Why talk about pickup trucks and greenhouse gases? Pickup trucks have a special place in American politics as an almost sacred symbol of rural America. Rarely are pickups demeaned in public debate, unlike suburban assault vehicles (SUVs) which generally use the same chassis. At the same time, we see environmentalists lobbying and getting global warming regulations, though carefully making sure not to being seen anti-pickups and therefore anti-American.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (2002) put it best "two of every 10 vehicles sold are pickup trucks, but six of the 10 most expensive vehicles to fuel in 2002 are pickups". It also noted that a Dodge Ram 1500 will consume $13,000 of fuel over it's lifespan—nearly half it's purchase price! With recent prices that's likely to be higher. Pickup truck drivers deserve better. It will be a challenge to make pickups more efficient due to their need for large payloads, weighty transfer cases and axles, and lots of horsepower and torque for towing. The technology exists to do just this, but it will be a challenge to implement them with a variety of groups standing to lose or appear to lose initially.

This all came to a head when California in 2002 passed a new air quality law that would limit carbon dioxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbon, and nitrous oxide emissions, collectively known as Greenhouse Gas Emissions (�GHG�) from automobiles. California has the unique power to craft air quality regulations that are tougher then our state. Legislators made it clear that technological solutions would be available to ensure that pickups and other cars would exist, and that the cost of such solutions would be less then the cost of fuel (Schlock 2004). The additional cost to cars would be paid off in three years, and the cost to pickups would be paid off in one year.

Today, we are seeing the rules being challenged in court in the case of Automobile Manufacturer's Association (AMA) vs. California Air Resources Board (CARB). AMA claims that greenhouse gases are are not a pollutants under the Clean Air Act of 1970 and that these regulations would effectively ban large cars and pickup trucks (AMA 2005). A decision in AMA v. CARB would not only effect Californians, but also the many other states that have subsequently adopted California air regulations such as Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont. Besides the AMA there are many other groups that have gone on record to oppose the adoption of these rules in New York State. These include the American and International Automobile Manufacturers, New York Farm Bureau, and the New York Business Council (NY Legislative Policy Memos 2004). Environmentalists dismiss their arguments noting the savings in fuel costs, and the benefits of curbing the increase of global warming.

GHG Regulations: Aggravating Trouble
with American Pickup Truck Industry?

A decade ago if you wanted a full-size pickup truck your choices were Ford, General Motors, and to a lesser extent Dodge. Foreign automakers proved to be remarkably good at making fuel efficient compact trucks, but they offered little competition in the full-size sector. In the past five years with the Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan, we have seen non-Detroit automakers start to chew away at that domestic market. The Tundra is known for being more efficient then the domestic full-size trucks, although until 2004 it was about 9/10 the size of an American truck. The only area that the big three still have an oligopoly over is 'dualies', trucks with double tires in the back to take greater payloads (Arthur 2002). The industry has become more and more completive.

Why does Detroit fear GHG standards? They know it will be easier and cheaper foreign truck makers to have trucks efficient enough to meet the GHG standards. They also see it as an additional cost to their company at a time when they are struggling to keep afloat. As Muller (2002) noted, while most foreign pickup trucks are actually made in the United States, it is as factories where workers are paid less then those at unionized factories of the Big 3. The GHG standards will cost the unionized American truck industry jobs, but will create new jobs at foreign truck plants. Most of these foreign plants are down south, while existing unionized jobs tend to be in the rust belt areas around Detroit.

Death of Trucks?

Detroit claims that these mandatory GHG standards would make it impossible for them to sell big trucks. Yet, quite explicitly in the law that set up the GHG standards mandates that there will be no required reduction in vehicle weight or ban on vehicle category. As Gennette Pauwee of CARB states: �The whole aim is for no one to notice� (Gardner, 2004). It also does not apply to heavy-duty pickups such as dualies. Yet, it does pose some unique challenges that will push technology to it's limits. It takes a lot of fuel to put 2 tons of steel into motion and keep it moving. Trucks have to be strong, have a significant payload in the back, be able to tow, and have more torque and horsepower then cars. Much of the technology does exist today to do just that now. The Chevy Silverado has been available for two years now with a hybrid option that improves fuel economy by about 15% or more, particularly if the truck frequently is idling when being loaded or the driver is using it without a load. Many Dodge Ram and Chevy Silverado trucks now use displacement on demand to cut fuel usage about 7%. This technology uses an independent valve timing that allows have of the cylinders to be deactivated on low power demand (Roberts 2005). The DEC also suggests things like turbo-charging, aggressive shifting automatic transmissions, stoichiometric lean burn engines, electric air conditioning and power steering, variable displacement air conditioners (Regulatory Impact Statement 2005). The technology exists now, it's just a matter of getting the big-three to buy into it.

