Wissenschaftliche Arbeit zur Erlangung des Grades Diplom-Sozialwissenschaftler der Universit¨at Stuttgart - Fach Soziologie -
Why hybrid cars succeed where other green cars fail The importance of social, cultural and political aspects in technical regime change towards a sustainable transport system in the USA
Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Ortwin Renn Institut f¨ ur Sozialwissenschaften Abt. f¨ ur Umwelt- und Techniksoziologie Universit¨at Stuttgart
Zweitgutachter: Dr. Daniel Compagnon Institut d’Etudes Politiques Universit´e Montesquieu Bordeaux IV
vorgelegt von: Miriam Fischlein Pfirsichweg 7 63741 Aschaffenburg Tel.: 06021-88579
[email protected] Deutsch-franz. Studiengang Sozialwissenschaften Matrikelnummer: 1994791 Abgabedatum: 30.11.2005
Abstract Can hybrid electric cars make a difference with regard to the sustainability of the US transport system? Since their introduction in 2001 and despite a purchase premium, demand for these ecological cars has grown to unexpected levels. The combination of electric and combustion motor renders them more energy efficient and less polluting than their conventional counterparts. They could thus contribute to make the American transport system more sustainable. It is currently faced with huge challenges, such as the world’s highest fuel consumption and greenhouse gas production, as well as extreme local air pollution. Consequently, the wider diffusion of hybrid cars is desirable. They seem to be on their way to attain mass diffusion. But hybrids’ success, if positive, is also surprising: Historically, no ecological vehicle has ever been able to compete with conventional cars. And economically, hybrids’ lacking price competitiveness makes their purchase irrational. Nevertheless, demand is sustained. How then can the unexpected success of hybrid vehicles be explained? The results from a quantitative study of hybrid owners demonstrate that the all-importance of price and other economic aspects has to be refuted. Instead, it is necessary to include social, cultural and political factors in order to fully explain hybrids’ appeal. Early adopters’ attitudes towards hybrid vehicles can inform us about adequate policies to attain wider diffusion of these ecological cars. Measures in favor of hybrids have to be attuned to social practices, cultural visions and the political climate, and not only to economic considerations.
Contents List of figures
vi
List of tables
viii
Notes
ix
Acknowledgements
xiii
1 Introduction
1
2 Automobile society and sustainability
4
2.1 2.2
2.3
Passenger transport as a result of growing demand vidual mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Global effects of motorized travel on sustainability . 2.2.1 Worldwide oil supply and demand . . . . . .
for . . . . . .
indi. . . . . . . . . . . .
4 8 8
2.2.2 Motorized transport’s global environmental impacts . . 12 The sustainability of the transport system in the United States 16 2.3.1 America’s thirst for oil and the consequences on energy security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.3.2
The environmental and health impacts of automobile traffic in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3 The case for hybrid technology 24 3.1 An ecological technical invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ii
3.2
3.1.1 How hybrid cars work: a new drive-train system . . . . 3.1.2 Hybrids’ energy and environmental performance . . . . The economics of hybrid cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 The market for HEVs - current situation and projections 3.2.2 Overcoming the market entrance barrier . . . . . . . .
24 28 31 32 36
4 Accounting for hybrids’ success: sociological contributions 42 4.1 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4.1.1 Theoretical background: Acknowledging technology’s
4.2
and consumption’s social character . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.1.2 Pivotal theoretical concepts: Socio-technical regime and ‘leitbild’ approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Propositions for an appended concept of the socio-technical regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4.2.1 Theoretical construct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.2.2 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5 Supply side: The institutional and regulatory dimension of hybrids’ diffusion 64 5.1 The regulatory environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.1.1 Energy policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.1.2 Environmental policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5.2
5.1.3 Safety policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Manufacturers’ capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6 Demand side: Empirical study on the user acceptance of hybrid electric vehicles 6.1 Design of the study . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Selection and composition of 6.1.2 The key variables . . . . . . 6.2 Statistical analysis . . . . . . . . .
iii
. . . . . . . respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
78 78 79 81 84
6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3
Testing the hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 An exploratory model of political, social and cultural factors’ influence on hybrid technology diffusion . . . . 102 Additional results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7 Policy implications 112 7.1 A short assessment of available policy options and their efficiency112 7.2 Forcing hybrids’ commercialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 7.2.1 The case for Pigouvian taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 7.3
7.2.2 The case for a reform of existing standards and subsidies115 Exploiting hybrids’ full potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 7.3.1 The case for electronic fuel efficiency displays in all vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 7.3.2 7.3.3
The case for a plug-in option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 The case for soft measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
8 Conclusion
122
9 R´ esum´ e: Les voitures hybrides - succ` es sans pr´ ec´ edent et effets sur le syst` eme de transport am´ ericain 124 9.1 Les voitures hybrides offrent une solution technologique face `a la crise du syst`eme de transport am´ericain . . . . . . . . . . 125 9.1.1 9.1.2 9.2
La soci´et´e automobile et son impact sur la consommation d’´energie et sur l’environnement . . . . . . . . . . 126 Une technologie ´ecologique au succ`es surprenant: les voitures hybrides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Toutefois, leur impact r´eel d´ependra de leur acceptation par l’opinion publique et de l’ad´equation des mesures politiques propos´ees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 9.2.1 L’´etat de l’acceptation des voitures vertes par les producteurs et les consommateurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
iv
9.2.2
Les implications pour les politiques publiques . . . . . 147
Appendix
154
Bibliography
165
v
List of Figures 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Modal share of passenger travel in selected countries . Depletion of oil and gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worldwide CO2 emissions, 1989-2001 . . . . . . . . . Real and nominal gas prices in the US, 1919-2006 . .
3.1
HEV drive-train configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
Distribution of hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners Estimated change of fuel prices . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial model of hybrid-ownership . . . . . . . . . . . Revised model of hybrid-ownership . . . . . . . . . .
6.5 6.6
What could increase hybrid sales in the US? . . . . . . . . . . 108 Support for policy measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
vi
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 6 . 11 . 14 . 19
. . . .
