The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Is the End in Sight for the Internal Combustion Engine?
When Volkswagen (VW) engineers were challenged to enable small diesel engines to meet stringent U.S. standards for nitrogen oxide pollution, they tried—tried—and failing—cheated.
Now VW has agreed to one of the largest pollution penalties in history—whose hidden underside is that the engineers are still failing. Of the $15 billion VW has so far committed, $5 billion is to balance the environmental harm done by the 500,000 cheat-cars—as you might expect. The other $10 billion, $20,000 per vehicle, designated to deal with the cars, not the air, will not, however, fix the vehicles. Even given an effectively unlimited budget, engineers have not yet figured out how to make these cars emit less NOx pollution without creating an equally disastrous increase in CO2 emissions. If such a solution ever emerges, owners of these cars can get their vehicles cleaned up—but that seems unlikely. Meanwhile, owners can drive the cars for another two years, then turn them in to be scrapped. They get paid the value of the car not on the day they turn it in, but on the day, perhaps years earlier, when the cheating as revealed. So their incentives are to drive the car until the final deadline and then sell it back for more than its value. During these two years the pollution continues.
Given the complexities of the Clean Air Act and the threat of litigation by the purchasers of the cars (who are not the real victims, those who breathe the pollution are) this wasteful use of $10 billion may have been forced on regulators. What the settlements makes crystal clear, however, is that VW's engineers, with an unlimited budget, could not produce diesel engines that met U.S. NOx standards and retained the fuel efficiency that makes automakers (and customers) love diesels.
Auto and truck makers have made remarkable progress in cleaning up soot, hydrocarbons, sulfur and carbon monoxide from internal combustion engines (IC), while making those engines more efficient so that carbon pollution per passenger or ton mile could be lowered. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollutants from gas powered engines can also be cleaned up. Auto-makers like diesels because they squeeze more energy out of fuel—but they also make it much harder to control NOx emissions. VW didn't cheat to save a few dollars—it cheated because it couldn't make its small diesel cars meet U.S. standards. (Large diesels deal with NOx with a cumbersome, bulky urea injection system, which cannot be accommodated in smaller models).
This engineering limit on diesels is running into a global revolution of attitudes about air pollution. Deaths from air pollution are becoming a larger and larger catastrophe and a bigger and bigger political issue. New studies from the International Energy Agency calculated that 6.5 million people each year die from air pollution; similar studies emerge regularly from the World Health Organization. Governments and business can no longer conceal the death toll and publics are unwilling to tolerate it. Governments are acting. The VW settlement is not the only regulatory crackdown on internal combustion engines.
The Chinese government has drastically modified its entire development strategy to respond to citizen pressure about lethal pollution. The Indian government is scrambling to deal with growing public anger. In Europe, where auto manufacturers have been massively manipulating emission testing results and urban air quality degrading as a result, public outcry has led cities to begin banning significant segments of the European auto fleet. New EU pollution testing systems will make it much more difficult and expensive for auto manufacturers to game emission tests, leaving diesel vehicles in particular at risk.
Climate concerns and fuel efficiency standards are also making internal combustion an outmoded technology. The U.S. is moving forward with new heavy duty fuel efficiency and pollution standards for diesels. Countries like India and China are passing more stringent pollution rules and eliminating fuel subsidies. US auto companies are complaining—falsely—that they cannot meet the current round of fuel economy standards; they are rightly concerned that the next round of post 2021 standards, is likely to exceed the capacity of internal combustion engines to meet. This will force a rapid increase in market share for electric cars.
As shared fleet transportation companies like Uber and Lyft seize more and more market share, electric vehicles become more and more and more competitive. Vehicles which drive 100,000 miles a year recover the purchase price of an EV from savings on fuel and maintenance six times faster than a car driven only 15,000 miles.
Oil powered transportation is becoming the most important climate threat. For both the U.S. and Europe, 2015 was the year in which climate pollution from transportation exceeded emissions from electricity. Oil, not coal, is now the biggest danger. That means that advocacy, philanthropic and political energy that has focused on emissions from coal is going to take a closer look at oil. This closer look will increase the pressure on the internal combustion engine, which stands out as the main technology sustaining demand for oil.
