing fuel economy. It puts Australian V6s to shame. The technology is there. Why do our tax dollars need to be given to car companies? Far better would be spending the money on encouraging less driving like building city wide cycle networks separated from cars and tram and rail systems.
You say that rail is slow but this is only in Australia (assuming it is true). There is no reason for it. It is fast in other countries.
Rail is also viable for transporting freight around cities. Amsterdam successfully uses freight trams. For useful info on carrying freight without cars and trucks, follow the links at carfree.com.
Cheers.
Green Car Plan
Ed
Some of your points are valid, but you appear to be basing the car usage on city people. It is acknowledged that the majority of Australians live in cities, but country people also need to travel around, and they travel considerably larger distances.
The Feds, and State Govs are subsidising the vehicle building industries due to the potential increases in unemployment if they run into difficulties. Naturally increased unemployment equals large increases in welfare payments, so the Governments need to do cost benefit analysis, on what is cheaper. ($x million to car manufacturers, or $y million increases in welfare payments). The Australian Govs are not the only ones in this boat, as the new US President elect is pushing for huge bailouts to the US auto industry to avoid 3 million extra unemployed on their streets. I suppose you could take the argument even further by saying the welfare bucket is size "x", and if the numbers increase too far, then the Government will have to reduce welfare to all, pensions etc. to fit into that size bucket, especially in todays economic climate (remember that during the depression of the 30's there was no unemployment welfare).
In relation to suburban freight rail distribution (trams only cover a very small area, and are not in most Australian cities), there has been many people state that this must be followed up, but no one has yet been able to overcome a few basic problems:
a. Freight (non containerised) could only be distributed when passenger rail traffic is not utilising the major capacity. In other words from approx 01:00 to 05:00 am. I suspect the residents beside rail lines may raise merry hell at very early morning freight services.
b. Using Melbourne as an example, additional lines cannot be added into the existing rail network (we already have bottle necks (mainly rail cuttings) constricting the existing passenger services), so there would be major weight constraints on freight deliveries.
c. As a large percentage of transport are involved in distributing conrtainers, if these were to be delivered by rail, where whould the containers be off loaded, in suburban station areas ?
Now to a favourite hobby horse of mine, namely push bikes. I agree we should use the push bike more frequently for very small trips, but only as long as we do not use parts of the major road networks. In other words as long as they are restricted to smaller side roads. For a couple of years I was driving a large delivery van (after I retired), and I believe that I saw at least one rider a month forced off the road, through riding in the left lane of a multi lane carriageway, but still restricting traffic flow. Usually the problem was caused by a car or truck needing to squeeze between the rider and traffic in the 2nd lane. At the same time trucks (driven by responsible drivers) keep to the left lane, and when passing a rider, the wind blast also has the potential to force the rider off the road. The Victorian Government has, where ever traffic lane width permits, put bicycle lanes on some roads, but these are useless to protect rides unless concrete barries are also used to separate everbody.
Anyway as I stated at the start, I can see some of your points and believe that over the next 20-30 years, we will slowly move away from dependance on the car / truck.
Perhaps purely electric cars
Perhaps purely electric cars may have difficulty covering long distances but not hybrids. My wife and I recently took our Prius 4500Km from Tasmania to the Flinders Ranges, Eyre Peninsula and back. We had a very comfortable ride and averaged 4.7L/100Km. On one stretch from Port Augusta to Adelaide we averaged 4.0! Covering long distances is simply not a problem.
Electric Cars
Rpss, I would suggest that electric cars with the current technology, now and in the short future, are not practical, apart from in an inner city area.
Hybrids are a reasonable stepping stone to the future, but do have major disincentives.
Last year I needed a new car, and researched as far as possible hybrid cars. Some of the problems I encountered were:
a. Very high purchase price, compared to a similar sized vehicle (say the Toyota Corolla)
b. Servicing costs quoted by dealers high, again compared to similar sized petrol cars
c. Battery replayment was a real issue, as the dealers would not quote life of, and costs of replacements. However I did get an unofficial estimate of 5 - 7 years, and an estimated cost of around $5k. Some quick maths indicated that I would need to put away over $500 / year to cover battery replacement. This obviously directly impacted daily running costs.
d. Resale value was also a major problem, being very low for a vehicle with a relative high initial price tag. The motoring magazines, and internet reseearch appeared to indicate that the resale low value was directly tied to battery replacement cost (not a problem to Gov Depts as they pay no tax on purchase so probably nearly get their money back).
e. Power on the open road. A car weighing what they do (weight of batteries etc), with the size of the engine fitted, was highlighted as an issue both in magazines, and on the internet. I have seen this while driving large vans in country Vic. I don't know if it was just the driver, but a specific hybrid I saw often, was not able to maintain 110km/hr on various sections between Melb and Ballarat.
Anyway in my case, I reviewed my musts and wants in a vehicle, changed the planned use, and bought a S/W with a 2.3l diesel, admittedly for a little more than the Prius I was considering. The diesel has been good so far (except of course for the bloody price of diesel), but I still maintain around 6.5l/100k while cruising at 110 - 115k/h on the open road.
In my view, the long term answer will probably be the Hydrogen Vehicle, as current existing overseas trials give it a range of around 300km and performance equal to existing petrol cars. After recently watching a film on the Hindenberg Disaster, the only real concern I have is sitting in a car with a tank of compressed hydrogen. Anyway who knows what will also be available in 10 - 20 years, until then I will probably need to stay with my diesel, which may be running on old / recycled fish and chip oil by that time.
Greens.
Christine,
Another fantastic inspiring read from you. Keep up the outstanding work. You must have fantastic staffers there. Shame our messages dont cut through the mainstream media.
Green transport etc.
I visit KeeleyNet.comwhatsnew regularly,and well,where is the Australian ideas in all this.Ford isn't Australian,GMH gave up the ghost.A green car would have to be a pretty boring subject,seeing it does the rounds regularly. And recently I was really shocked by ReNew Magazine,and I cannot see why anyone wouldn't be for the cost of converting a car to be $32,000 dollars plus car.I mean,the subject was all approached as an article of faith that electric cars will be affordable,but I am not that sure.Why it is here and elsewhere Green all the alternative and modifying technologies dont get a mention,is like a ridicule of activist Greens.I am reminded of Alan Asher,who when at Choice Magazine had a misinformation programme going,wether it was on his volition or not is another matter,but because the U.S.A. government didn't accept there were highly efficient carburettor systems,Asher just took that as Talmudic Gospel and Toyota got the free advertising.Since then,like others at that Magazine Money loomed larger in life than,the small is beautiful precept,and attending problems of low income.So dream on that it is all a conspiracy theory dreamed up by those who dont have any understandings,and when some evidence occurs here and there,well it wont be scientific,and clearer than mud!So the present bunch of alternate developers are O.K. Heh! Or are 'WE' waiting to be fleeced!?
Post new comment