80 100 103 104
List of Tables 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
GDP and cars per capita in selected countries, 1970 and 1982 7 Estimated annual losses (gains) through climate change . . . . 15 Vehicle use, fuel price and fuel intensity in selected countries . 18 US greenhouse gas emissions, GDP and greenhouse gas intensity, 2002-2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1 3.2
Potential for the reduction of CO2 emissions through regenerative braking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Currently available hybrid electric vehicles and planned introductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3 3.4 3.5
Projection of hybrid-electric light duty vehicle sales, 2002-2025 34 Alternative vehicle sales in the US, 2002-2004 . . . . . . . . . 37 The costs of hybrids and comparable vehicles . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1
Hybrid Motor Vehicle Credit: Maximum deduction amounts
5.2 5.3 5.4
by vehicle weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAFE standards, 1992-2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal emission standards for light duty vehicles . . . Corporate average fuel economy by manufacturer, 2005
6.1 6.2 6.3
Distribution of HEV models owned by respondents . . . . . . 82 Interest in hybrid technology among survey respondents . . . . 83 List of attitudinal measures employed in the study . . . . . . . 84
vii
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
67 69 71 75
6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8
Influence of environmental issues’ salience on support for policy measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Influence of energy issues’ salience on support for policy measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Influence of perceived problem solving capacity on interest in hybrid vehicle technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Influence of perceived social gratification on interest in hybrid vehicle technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Influence of acceptance by relevant social groups on interest
in hybrid vehicle technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.9 Variance in hybrid-owners’ and non-owners’ perception of acceptance by relevant social groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 6.10 Expected vehicle attributes and their impact on interest in hybrid technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 6.11 Aspects increasing hybrid sales in the US . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6.12 Actual distance driven and comparison to the average driver . 110 6.13 Vehicle class - HEVs and the vehicles traded in for them . . . 111
viii
Notes Abbreviations α
Kronbach’s alpha
ANOVA
analysis of variance
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAFE
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CH4
methane
CO
carbon monoxide
CO2
carbon dioxide
cpg
cent per gallon (US)
df
degrees of freedom
DOE
Department of Energy
EIA
Energy Information Administration
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EU
European Union
F
F-ratio (between groups means square divided by within-
fig.
groups mean square) figure
ft
foot (US)
γ
gamma (correlation measure)
ga
gallon (US) ix
GDP
gross domestic product
GJ
gigajoule
GM
General Motors
GVW
gross vehicle weight
HOV
High Occupancy Vehicle
HEV
hybrid electric vehicle
ICE
internal combustion engine
IEA
International Energy Agency
lb
pound (US)
LDT
Light Duty Truck
LDV
Light Duty Vehicle
LEV
Low Emission Vehicle
mb
million barrel
mi
mile
mpg
miles per gallon (US)
mph
miles per hour (US)
N
number of cases
N/A
not applicable
NHTSA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMVOCs
non-methane volatile organic compounds
NOx
nitrous oxides
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OPEC
Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries
PGU
power generating unit
R
Pearson’s R
SCOT
Social Construction of Technology
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SOx
sulphur oxides
SULEV
Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle
x
SUV
sport utility vehicle
tab.
table
ULEV
Ultra Low Emission Vehicle
US
United States
VOC
volatile organic compounds
x/cap
x per capita
Currencies Within this thesis, the currencies used are the US Dollar and, in some cases, the European Euro. Where the symbol $ is used, it always refers to the US currency. Fuel taxes are given in US cent per gallon (cpg).
Measures and conversion tables The measures used in the text follow the American system. Liquid measures are given in gallons, weights in pounds. Linear measures are given in miles and feet, and speed in miles per hour. Fuel consumption is measured in liter per 100 kilometers in Europe and inversely the United States, in miles per gallon. Emissions are measured in gram per mile in the US and in gram per kilometer in Europe. In both cases, the American measures are used. The conversion chart can be found below: General measures 1 ga
=
3.785 l
1 mi = 1.6093 km 1 lb = 453.592 g 60 mph = 96.6 km/h
xi
Fuel consumption measures 20 mpg 30 mpg 50 mpg
= 11.76 l/100 km = 7.84 l/100 km = 4.704 l/100 km
5 l/100 km 10 l/100 km
= 47.04 mpg = 23.52 mpg
xii
Acknowledgements I would like to thank all the interviewees for their participation in the online survey. Their help is very much appreciated. For fruitful discussions and valuable suggestions, I want to thank my supervisor Professor Alfred Marcus at the Carlson School of Management, Minneapolis. Great support was also provided by several other faculty members and students at the University of Minnesota - thank you, Professor Tim Smith, Mary Maloney and Adam Fremeth. I am grateful to my supervisors in Stuttgart and Bordeaux, Professor Ortwin Renn and Professor Daniel Compagnon, for their willingness to accept a ‘tri-national’ thesis and for their support throughout the year. Without being granted a fellowship from the German National Academic Foundation (Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes), I would not have been able to undertake an overseas research project. I am very grateful for this opportunity. My special thanks go to my family for their loving support and to Nikolas for making me undertake yet another adventure.
xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction For more than one hundred years, mankind has been relying on the hydrocarbon economy and vehicles propelled by combustion engines to meet the growing demand for individual mobility. This configuration poses serious problems: Energy security, air pollution and climate change are issues that are becoming more and more pressing. Finite oil resources and the effects of automobile emissions have prompted governments and automobile manufacturers to search for alternative technologies. To date, the attempt to find a technical solution for a more sustainable transport system has been in vain. Even though progress has been made towards cleaner and more fuel efficient cars through incremental innovation, the efficiency gains have been eaten up by the greater weight and performance of today’s cars and the sheer number of miles driven, which is steadily increasing. Alternative drive-trains such as the electric vehicle have not been met with success. Now, a new technology is raising hopes for a more sustainable transport system. Hybrid-electric drive-trains were first introduced in the United States in 2000 and demand has since gained momentum. They reduce emissions and fuel consumption through the combination of an internal combustion engine with an electric motor and by using regenerative braking and idleoff. If hybrids were to attain a wider diffusion they could truly make a 1
difference in terms of emissions and energy consumption. The sales figures from the first few years show a strong upwards trend. The fact that all major manufacturers are introducing hybrid models also points to a bright future for the technology. But hybrids’ success, if positive, is also surprising: They are so much more expensive than conventional cars that the fuel cost savings cannot make up for the price difference. According to pure cost-utility calculations, it is not rational to buy a hybrid car. Standard economic theory would predict little interest in hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). Contrary to these expectations, the demand is so high that in some US states, the waiting time for a new hybrid is several months. And then there is the fact that no alternative vehicle technology has ever caught on the way hybrids have on the market. Even extensive subsidies and supportive regulations could not force the mass commercialization of electrical or alternative fuel vehicles. How can the unexpected triumph of hybrid vehicles be explained? There have to be factors besides price that account for hybrids’ appeal. In this thesis, we turn to social practices, public discourses and cultural visions linked to technical artifacts to explain user acceptance of green technologies. Apparently, hybrids succeed so well in these categories, that their lack of price competitiveness is not of great weight for customers. Finding out whether this is truly the case is the purpose of the hybrid-owner survey described in this thesis. By examining user attitudes, we can determine different dimensions that facilitate or impede technical change. They act as switches between technical options: The better a new technology accommodates the requirements set by various selection environments, the more likely it is to gain wider diffusion. This research advances the sociological concept of selection environments as determinants of the direction of technical change. It emphasizes the importance of social, cultural and political selection aspects and thereby closes gaps in some other approaches of technical regime change. It is of interest to the
2
transportation, environmental, and energy policy community. The realization that non-economic factors play a role in the success of green technologies can lead to a better understanding of the preconditions for the transformation of large socio-technical systems towards more sustainability. Having an insight into social dynamics is a prerequisite for informed policy making. Early adopters of hybrid technology can teach us how to make other users - who may be insensitive to energy security and environmental concerns and plagued by more immediate troubles and constraints - take an interest in energy-efficient and clean technologies and use them in a way effectively spinning off energy savings and pollution reduction. The structure of the thesis is as follows: Chapter 2 contains a discussion of recent trends in transport growth and its consequences on the environment and on oil consumption. An account of the functioning of hybrid electric vehicles and their environmental and energy performance follows in Chapter 3. It also comprises an analysis of the present and future market for hybrids. The case is put forward that economic theory cannot fully explain this new technology’s success. Chapter 4 investigates how useful sociological theories can be in this regard. A review of the relevant literature in sociology of technology and consumption is followed by the introduction of an appended theoretical model of the socio-technical regime. The focus is on selection environments as explanatory factors for the smoothness or roughness of technical regime change towards more sustainability. In Chapter 5, the main selection effects on the supply side are examined. Regulations and firms’ institutional capabilities are of special importance if regime change is to succeed. Chapter 6 concentrates on selection effects on the demand side. Data from a quantitative study of hybrid owners is explored and user attitudes are discussed. The thesis concludes with a discussion of policy implications in Chapter 7. A French summary of the complete thesis can be found in Chapter 8.
3
Chapter 2 Automobile society and sustainability Modern societies are marked by an unprecedented increase in spatial mobility (Banister et al., 2000), which has adverse effects on the environment and on energy consumption.
2.1
Passenger transport as a result of growing demand for individual mobility
Compared to travel patterns in earlier times and compared to those of less developed countries, citizens of industrialized nations cover much farther distances. In a broad definition of the human activity of travel, the European Commission (2005, pg. 3) describes passenger transport as follows: “Passenger transport consists of all transport of people rather than of freight. It includes all forms of public and private transport of people by air, land or water, whether scheduled or unscheduled. It includes unmotorised and pedestrian transport. It also includes the transport of baggage which is traveling with a passenger. Pas4
senger transport may be urban, rural, coastal, local, long distance or cross-border.” Passenger transport growth is spurred by three main factors: land-use patterns, socio-economic conditions and transportation system conditions (Polzin et al., 2003).1 We will concentrate on the first two factors, because they help us make a point about the expected growth of travel. The growing spatial dispersion of individual activity patterns is the most notable driver of travel demand in Western societies. In the course of the 20th century, population density in urban settlements has dwindled. As locations of leisure, work and living became more distant and social networks more widespread, the need for individual mobility grew. The scattered settlement patterns of today’s cities lend themselves poorly to public transport, because they lack the population density required to render it efficient. With distances between the sites of daily activities growing, walking or biking is often not an option and mobility needs are saturated to a large extent by individual motor car traffic. According to the European Commission, in 1998, roughly 75 % of passenger miles in the European Union (EU) were traveled by car (European Commission, 2005). In the United States, the share of car travel is even higher: In 2001, 86.3 % of total miles were traveled by car (DOT/NHA, 2004). With the notable exception of Japan, the share of private car transport in overall transport lies over 80 % today in all selected countries shown in Fig. 2.1. These nations are not only highly mobile in terms of distances traveled, but they are truly automobile societies in that a large majority of trips are taken by car. 1
Production also drives transport demand. Industrial manufacturing is ever more decentralized, with firms exploiting economies of scale and scope as well as the division of labor on a global scale. Intrafirm trade in combination with just-in-time production leads to increased freight traffic (Donaghy et al., 2004). Freight transport is an interesting field of study, but we will concentrate on passenger transport.
5
Figure 2.1: Modal share of passenger travel in selected countries. Adapted from: OECD/IEA, 2004b Not only is there a shift from other means of transport toward motor vehicles, but the total number of miles traveled has increased, too. While the travel-time budget of an average person per day is approximately one hour, irrespective of cultural differences, geographical specificities, predominant mode of transport or per-capita income (Schafer and Victor, 2000), people in Western societies go further in this time.2 To the extent that a better infrastructure allows for swifter traffic and the speed of available means of transport increases, the distances traveled grow. While the average NorthAmerican covered circa 13,700 miles per year in 1990, the typical African traveled a mere 1,150 miles (idem). 2
African villagers spend about the same time every day travelling as the average inhabitants of Singapore, Western Europe or the United States, but they cover smaller distances. The reason for the worldwide travel time stability remains a mystery to scientists. It has been argued that an hour of travel time per day corresponds to human instincts, or that other activities such as sleeping, eating and working put a time-constraint on travelling (Schafer, 1998), but scientific proof for these assumptions is still lacking.
