Commentary: How to end political gridlock and cut carbon
To slow the accelerating pace of climate change, America needs a comprehensive low-carbon transportation energy policy at the national level.
Perhaps the greatest roadblock to building a cleaner fleet of cars, trucks, aircraft and ships is Congress’ tendency to try to predict the future by choosing certain technologies as winners and dismissing others as losers. This “winner-take-all” approach pits carbon-reducing strategies (electric vehicles versus biofuels versus gasoline versus more efficient cars and trucks) and their lobbyists and supportive lawmakers against each other on Capitol Hill. The predictable result is gridlock.
To break the political status quo, we need a truly “all-of-the-above” approach that focuses on the target outcome: the reduction of carbon emissions. Undoubtedly, the transportation sector presents the toughest and most complex sector to decarbonize because of the incredibly wide range of fuels, vehicles and technologies that we have developed to travel the land, sea and air.
The good news is that there is a commonsense solution to ending the national transportation policy stalemate on Capitol Hill, typically called a “low-carbon fuel standard” or “clean-fuels standard (CFS).” A CFS doesn’t choose specific fuels, vehicles or technologies by mandating fuel volumes, providing vehicle subsidies or favoring certain technologies. Instead, CFS takes a goal-oriented approach by setting a performance standard that ensures transportation fuels cut carbon pollution from year to year. In addition, lower carbon fuels and vehicles typically also reduce other pollutants and toxins that are deleterious to human health.
By not picking winners and losers, CFS allows all carbon-reducing fuels, vehicles and technologies to compete on an even playing field in the marketplace. In addition, because CFS is technology-neutral, this policy structure attracts the broadest coalition of stakeholder support, ranging from electrification to petroleum decarbonization to biofuels and hydrogen.
Most importantly, CFS is already a proven solution. California and Oregon have had CFS programs in place for years, Washington state just approved one, and New York and New Mexico had bills that nearly passed this year. In CFS states, industries that support cleaner transportation fuels are competing in the market and creating greener fleets and economic development.
In fact, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), for 2020, “LCFS credit generation met 7.42% of the 7.5% target reduction.” In other words, LCFS is working and meeting the current benchmarks to achieve a 20% reduction by 2030.
Research done by the Union of Concerned Scientists, found that, in California, in 2019, “LCFS credits earned by electric cars, trucks, buses, trains and even forklifts had a market value of more than half a billion dollars.”
At a recent industry gathering, Ann Wind, Oregon Clean Fuels Program manager, gave a presentation which stated that: “Since 2016, the Clean Fuels Program has reduced about 5.3 million tons of GHGs on a lifecycle basis; met and exceeded the CFP GHG reduction standards every year; and supported the displacement of about 1 billion gallons of fossil fuels”
To Oregon’s north, in Washington, Clean Fuels Washington found that LCFS would enable the conversion of forest waste to low carbon fuels and jobs: “Washington has enough forest waste to produce 400 million gallons of renewable diesel and jet fuel. That will produce over 2,000 family-wage jobs in rural, timber communities.”
Bottom line, CFS programs result in less carbon pollution from the transportation sector; allow fuels and technologies to compete on performance; create good-paying, clean-energy jobs; and shifts the cost of decarbonization to the most carbon-polluting fuels.
In sharp contrast, we have not seen a corresponding reduction in carbon intensity in the national transportation fuel supply. The current models being used in the nation’s capital are ineffective, and it’s time for a change. Considering that state-based CFSs are a proven and practical solution, it makes sense to implement CFS on a federal level as soon as we can.
With this perspective, experience and urgency, my organization, the nation’s leading advocate for CFS policies, is broadening our advocacy efforts across the country at the state level and in our nation’s capital. With our rapidly growing membership that includes companies leading in liquid and gaseous biofuels, electro-fuels, renewable power, electric vehicle charging, carbon capture and precision agriculture, we are aggressively working to decarbonize our transportation system. Our goal is to re-create the successes we have had at the state level, by winning a national CFS to ensure almost every American can begin producing less carbon year over year.
Graham Noyes is the executive director of the Low Carbon Fuels Coalition. First published by RealClear Energy.