Many pickup drivers would oppose the technology if it meant they were going to lose something in exchange for better fuel economy. Nobody wants a truck that can't haul or off-road if that's what they need. Yet, few drivers would note differences caused by displacement on demand, hybrid, or transaxle technology. None of those technologies are particularly more complex then existing technologies, so it wouldn't make normal repairs much more difficult for those who repair their own vehicles. Detroit is still stuck in the mindset of the anti-seatbelt movement of the 1960s, where they claimed the cost would put them out of business.

Consumers: Big Beneficiaries of Better Fuel Economy

When consumers go out to buy a new pickup truck it is going to cost more initially, but this cost will be quickly paid back in fuel savings. The CARB regulations note this and work to ensure that the additional cost will be paid back. The additional cost for compact trucks would be offset in 2-6 years in gasoline savings, and for full-size pickups in 1-4 years. This assumes the unlikely scenario that gasoline prices would drop down to the 2003 low of $1.74 a gallon. It is much more likely that consumers will be paying nearly 50% more then that by 2009, as gasoline currently retails at around $2.30 a gallon and has spiked to $3.50 a gallon during the past year. This savings works out to several thousand dollars over the lifespan of truck (Fuel Savings 2005 & DEC Regulatory Impact Statement 2005).

Will this additional sticker price discourage consumers from buying trucks and keeping their old ones on the road longer? Certainly there are many relatively marginal people who drive trucks, such as farmers and rural residents. Rural residents in New York on average make $14,000 a year less then urban residents according the USDA (2003). 57% of all truck owners live in rural areas or small towns, while less then 20% of the American population lives there (Union of Concerned Scientists 2002). Prolonged planned obsoleteness would not only continue air emissions from dirty old trucks, but also mean a slackened demand in Detroit for new trucks. One could counter that these groups of people don't typically buy new trucks but instead go for used trucks whose prices wouldn't be greatly increased by the additional cost of GHG reducing technologies.

Conclusions: Keeping It in Perspective

Ultimately limiting GHG emissions isn't about saving the consumer money or making it harder for Detroit to compete against foreign truck makers. These are the direct economic impacts, but slowing global warming is likely to have even greater economic impacts. The DEC's regulatory statement notes the dramatic impact global warming could have on New York's agriculture, health, hydro-energy generation, and water supply. The Pew Center for Climate Change summarizes the negative economic impacts such as

"reduction in the state's water supply, increased air pollution created by higher temperatures, harm to agriculture, an increase in wildfires, damage to the coastline, and economic losses caused by higher food, water, energy, and insurance prices" (Shulock 2005).

We need to do something to avoid these economic losses. Combating global warming through limiting pickup truck GHG emissions makes sense, and it will ultimately benefit everybody. Detroit needs to learn not to fear government mandates when they will ultimately benefit everybody including their own industry. Standardization is a benefit for them and will lead to a closing of fuel efficiency gap between foreign and American trucks.

Works Cited

Arthur, A. Pickup Trucks: An Important Oligopoly. An analysis of the declining pickup truck industry oligopoly. Submitted December 2002 for Micro Economics at HVCC.

Muller, J. "Autos: A New Industry; Yes Detroit is losing market share. But America is the big winner, as foreign companies turn the US into the center of a global industry." Business Week. (2002)

Gardner, M. �New State Air Quality Plan Puts Burden On Automakers�. Copley News Service. July 15, 2004. Retrieved from the Internet on December 7, 2005.

Shulock, C. State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs. Pew Center for Climate Change. August 30, 2004. Retrieved from the Internet on December 7, 2005. < http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm?ID=51>

NYSDEC. Regulatory Impact Statement Part 218: Emission Standards for Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines/Referenced Material. NYDEC. December 25, 2005 (Effective Date). Retrieved from the Internet on December 7, 2005.

Union of Concerned Scientists. Study: Pickup Truck Drivers Short-Changed at the Pump. Press Release. Union of Concerned Scientists. August 29, 2002. Retrieved from the Internet on December 7, 2005.

NYS Legislative Policy Memos 2004. Legislative Memorandum from the following groups opposed to NY adopting CA's GHG regulations: American and International Automobile Manufacturers, New York Farm Bureau, and the New York Business Council. Most of these are no longer available online but may be available from the interest group directly.

Roberts, J. Test Drive: Chevy's Green Pickup. EquipmentWorld. 2005. A review of the Chevy Silverado Hybrid, displacement on demand technologies and comparision to Dodge Ram's multi-displacement technology. Retrieved from the Internet on December 7, 2005.

USDA. State Data Sheets: New York. Economic Research Service of USDA. 2003 Census. Retrieved from the Internet on December 7, 2005.