6
Country
GDP per capita (1985 $) 1970
1982
Canada
10.1
16.4
USA
13.0
17.9
Australia
10.8
Japan Germany
1970
1982
av. annual % change
2.2
0.31
0.49
2.1
1.5
0.44
0.56
1.2
14.5
1.4
0.31
0.45
1.8
7.3
15.1
3.4
0.08
0.31
6.2
9.4
14.7
2.0
0.22
0.44
3.2
France
9.2
13.9
1.9
0.24
0.42
2.5
UK
8.5
12.7
1.8
0.21
0.40
2.9
India
0.8
1.3
2.2
0.001
0.003
5.4
China
0.7
1.4a
3.3
0.0001
0.002a
16.5
OECD
7.8
12.2
2.2
0.18
0.34
4.1
a
av. annual % change
Cars per capita
1991
Table 2.1: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and cars per capita in selected countries, 1970 and 1982. Source: Dargay and Gately, 1999 Per capita income is the other central factor driving mobility demand. The car ownership population ratio is a function of the income level (Tab. 2.1). It serves as an important measure of traffic because it is directly related to per capita travel and fuel use. In Western societies, the transport sector accounts for the biggest part of overall energy use, but percentage growth rates of the car fleet and of transport energy demand are modest. In poor countries, the part of transport in overall energy consumption is smaller. But per capita energy demand shoots up as they start to develop and continues to rise steadily during the process of economic development. If China or India were to attain a living standard comparable to the Western world, the number of cars and of miles traveled would explode. At the current growth rate, the number of cars worldwide will rise from 800 million today to 3.25 billion in 2050 (Koerner, 2005). Looking at these figures, it seems as if the growing demand for mobility is here to stay - along with an unquenchable thirst for oil and millions of tons of toxic emissions. Thus, mobility needs have widespread consequences on energy consumption and the environment. 7
2.2
Global effects of motorized travel on sustainability
Motorized travel is responsible for unsustainable levels of oil consumption and environmental pollution.
2.2.1
Worldwide oil supply and demand
The transport sector depends almost totally on oil and is the single most important determinant of oil demand. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that between 2000 and 2030, transport energy use in the Organization for Economic Development (OECD) will increase by 50 %, in spite of policies intended to curb travel growth (OECD/IEA, 2004a). In addition, the expansion of transport oil consumption is practically the single cause of the overall increase in OECD oil use over this period. This also intensifies energy dependence throughout the OECD (OECD/IEA, 2003): By 2030, oil imports are projected to attain 85 % of total consumption in Europe (up from about 50 % today), 50 % in North America (up from about 35 % today), and 95 % in the Pacific region (up from about 90 % today). The absolute as well as the relative part of transport in oil consumption will grow in the future (Svid´en, 1993). Data from the International Energy Agency confirms the expected predominance of transport in oil consumption in industrialized countries (OECD/IEA, 2004b): While the last thirty years have seen a decline in household and industry oil use, transport’s consumption has continued to grow. In 1998, transport represented 78 % of oil consumption in IEA member countries, combining private travel’s 53 % and freight’s 25 % share. Newly developing countries, most notably China and India, are following in the footsteps of the industrialized countries and their immense thirst for oil puts the oil market under even more pressure. While demand for oil is growing globally at a ratio of approximately 1.6 % per year, concerns about the longevity of and the access to the world’s oil 8
supply are increasingly being voiced. One reason for this is the insecurity about the exact quantity of oil remaining. Colin Campbell (cited in: Vidal, 2005, pg. 1), the renowned geologist and expert for oil-reserves questions, puts it very aptly: “Estimating reserves is a scientific business. There is a range of uncertainty but it is not impossible to get a good idea of what a field contains. Reporting, however, is a political act.” The accuracy of the numbers reported by companies and governments is at best questionable. But the last couple of years have brought it home that there might be less oil out there than previously expected. In 2004, several oil companies revised their reserve estimates downwards. Shell (2004), for instance, recategorized 20 % of its proven reserves to probable reserves and a number of American companies, among them El Paso with a 41 % downgrade for its North-American oilfields, also came forward with lower numbers for their reserves than previously published (OECD/IEA, 2004a). In addition, during the last two years, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) repeatedly stated that its production capacity was stretched to the limit. In Russia, the government’s crackdown on the energy market and the nationalizations of oil-giant Yukos and Gazprom have further fueled concerns about bottlenecks on the oil market and contributed to a bull movement on the oil market. Undeniably, political and economic unrest in oil-producing countries has an impact on prices. It is also important to bear in mind that the geopolitical distribution of reserves puts a risk premium on the oil price. While the US is today’s largest oil producer, its petroleum fields are considered to be already past their peak. The world’s biggest remaining hydro-carbon reserves lie hidden beneath the desert sands of the politically instable Middle-East. The 2003 Iraq war and its aftermath have a considerable impact on oil prices. And although Iran is thought to harbor the world’s
9
fourth largest oil reserves, geopolitical tensions make access to these reserves doubtful. The disparity of the location of oil demand and oil supply, the political turmoil in a number of supplier countries and the insecurity about remaining oil reserves have jointly caused an upward trend in crude oil prices since 2002. In April 2005, a barrel of oil was traded at prices as high as 60 US $ (Der Spiegel, 2005a). Experts expect prices to remain at the current level or to climb even higher. In April 2005, a study by the investment bank Goldman Sachs (cited in: BBC, 2005) caused quite a stir: It asserts that the current oil prices are just the beginning of a “super spike”, which could drive prices up to 105 US $ per barrel. Another study predicts crude oil prices around 77 US $ per barrel in the short term and up to 100 US $ by 2010 (Rubin, 2005). While the world will not run out of oil in the next few years, this most valued of energy products will become scarcer - and therefore more expensive - quite soon. Projections vary about how long petroleum will last and how fast depletion will occur. According to the IEA (OECD/IEA, 2004a), the world’s oil resources will not peak before 2030. But by its own projections, demand is expected to grow by 64 % between 2002 and 2030. This would have to be offset by enhanced oil recoveries. However, during the last decade, the world has seen a slowdown in discoveries of new oilfields. The accuracy of the IEA projection has therefore been doubted, for example by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO). ASPO’s members - geologists and former employees of oil companies - assert a much faster depletion rate of oil resources and criticize the excessive optimism of the USGS World Oil Assessment (USGS, 2000), on which the IEA’s World Energy Outlook is based. Fig. 2.2 depicts the alternative depletion scenario developed by ASPO. In the face of finite resources, growing mobility demand means higher oil prices. As reserves shrink, advanced investments are required to recover the remaining oil. Canada, for example, has extensive amounts of tar sands - but
10
Figure 2.2: Association for the Study of Peak Gas and Oil: The general depletion picture - Oil and Gas 2004. Source: ASPO, 2005 11
extracting high quality fuel from it is much more expensive than customary oil production and requires a huge amount of energy, which would have to come from other sources. Transportation relying on hydro-carbon resources will be faced with higher prices, and ultimately, with the disappearance of its lifeline - oil. Transport’s bad energy consumption record is not the sole concern, however. Automobile traffic also has severe consequences for the environment.
