Selección de textos y definición de frames: la prensa diaria

Portland, Oregon,

absorbed a 26 percent

growth in population

from the mid-1980s to

the mid-1990s while

experiencing a growth

of only 2 percent in

traffic and reducing

average commute time,

energy consumption

per capita, and air

quality violations.

were driving gas-guzzlers, then each mile not driven would save more gasoline. As a result, we estimate that, with fuel efficiency measures in place, smart growth policies could save 2.6 billion gallons of gasoline and about an equal number of gallons of diesel. This is the equivalent of nearly 3 million barrels of oil per day or about 9 percent of the total oil that would be used absent both smart growth and fuel efficiency.

There are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that policy makers already realize the importance of smart growth in reducing oil dependence. In 2003, the second reauthorization cycle began since the landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was signed into law in 1991. In that statute, federal funds were better targeted to maintenance of the current system, flexibility was built in so that alternative forms of transportation such as transit and biking were given more resources, funding was dedicated to environmentally beneficial projects, and clean air was assured through a close connection with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. These and other beneficial programs were continued under the 1998 reauthori- zation of transportation spending, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which increased spending by 40 percent over ISTEA. In a renewal bill, Congress may once again increase future commitments well above the current level.

States are largely responsible for land-use planning, and as such have an important role. Several states, most notably Oregon, have adopted smart-growth policies that reduce sprawl and fuel use. As the American Planning Association has stated, “[e]very political barometer—polls, legislation, executive orders, budget proposals and ballot initiatives—indicates planning reform and smart growth are major state issues.”107

However, one recent study found that as of 1999 only 11 states had adopted compre- hensive statewide growth management statutes.108_{Other states must apply the}

lessons from Oregon by adopting similarly effective smart-growth policies.

COMBINED OIL SAVINGS FROM BIOFUELS, FUEL EFFICIENCY, AND SMART GROWTH

Under business as usual, we could easily be using 31.7 million barrels of oil per day in 2050 to fuel our light-duty vehicles. If we improve our vehicle fuel efficiency as discussed, our demand would drop to 20.3 million barrels per day in 2050. Layer in smart growth policies that reduce the number of miles that light-duty vehicles drive and demand falls to about 17.6 million barrels per day. Now the 7.9 million barrels worth of oil that we displace with cellulosic biofuels under our aggressive scenario leaves us demanding just 10.4 million barrels of oil per day for our entire transportation sector. That’s a 30 percent reduction in our current transportation oil demand. In turn, this will lead to great reductions in our security, environmental, and economic risks.

Moreover, this would virtually eliminate our demand for gasoline. Under business as usual, we would consume nearly 290 billion gallons of gasoline in the transporta- tion sector in 2050. Between cellulosic ethanol and Fischer Tropsch gasoline and efficiency and smart growth measures that would reduce gasoline demand, we could reduce this to just 6 billion gallons.

Figure 9 shows how we get from our current demand to this safer, cleaner, and more prosperous future. Notice the effect of limiting the amount of land available to biofuels. Without the restriction on land, we could produce an additional 22 billion gallons of ethanol, 2 billion gallons of Fischer Tropsch gasoline, and 2 billion gallons of Fischer Tropsch diesel. This would give us the equivalent of 118 billion gallons of gasoline and 12 billion gallons of diesel. This is actually more gasoline then we would actually demand after efficiency and smart growth measures are in place.

BIOFUELS AND CARBON CAPS

There is growing consensus about the need for mandatory limits on emissions of global warming pollution. Recently the Senate came just seven votes shy of passing the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which would have imposed such limits through a cap and trade system. Under such an approach, sources of green- house gas emissions would be required to hold allowances in proportion to their emissions. The allowances would take on a value equal to the cost of reducing emissions. While the future price of carbon is uncertain, we have examined a range of likely carbon allowance values in order to get some insight into the impact that such a policy would have on biofuels.

The Climate Stewardship Act approach requires refiners to hold allowances for the carbon content (and thus emissions from combustion) of their petroleum products. (Fossil fuel emissions from other large electricity and industrial sources are also regulated.) This will make the carbon allowance price an integrated cost of fuel production. So for instance, according to the analysis presented earlier, reformu- lated gasoline results in the emissions of the equivalent of 0.0127 ton of CO₂on a life cycle basis. Everything else being equal, at $5 per ton, these emissions would increase the cost of this gasoline by $0.06 per gallon, and at $30 per ton this goes up to $0.38 per gallon.

The emissions accounting of petroleum fuels under the Climate Stewardship Act means that the carbon content of biofuels would not regulated. This makes the

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2050 2045 2040 2035 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010 2005 Millions of Barr

els of Oil Per Day

■ Efficiency and Smar t Growth

■ Biofuels

■ Transportation Oil Demand FIGURE 9

implicit assumption that the growth-harvest cycle for biomass has no net carbon emissions. At the same time, the coverage under the carbon cap of electricity and fossil fuel use means that the relative differences between gasoline and diesel and biofuels should all be captured through the cost of inputs such as fertilizers made from fossil fuels. As a result, we would expect to see the price of corn and cellulosic ethanol increase (by $0.14 and $0.03 respectively at $15 per ton) but by less than the price of gasoline is projected to increase. Thus, for cellulosic ethanol, the price impacts of a carbon cap and trade system could potentially be very significant, providing a nearly $0.16 price spread at $15 per ton of CO₂. We also expect that climate legislation will include direct incentives for the production of renewable energy, though these incentives are not captured here.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAKING BIOFUELS OIL SAVINGS A REALITY By focusing on innovation and change, this study takes an approach different from any before it. We have identified sustainable and cost-effective ways for biofuels to play a central role in dramatically reducing the oil dependency of our transportation sector. Potential on this scale deserves an effort at least as large and as focused as we have proposed.

We have identified three key steps to realizing the promise of biofuels:

1.Investing in research, development, and demonstration,

2.Offering incentives for building biofuels processing facilities, and

3.Adopting a renewable fuels standard along with a flex-fuel vehicle requirement.

These measures can unlock the technological potential of biofuels, drive the cost down to the point where biofuels are cost-competitive with gasoline and diesel, and make these fuels available to all.

We have also identified the importance of the agricultural and environmental communities working together. The first step in this collaboration must be for each community to recognize the central issues and concerns of the other and for each to

Biofuels, fuel efficiency,