America: Why Electric Cars?

Published in Guangming
(China) on 11 June 2010
by Li Zhiqing (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Qu Xiao. Edited by Alex Brewer.
No invention in the 20th century has been more influential upon Americans than the automobile. Today, cars still act as super-dynamo for the U.S., accelerating its development, prompting productivity, and raising the standard of living. After centuries’ of development, however, the wheels brought not only prosperity, but also troubles: they seem to weigh heavier and heavier under a huge consumption of oil — and it’s becoming unbearable.

Take the year 2008 as an example. The oil consumed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) accounted for two-thirds of America’s total, with carbon emissions comprising 31 percent of the American annual amount. Spending on oil and America’s reliance on foreign resources became Americans’ top concern after the oil crisis in the 1970s. Wars, pollution, terrorism and now the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are all closely associated with oil. Centuries’ glory is about to evaporate and the future of cars tagged “Made in the USA” is in the mist.

Yet, however misty the future seems, a faint way out lies in front of the Americans. They can replace oil with electricity, turning gas-powered cars into electric vehicles. The U.S. legislature passed a greenhouse gas emission reduction regulation and two electric vehicle acts within a month. Apparently, the American government and Congress finally see eye-to-eye on developing electric cars.

We often see the American government and Congress give each other tit-for-tat. Democrats and Republicans react like water and fire in policy making, as in health care reform, but at least in the issue of promoting electric cars, they are standing in the same line this time. On May 7, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOT jointly announced the Light Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standard and a new fuel efficiency standard, putting strict limits on the development of the traditional gas-powered automobile. Soon after, on May 25, four congressmen, Democrats and Republicans, presented an electric vehicle act draft, advocating the development of electric cars for widespread use. On May 27, three senators of both parties proposed a draft with the same name. The government and Congress have made allies with the goal of promoting electric cars and discarding fuel cars. At least we can draw the conclusion from the above that the Americans have reached an agreement on developing electric cars, the sooner the better.

Once the actions take effect, the results will be obvious. In the Electric Vehicle Act there is a 20-year goal aiming to widen the market for electric cars to 100 million by 2030, which means saving 1 billion barrels of oil and reducing 300 million tons of annual carbon emissions.

From the details of the Act, we can see from all the subsidies and tax reductions that consumers are the main targets. This will obviously better encourage consumers to choose electric cars, hence raising their competitiveness. At the same time, the Act says that the government should provide favored loans to electric car producers and the government should give electric cars preference when choosing official vehicles. Moreover, in the regulations presented by DOT and EPA, all the limits are targeted at auto manufacturers, hence putting the pressure of emission reduction and industry transformation directly on the producers.

All in all, the U.S. government and Congress passing regulations and acts promoting electric cars with small intervals will, on one hand, realize the limitation of the development of gas-powered cars and prompt transformation to the electric cars by setting up new emission standards. On the other hand, this will boost the development of the electric car industry. The direction of the American car industry, which is currently comprised of gas-powered cars becoming more energy-efficient to reduce carbon emissions through upgrading motors and reducing car weight, is gradually withdrawing from the market due to mixed signals from the government. Electric car makers, however, will work on improving their cost-to-price ratio This will increase their competitiveness with the help of the government and, in the end, they ca take over the market with zero carbon emissions and low cost. The policy makers think that such a transformation will not only lower overall carbon emissions and cut the reliance on the foreign oil, but also provide new jobs and boost the economic growth.


在20世纪里,对于美国而言,最有影响力的发明莫过于汽车了。时至今日,汽车在美国仍然扮演着超级发动机的作用,不断加快其前进的速度,提升生产和生活效率。但经过百年的发展之后,汽车的四个轮子不仅给美国带来了繁荣,同时也种下了祸根:对石油资源的大量消耗,使得车轮的分量变得越来越重,有点让美国难以承受了。


  以2008年为例,公布的资料显示,交通部门带来的燃油消耗已经占到了美国全部石油消费的2/3,同时其碳排放总量也已占美国年度碳排放总额的31%。石油消费及对外的高度依赖正继上个世纪70年代石油危机后,再次成为美国人的心头之痛,战争、环境污染、恐怖事件,乃至当前的墨西哥湾漏油事件,都无不与车轮背后的石油消费有关。百年的辉煌在转眼间已似过眼云烟,美国汽车这个百年老店将何去何从,前途迷茫。

  不过,出路已依稀可见,那就是实现汽车动力从 “油”到“电”的转变,将燃油汽车变为电动汽车。仅仅在1个月内,包括美国府院在内的立法与行政机构,连续出台了一部汽车温室气体排放管制标准规定和两部推动电动汽车发展的法案,从中可见美国各界对于发展电动汽车的共识所在。

  如果说以往大家在各种政策制定过程中,比如卫生医疗法案,经常看到的是,美国政府与国会针锋相对,民主党和共和党水火不容,那么这一现象至少不适用于此次电动汽车的发展议题。 5月7日,联邦环境署联合交通部属下的国家交通安全管理局出台 《轻型车辆温室气体排放标准和燃油效率标准》,严格限制传统燃油汽车发展。紧接着, 5月25日,国会众议院便由四名跨党派的议员提出了 《电动汽车发展法案》 (草案),大范围鼓励电动汽车的发展。5月27日,参议院又有三名跨党派议员提出同名法案(草案)。以上动作可谓是府院联动,朝野合作,而团结一致的目标便是弃用燃油汽车,转向电动汽车。从中至少可以看出,在电动汽车发展的利弊上,美国社会已经取得了较为一致的共识,那就是早发展比晚发展的好。

  同时,一旦开始行动,便要立竿见影。此次连续推出的法规与法案分工明确,管制与激励双管齐下,一方面对燃油汽车是连管带罚,另一方面对电动汽车则是连拉带赏。在国会的电动汽车发展法案中,有一个20年的长远发展目标,规划在2030年将电动汽车市场规模扩大到1亿辆,相当于每年节省10亿桶石油,减少年度碳排放3亿吨。

  从国会法案的细节来看,所有的补贴和税收减免都是以消费方为主要对象,这显然可以更好地鼓励消费者有选择地购买电动汽车,提高电动汽车市场的竞争性。同时,它还规定政府要对电动汽车的发展提供优惠贷款,而公共服务部门则要优先购买电动汽车。此外,在环境署和交通部的法规中,所有管制都是针对生产厂商,这样一来,厂商直接面临减排和转型的压力。

  总的来看,美国府院此次密集推出的电动汽车发展法规和法案,一是以排放标准管制燃油汽车,压制其发展,促其转型,二是以刺激手段推动电动汽车发展,放手扶持,促其成长。这一紧一松,一压一放,基本上已经奠定了美国汽车产业转型的大方向。那就是燃油类汽车将通过采取节能技术改进发动机、减轻车辆自重等方式,提高能效,减少碳排放,并逐步退出市场。而新型电动汽车将在政策的大力扶持下,提高性价比,增强市场竞争力,最终以零排放和低成本的优势占领市场。在政策设计者看来,如此的转换,既可实现碳减排的目标,减少石油依赖,同时还可以提供新的工作岗位,刺激经济增长。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Afghanistan: State Capitalism in the US

Mexico: Urgent and Important

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Topics

Afghanistan: State Capitalism in the US

Mexico: Urgent and Important

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Related Articles

Afghanistan: State Capitalism in the US

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

India: Will New US Envoy Help to Repair Ties under Threat?

France: Global South: Trump Is Playing into China’s Hands

Zimbabwe: What the West Doesn’t Understand about China’s Growing Military Might