2.2.2
Motorized transport’s global environmental impacts
Automobiles emit several substances that adversely affect air quality and contribute to global warming. Today’s standard internal combustion engines burn gasoline only incompletely, discharging air pollutants and particles in the process. The global climate change theory rests upon the assumption that anthropogenic emissions lead to global warming by trapping solar heat instead of emitting it back into space. Melting icecaps at the poles would then cause a rising sealevel and the submersion of much of the world’s coastal areas. In addition, experts expect changes in weather patterns, with more severe storms, altered rainfall patterns and droughts as possible results. Politically, the existence of global climate change is not undisputed, and there is even more discord when it comes to remedies. Scientifically, there is doubt about the extent but not the existence of anthropogenic climate change. In the last few years, enough evidence has been accumulated to make a case for the correctness of the basic assumptions behind climate change theory. Only this year, two new studies have been published that dispel a large part of what doubts remained. The first one (Saltzman and Young, 2005) links the end of the ordovician period ice-age to high atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from volcanic eruptions. It presents evidence that situates the ice-age 10 million years earlier than previously assumed. Formerly, the later dating was used as an argument against the link between CO2 and global 12
warming: it would have meant that an ice-age would had lasted even under under high concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2 ). The second study (Hansen et al., 2005), undertaken by NASA scientists and published in Science, finds that the Earth’s energy balance is in disequilibrium: Earth absorbs 0.85 watt per square meter more energy from the sun than it reflects into space. This supports the global warming argument. In addition, the study points to a delay effect in climate change: “Earth’s climate system has considerable thermal inertia. This point is of critical importance to policy and decision-makers who seek to mitigate the effects of undesirable anthropogenic climate change. The effect of the inertia is to delay Earth’s response to climate forcings [. . . ]. This delay provides an opportunity to reduce the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change before it is fully realized, if appropriate action is taken. On the other hand, if we wait for more overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change, the inertia implies that still greater climate change will be in store, which may be difficult or impossible to avoid.” (Hansen et al., 2005, pg. 1) The earth’s climate-inertia renders the need for action all the more acute and inaction all the more damaging. Greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, but their real effects will only be felt much later. Even if CO2 emissions were stabilized, the CO2 concentration would still continue to rise (IPCC, 2001). Several efforts have already been made on the international level to reign in greenhouse gas emissions, the most well known being the Kyoto Protocol.3 The Kyoto reduction measures, combined with voluntary steps taken by the industry, have succeeded in slowing the 3
The Kyoto Protocol seeks to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming. The signing parties commit to reduce their CO2 production by a certain ratio, with different ratios for developing and industrial countries. Although it was adopted already in 1999, it only came into effect this year, after taking the hurdle of being ratified by enough countries to account for more than 55 % of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. It has
13
Figure 2.3: Worldwide CO2 emissions, 1989-2001. Source: UNEP, 2005a increase rate of global CO2 emissions. It is a first step, but there is still room for improvement. Moreover, equity concerns arise from the fact that emission rates are not equally spread across the world (Fig. 2.3): Industrial societies pollute more both in absolute and in per capita terms. This is especially striking in the case of North America, whose per capita pollution rate is almost 20 times that of Africa and still more than twice as high as in Europe and Asia-Pacific. After power generation, transport captures the largest share in carbon dioxide emissions - between 20 % in developing countries and up to 30 % in industrialized countries. And its share is growing due to continuing increases in vehicle numbers and miles traveled (Ortmeyer and Pillay, 2001). While an in-built equity mechanism, in that it applies differential reduction levels according to the development level of a country.
