scholarly journals Reducing Petroleum Consumption from Transportation

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R Knittel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Fuel Economy ◽  
Combustion Engine ◽  
The United States ◽  
Low Carbon ◽  
Oil Consumption ◽  
Pigouvian Tax ◽  
Vehicle Miles Traveled ◽  
Transportation Sector ◽  
Energy Taxes

The United States consumes more petroleum-based liquid fuel per capita than any other OECD high-income country—30 percent more than the second-highest country (Canada) and 40 percent more than the third-highest (Luxembourg). The transportation sector accounts for 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption and 30 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Taking the externalities associated with high U.S. gasoline consumption as largely given, I focus on understanding the policy tools that seek to reduce this consumption. I consider four main channels through which reductions in U.S. oil consumption might take place: 1) increased fuel economy of existing vehicles, 2) increased use of non-petroleum-based, low-carbon fuels, 3) alternatives to the internal combustion engine, and 4) reduced vehicle miles traveled. I then discuss how these policies for reducing petroleum consumption compare with the standard economics prescription for using a Pigouvian tax to deal with externalities. Taking into account that energy taxes are a political hot button in the United States, and also considering some evidence that consumers may not “correctly” value fuel economy, I offer some thoughts about the margins on which policy aimed at reducing petroleum consumption might usefully proceed.

Plant Biomass as a Substitute for Oil in Transportation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. McElroy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Co2 Emissions ◽  
Plant Biomass ◽  
Combustion Engine ◽  
Motor Fuel ◽  
Energy System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Corporate Average Fuel Economy ◽  
Transportation Sector ◽  
Henry Ford

As discussed in Chapter 3, the transportation sector accounts for approximately a third of total emissions of CO2 in the United States, with a smaller fraction but a rapidly growing total in China. Combustion of oil, either as gasoline or diesel, is primarily responsible for the transportation- related emissions of both countries. Strategies to curtail overall emissions of CO2 must include plans for a major reduction in the use of oil in the transportation sector. This could be accomplished (1) by reducing demand for trans¬portation services; (2) by increasing the energy efficiency of the sector; or (3) by transitioning to an energy system less reliant on carbon- emitting sources of energy. Assuming continuing growth in the economies of both countries, option 1 is unlikely, certainly for China. Significant success has been achieved already in the United States under option 2, prompted by the application of increasingly more stringent corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. And the technological advances achieved under this program are likely to find application in China and elsewhere, given the global nature of the automobile/ truck industry. The topic for discussion in this chapter is whether switching from oil to a plant- or animal- based fuel could contribute to a significant reduction in CO2 emissions from the transportation sector of either or both countries, indeed from the globe as a whole. The question is whether plant- based ethanol can substitute for gasoline and whether additional plant- and animal- derived products can cut back on demand for diesel. The related issue is whether this substitution can contribute at acceptable social and economic cost to a net reduction in overall CO2 emissions when account is taken of the entire lifecycle for production of the nonfossil alternatives. There is an extensive history to the use of ethanol as a motor fuel. Nicolas Otto, cred¬ited with the development of the internal combustion engine, used ethanol as the energy source for one of his early vehicle inventions in 1860. Henry Ford designed his first auto¬mobile, the quadricycle, to run on pure ethanol in 1896.

Recommendation of the Tax Policy of Low-Carbon Economy in China with Reference to the International Comparison of Carbon Emissions

2013 ◽  
Vol 869-870 ◽  
pp. 1024-1028
Author(s):  
De Fa Cai ◽  
Pei Xin Shi ◽  
Ting Xue
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Carbon Emissions ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
Low Carbon ◽  
Low Carbon Economy ◽  
The World ◽  
Energy Taxes ◽  
Carbon Economy

Currently, the global warming becomes serious and has become the crisis and challenge of all the world. Low carbon economy is the best mode of coping with the global warming and realizing sustainable development of economy and society. At present, The United States is still in the first place of greenhouse gas are worth of using for reference in developed countries. At present, the United States is still the biggest country that exhausts greenhouse gases, such as CO2;however, carbon emissions in China can not be ignored. Recent research indicates that it is valuable to learn from developed countries carbon or energy taxes policy.

Analysis of Alternative Forms of Automotive Fuel Economy Standards for the United States

2003 ◽  
Vol 1842 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Greene ◽  
Janet L. Hopson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Fuel Economy ◽  
Programming Model ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Percentage Increase ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Oil Consumption ◽  
Fuel Economy Standards

Nations around the world have used fuel economy standards, voluntary or mandatory, to control greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption. Although the literature on fuel economy standards is extensive, little attention has been paid to analyzing the efficiency and equity of alternative forms and levels of standards. A mathematical programming model is developed and applied to measuring the effects of alternative fuel economy regulations in terms of economic efficiency and differential impacts on manufacturers in the United States. Fuel economy improvements of 20% to 33% would appear to provide net economic benefits to U.S. consumers. Unfortunately, none of the alternatives tested is clearly more equitable than the others. The uniform percentage increase (UPI) and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) metrics disadvantage different sets of manufacturers. An industrywide, voluntary fuel economy standard [such as that of the European Union or l’Association des Constructeurs Européens d’Automobiles (European Car Manufacturers’ Association)] has the potential to be most economically efficient and to avoid transfer payments among manufacturers as well. A weight-based metric would be more expensive than CAFE or UPI metrics for the same level of fuel economy increase but might be less likely to restrict manufacturers’ future marketing options. The analysis has many limitations that should be addressed in future research.

The United States and Alternative Energies since 1980: Technological Fix or Regime Change?

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 103-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E Nye
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Perspective ◽  
Carbon Intensity ◽  
Low Carbon ◽  
Actual Performance ◽  
Policy Failure ◽  
Technological Momentum ◽  
Alternative Energies ◽  
Kaya Identity

Awareness of global warming has been widespread for two decades, yet the American political system has been slow to respond. This essay examines, first, political explanations for policy failure, focusing at the federal level and outlining both short-term partisan and structural explanations for the stalemate. The second section surveys previous energy regimes and the transitions between them, and policy failure is explained by the logic of Thomas Hughes’s ‘technological momentum’. The third section moves to an international perspective, using the Kaya Identity and its distinction between energy intensity and carbon intensity to understand in policy terms ‘technological fixes’ vs. low-carbon alternatives. The final section reframes US energy policy failure and asks: (1) Why, between 1980 and 1999, was America’s actual performance in slowing CO2emissions better than its politics would seem capable of delivering? (2) How and why has the United States since c. 2007 managed to reduce per capita CO2emissions?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document