Governments all over the world—California, the Netherlands, Britain, Germany among them—are considering outright bans on the sale of internal combustion engines. (A month ago Norway almost implemented its proposed 2025 ban). More immediately, Germany, South Korea, Sweden and China are aggressively increasing incentives for EV's. India's car manufacturers have joined with the government to phase out IC passenger vehicles by 2030.
Elon Musk has dubbed the internal combustion engine, powered as it is by thousands of small explosions inside its cylinders, a "remarkable kludge." Automotive engineers have indeed made modern gasoline and diesel engines perform remarkably—but now the limits are being reached.
In 1969 the California State Senate rejected—by one vote a bill by then State Senator, later Congressman, Anthony Beilenson, to ban the sale of cars powered by internal combustion engines. Beilenson's bill, motivated by a conviction that California's critical air pollution crisis could not be solved by gasoline powered autos, has stood for almost half a century as an example of environmental over-reach.
Now technology trends, public insistence, industry investment and government policy are all signaling that Beilenson's dream—an end to the burden of a transportation system powered by exploding gasoline or diesel combustion engines—is coming within grasp.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Patti Lynn
2018 was a groundbreaking year in the public conversation about climate change. Last February, The New York Times reported that a record percentage of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by humans, and there was a 20 percentage point rise in "the number of Americans who say they worry 'a great deal' about climate change."
England faces an "existential threat" if it does not change how it manages its water, the head of the country's Environment Agency warned Tuesday.
By Jessica Corbett
A new analysis revealed Tuesday that over the past two decades heat records across the U.S. have been broken twice as often as cold ones—underscoring experts' warnings about the increasingly dangerous consequences of failing to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions.
By Madison Dapcevich
Ask any resident of San Francisco about the waterfront parrots, and they will surely tell you a story of red-faced conures squawking or dive-bombing between building peaks. Ask a team of researchers from the University of Georgia, however, and they will tell you of a mysterious string of neurological poisonings impacting the naturalized flock for decades.
The initial cause of the fire was not yet known, but it has been driven by the strong wind and jumped the North Santiam River, The Salem Statesman Journal reported. As of Tuesday night, it threatened around 35 homes and 30 buildings, and was 20 percent contained.
The unanimous verdict was announced Tuesday in San Francisco in the first federal case to be brought against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, alleging that repeated use of the company's glyphosate-containing weedkiller caused the plaintiff's cancer. Seventy-year-old Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, California said he used Roundup for almost 30 years on his properties before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"Today's verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up."
Judge Vince Chhabria has split Hardeman's trial into two phases. The first, decided Tuesday, focused exclusively on whether or not Roundup use caused the plaintiff's cancer. The second, to begin Wednesday, will assess if Bayer is liable for damages.
"We are disappointed with the jury's initial decision, but we continue to believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer," Bayer spokesman Dan Childs said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer."
Some legal experts said that Chhabria's decision to split the trial was beneficial to Bayer, Reuters reported. The company had complained that the jury in Johnson's case had been distracted by the lawyers' claims that Monsanto had sought to mislead scientists and the public about Roundup's safety.
However, a remark made by Chhabria during the trial and reported by The Guardian was blatantly critical of the company.
"Although the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue," he said.
Many regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have ruled that glyphosate is safe for humans, but the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found it was "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. A university study earlier this year found that glyphosate use increased cancer risk by as much as 41 percent.
Hardeman's lawyers Jennifer Moore and Aimee Wagstaff said they would now reveal Monsanto's efforts to mislead the public about the safety of its product.
"Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup," they wrote in a statement reported by The Guardian.
Hardeman's case is considered a "bellwether" trial for the more than 760 glyphosate cases Chhabria is hearing. In total, there are around 11,200 such lawsuits pending in the U.S., according to Reuters.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told Reuters that Tuesday's decision showed that the verdict in Johnson's case was not "an aberration," and could possibly predict how future juries in the thousands of pending cases would respond.