14
EU
USA
Ex-USSR
China
World Coastal protection measures
0.1
0.2
0
0
1.1
Loss of coastal land
0.3
2.1
1.2
0
14
Loss of coastal wetlandsa
4.9
5.6
1.2
0.6
31.6
Other ecosystems
9.8
7.4
2.3
2.2
40.5
Agriculture
9.7
7.4
6.2
7.8
39.1
Forestry
0.2
1
0.6
0
3.4
Energy industry
7
6.9
(0.7)
0.7
23.1
Water management
14
13.7
3
1.6
46.7
Mortality
21.9
16.6
3.9
4.9
82
Air pollution
3.5
6.4
2.1
0.2
15.2
Emigration
1
0.5
0.2
0.6
4.3
Tropical cyclones
0
0.2
0
0.1
3
Total
72.4
68
20
18.7
304.2
a
World
including losses to fishing
Table 2.2: Estimated annual losses (gains) in the event that atmospheric C02 concentrations reach twice pre-industrial levels (Billion US $). Source: Munich Re, 2001 CO2 emissions in the industry and residential sectors are sinking globally, pollution from transportation is showing an upwards trend. Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is the single most important pollutant emitted by cars. Other main greenhouse gases given off by mobile emitters are methane (CH4 ) and nitrous oxides (NOx ). Also contained in fuel are indirect greenhouse gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur oxides (SOx ) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC). These substances all contribute to high-level, stratospheric changes causing global warming. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are projected to reach twice their preindustrial level by 2050 and to give rise to enormous macroeconomic costs to remedy the effects of climate change. Tab. 2.2 shows an estimate of annual costs in selected countries. It could cost the world as much as 300 billion US $ per year to fight climate change impacts. Besides contributing to global warming, car exhaust gases are one of the 15
premier sources of local air pollution. They affect the health of the population, not to mention the well-being of the flora and fauna. NOx , CO and volatile organic compounds (VOC, also-called hydrocarbons) have been proven to have severe health impacts. CO harms the respiratory tract and the coronary arteries. VOC and NOx cause smog, and in turn, respiratory illnesses (Porter, 1999). Recently, another component of car exhaust fumes, particulate matter, has made headlines: A new study by the European Union shows that these minuscule particles are responsible for the death of up to 310,000 EU citizens every year (SZ, 2005). The World Health Organization first drew attention to the fact that the dust suspended in the atmosphere causes cardio-pulmonary diseases and lung cancer. It included recommendations on the restriction of particulate matter in its air quality guidelines (see for example WHO (2000)). Since then, a large body of scientific evidence has been accumulated that documents the human death toll caused by particulate matter. The price humanity pays for mobility is high: today, transport already claims lifes - not only directly in accidents, but also indirectly through its noxious emissions. Tomorrow, the price to pay might become even higher due to climate-related macroeconomic costs and loss of human life.
2.3
The sustainability of the transport system in the United States
Automobile traffic plays a prominent role in local air pollution and in global warming. The automobile society par excellence, the United States, feels the effects of motorized traffic perhaps more dearly than anybody else. Both energy dependence and pollution give rise to concerns.
16
2.3.1
America’s thirst for oil and the consequences on energy security
In the United States, the issue of energy security has become more acute in the past years. With a share of 40.7 % of total energy consumption in 1999, transport is the main energy consumer in the US; between 1990 and 2001, its consumption rose by 19.7 % (OECD/IEA, 2002b). The US are already the world’s largest oil importer and under the current policy mix, the imports will continue to grow: Oil demand is projected to rise 1 % per year, from 20.2 million barrel (mb) per day in 2000 to 27.3 mb per day in 2030 (OECD/IEA, 2002a), even as the mature domestic production declines by approximately 0.2 % per year. A scissor effect is at work: sinking indigenous production is faced with growing demand. This will result in augmented energy dependence of the United States if no new measures are taken to either reign in demand or to increase domestic supply. Without action, oil imports will rise to 63 % of total oil consumption by 2020 (OECD/IEA, 2002b). The United States do not stand alone with this problem: The OECD is projected to become more dependent on energy imports from non-members, with the OPEC countries capturing the lion’s share of the demand increase (OECD/IEA, 2004a). Its oil exports to the OECD are expected to rise by 80 % between 2002 and 2030. For the United States, the need for foreign oil is a major security concern, considering that it makes the world’s most powerful nation dependent on countries that are at best authoritarian, at worst dictatorial regimes. Interestingly, at the same time that the energy supply situation of the US worsens, Americans continue to enjoy very low gasoline prices compared to the rest of the developed world. In 1998, Americans paid 1.24 dollars per gallon ($/ga), compared to 3.74 $/ga in France, 3.82 $/ga in the United Kingdom and 2.88 $/ga in Japan (Ortmeyer and Pillay, 2001). Of course, the oil market is international and the global price of oil has a direct impact on the cost of gasoline. But what motorists ultimately pay at the pump depends on national and local taxes. And this is where the US differs radically from 17
Countries
Weighted real fuel price, including taxes
Vehicledistance per capita x1000
Fleet average vehicle fuel intensity
Car fuel use per capita
US $/ga
US $/l
mi
km
mi/ga
l/100 km
GJ/cap
USA
0.98
0.26
8.08
13
19.6
12.0
52
Canada
1.67
0.44
5.10
8.2
19.93
11.8
33
Australia
1.93
0.51
5.10
8.2
20.82
11.3
32
a
Japan
2.08
0.55
2.42
3.9
20.82
11.3
14
EUa
2.65-3.79
0.7-1.0
3.73-4.66
6.0-7.5
32.67-25.57
7.2-9.2
16-20
Minima and maxima are from Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK.
Table 2.3: A comparison of vehicle use, fuel price and fuel intensity in selected countries, 1998. Source: Himanen et al., 2004 other industrialized countries: its taxes on gasoline are very moderate and its fuel prices are what must be the worlds lowest in relation to per capita income. The tax proportion is only 36 % in the US, compared to 80 % in France, 76 % in the United Kingdom and 60 % in Japan (idem). Low fuel prices encourage consumption and so it is not surprising that Americans travel more per capita than all other OECD citizens. What is more, the fuel intensity of the US car fleet is higher than in any other industrialized country (for selected countries, see Tab. 2.3, 18). In short, there is tremendous unused potential for efficiency gains in the American transport sector. Even though fuel is cheap in international comparison, the rising price on the world market is felt in the US, too. Oil prices at the pump have been mounting. But in real terms, what Americans pay at the pump today is still way below what they used to pay twenty years ago, after the oil shocks of the 70s. While Fig. 2.4 shows an upward trend in real and nominal gasoline prices since 2002, it also proves that fuel is nowhere near as expensive today as it used to be in the early eighties. Still, the recent increases have captured consumers’ attention, because the percentage change is actually quite elevated. During the summer of 2005, it was accentuated by the destruction of
18
Figure 2.4: Real and nominal average annual gas prices in the US, 1919-2006. Source: DOE/EIA, 2005a refineries in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Stan. In some areas, regular unleaded cost three or more dollars per gallon. Even by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) own testimony (DOE/EIA, 2004a,b), the higher prices are here to stay: In the short term, the US will have to deal with a supply shortage. The country currently lacks refining capacities and import growth is facing challenges considering the tight international oil market. In the long term, a supply shortage is also expected. While the insufficient refining capacity can of course be remedied, it will not completely offset the higher demand. The US will still be in competition for oil with other countries, whose demand is also on the rise. In short, the current transport system in the US contributes to unsustainable energy consumption. It will become harder to satisfy the current level of demand in the future.
19
2.3.2
The environmental and health impacts of automobile traffic in the United States
In addition to the energy security concerns it raises, transport has its downside in environmental terms. Not only is the US the largest contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, but its urban agglomerations also suffer from local air pollution. The US has 4 % of the world’s population, but accounted for almost a quarter (24 %) of global CO2 emissions in 1998 (UNFCCC/UNEP, 2002). Between 1990 and 1999 its emissions increased by 11 % (idem). And they are still growing, mainly driven by the transportation sector, which makes up approximately 30 % of greenhouse gas emissions in the US (UNFCCC, 2005). According to the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (DOE/EIA, 2005b) transport’s CO2 emissions are projected to increase by 1.8 % annually between 2005 and 2025 under unchanged policies. While the EIA expects efficiency gains in the aircraft and rail sector, it also projects that this will be offset by increasing highway travel and stagnating vehicle fuel efficiency. If no new measures are taken, CO2 emissions will go up from 1,872 to 2,796 million metric tons between 2003 and 2025 (DOE/EIA, 2005b). All the while, the current administration opted out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 and refuses to issue more stringent CO2 regulations on the grounds that it could damage economic growth. To date, these emissions are not restricted in the US. Interestingly, the Clean Air Act (CAA) from 1970 lists carbon dioxide as an air pollutant and explicitly gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to include the named substances in pollution prevention programs. However, the Bush administration asserts that the CAA does not include CO2 , and that any regulation of CO2 would be too costly. This was made clear by President Bush (2001) in a letter to a group of senators, in which he repeated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Only recently, the White House reaffirmed its stance, when it stated that it was 20
Substance (million metric tons CO2 equivalent)
Projection
% change
2002
2012
2025
2002-12
2002-25
5,750
6,812
8,062
18.5
40.2
Methane
599
609
606
1.7
1.1
Nitrous oxide
323
342
382
5.7
18.3
Gases with high global warming potential
144
284
624
97.5
334.0
60
82
93
37.2
56.9
6,876
8,128
9,767
18.2
42.1
10,075
13,869
20,292
37.7
101.4
682
586
481
-14.1
-29.5
Greenhouse gas emissions Energy related carbon dioxide
Other carbon dioxides Total greenhouse gases GDP (billion 2000 US $) Greenhouse gas intensitya a
thousand metric tons CO2 equivalent per billion 2000 US $ of GDP
Table 2.4: Projected changes in US greenhouse gas emissions, GDP and greenhouse gas intensity, 2002-2025. Source: DOE/EIA, 2005b not convinced of the need for action against climate change in response to a proposed energy bill containing tighter CO2 emissions regulations (Hulse, 2005). Rather than implementing obligatory standards, since 2002, the US government relies on a voluntary program of greenhouse gas reduction. It focuses on improving the economy’s carbon efficiency as opposed to meeting a specific reduction target. While this is certainly positive, current policies will still lead to an absolute increase in emissions (Tab. 2.4). The only indirect restriction of CO2 in the US actually exists in the transport sector: the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards define the average fuel intensity of the cars sold by an auto-manufacturer in a given year. The amount of fuel a car burns is related to its greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, CAFE is less stringent than the European and Japanese standards, and it has not been tightened over the last decade, except for a tiny increase in 2003. Regarding the financial effects of climate change in the US, losses will mostly outweigh the gains. Munich Re, a major reinsurance company, estimates that by 2050, the US will have to spend approximately 68 billion
21
US $ per year to battle climate change effects (Munich Re, 2001). Because of changing rainfall patterns and temperature zones, experts expect agricultural zones to shift. For example, dryer and hotter weather is forecast for the US grain belt, which will have an adverse influence on crop productivity (UNFCCC/UNEP, 2002). Forestry, natural habitats, bio-diversity and water resources will be affected. Submersion of coastal areas and desertification will result in land loss. Because of warming sea waters, extreme weather events such as hurricanes could become more intense and more frequent, with high macroeconomic costs accruing in their wake. Although the record hurricane season of 2005 cannot be linked solely to climate change, a statistically significant increase in the number of hurricanes has occurred in the past 30 years. The second environmental problem linked to transport is local air pollution. Exhaust fumes from mobile emitters cause widespread health problems. In spite of environmental laws attempting to ameliorate air quality, most urban agglomerations - especially the coastal stretches between San Diego and San Francisco and between Maine and Virginia as well as many major cities between the coasts - suffer from bad air quality. Starting with the 1970 Clean Air Act, noxious components of exhaust fumes were restricted. These measures were efficient in reducing emissions of new cars by 70 to 80 % by 1981 (Porter, 1999). But because vehicle miles driven also increased during that period, the actual reduction was only 42 %. In 1990, an amendment to the Clean Air Act established National Ambient Air Quality Standards and implemented more stringent regulations on mobile sources. It included fuel quality standards and tighter pollution standards for transport emissions, reducing tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matters on a phased-in basis which starting in 1994. California has to be mentioned specifically, because it regulates much more strongly than any other US state. Pollution control is urgent in California: not only is it the most populous state,
22
but it also suffers from high smog levels. In general, air quality in the US has improved since the introduction of the CAA, but it is still not satisfactory in most urban agglomerations and the toll on human well-being stays high. In 2003, more than 60 million Americans lived in non-attainment areas where concentrations of one or several air pollutants exceeded EPA health standards (OECD/WEP, 2000). In sum, the increase in individual mobility needs has led to the creation of unsustainable transport systems, worldwide as well as in the US.
23
Chapter 3 The case for hybrid technology What can be done to make transport more environmentally sustainable and less energy intensive? Hybrid vehicles offer a technical solution to this problem.
3.1
An ecological technical invention
The combination of internal combustion engine and electrical engine makes hybrid cars more fuel efficient and less polluting. They are termed an ecological technical invention for this reason.
3.1.1
How hybrid cars work: a new drive-train system
In the automobile world, the term ‘hybrid’ refers to any car that combines two different power-generating units (PGUs). Here, it will be used only to designate hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs) which combine an internal combustion engine (ICE) with an electric motor and a battery pack. Other basic components of a hybrid are a transmission and an electronic control system that decides which power unit will be used. A thorough explanation of the mechanical components and technical functionality of HEVs can be found in
24
Figure 3.1: Illustration of HEV drive-train configurations: Parallel, series and series/parallel-design Kreith et al. (1999), Husain (2003) or Jefferson and Barnard (2002). Unlike standard cars equipped with only an ICE, hybrid cars can be propelled by the sole electric motor. And unlike electric cars, they do not need to be plugged in, because the battery recharges itself from the onboard ICE during driving. There are two basic design options, and a third configuration combining them (see Fig. 3.1): • Series design: Only the electric motor provides propulsion power. The ICE generates electricity and recharges the battery powering the elec25
tric motor, which in turn propels the wheels. It is by far the simpler configuration, but the need for a generator and a big battery pack make it expensive. • Parallel design: The car can be powered by both the electric motor and the ICE, either simultaneously or separately. The parallel design is the configuration used in the first model that came to the market, the Honda Insight. It has various advantages: The possibility to simultaneously use both PGUs makes it more powerful than a series drive-train; and the direct coupling of power to the road renders it more efficient. It dispenses with a generator and the battery pack is smaller than in a series drive-train, which helps keep costs and weight down. But combining two power sources and regulating which one is to be used makes it more complicated mechanically and electronically. • Series/parallel drive-train: The most successful model on the market, the Toyota Prius, uses yet another strategy, combining series and parallel design to maximize advantages and minimize disadvantages. Its ICE has the ability to drive the wheels directly. But the engine can also be disconnected from the wheels and used to power a generator (i.e. to recharge the battery), which results in near optimum efficiency operation. A complex algorithm controls which engine is used: At slow speeds, the HEV relies on the electric motor for propulsion; at higher speeds, it relies on the ICE. The auto-industry distinguishes between hybrids according to the degree of hybridization. Conventionally, this has been done by identifying the relation between the amount of power supplied by the electric motor and by the combustion engine. However, once regenerative braking comes into play, it gets more complicated, because it does not fit into the scheme devised. It therefore seems more useful to differentiate among hybrids according to the
26
technology steps that remove them from standard ICE vehicles. Friedman (2004) proposes five levels of hybridization: • Idle-off: All hybrids have the capability to automatically turn the engine off when stopping. But this can also be achieved in a conventional vehicle through a starter-generator. • Regenerative braking: Braking energy is captured by the electric motor and stored in the battery pack. This requires a system in which at least 10 % of the vehicles power comes from the electric motor. Otherwise, voltage and power levels are too low to capture braking energy significant in terms of fuel efficiency. • Scale-back of the ICE: The conventional engine is downsized and combined with an electric motor in order to boost performance at times when operational demands peak. A vehicle that incorporates these first three technology steps is labeled a mild hybrid. • Electric-only drive: If, in addition to idle-off, regenerative braking and engine downsizing, a vehicle can drive relying solely on the battery pack and the electric motor, it qualifies as a full hybrid. The electric drive-mode is used at low speeds, when it is most efficient. • Lengthened battery-electric range: The last step of hybridization is to expand the range a vehicle can travel in electric-mode only by providing the possibility of external recharging. Such vehicles only exist as concept cars as of yet. A hybrid that could be plugged into the electricity grid could cover most of the daily distance a person drives in electric mode. After the complete discharge of the battery, the ICE would take over. The concept is nothing new - the first hybrid-electric car was build by Ferdinand Porsche in 1902. Indeed, in the early years of the automobile 27
age, electric and hybrid vehicles were no rarety. But ICE vehicles came to dominate them eventually, and the hybrid concept has not been employed in mass manufactured cars until recently. The dual propulsion system and the ensuing control complexities made the model unattractive compared to conventional vehicles. In addition, the higher costs were perceived as prohibitive for market entrance. But with the development of new controlling algorithms and the advancements in battery technology in the last decade, hybrids became a potentially viable alternative to conventional cars. Their superior energy and environmental performance and the need to comply with stronger environmental regulations prompted several manufacturers to pursue this line of production.
3.1.2
Hybrids’ energy and environmental performance
Hybrids qualify as an environmental technological innovation. According to Huber (2004, pg. 1), “environmental innovation includes any kind of innovation - technical, economic, legal, institutional, organizational, behavioral that leads to an improvement of ecological quality, regardless of any additional advantage or motive.” Gas-electric vehicles could be a step towards a more sustainable transportation system since they both provide better energy efficiency and emit fewer pollutants than standard ICE vehicles (Friedman, 2004). Another important consideration is that if hybrids were to enter into mass-production, prices for batteries and electric components would decrease, ultimately benefiting the transition towards a fuel-cell/hydrogen economy. Although hybrid vehicles can by no means be called a technical fix in the spirit of Weinberg (1993), i.e. a technical solution for a social problem, they are certainly more sustainable than conventional vehicles.
28
A closer look at hybrids’ energy performance reveals considerable advantages over conventional vehicles. In part-load operational range (at slow speeds and/or without vehicle load) the ICE has a very low thermal efficiency. Standard ICE vehicles are built to reach optimum efficiency at high speeds or high load, when the motor is running at maximum power and at high temperatures. However, half of the time, the distance covered is under 3 miles (Lenz and Legat, 1997, conversion from kilometers to miles by author) and the motor does not attain a sufficient temperature to run efficiently . At the most common speeds and loads, an ICE’s efficiency reaches on average 0.17, which means that only 17 % of the energy contained in the fuel is transformed into propulsion (Dauensteiner, 2001). At the optimum efficiency point the efficiency more than doubles, to 0.35. But this point is hardly ever attained during everyday driving. This is where the hybrids’ advantage lies: Instead of a big engine, whose full potential is almost never needed, hybrids get by with a downsized engine - and an additional boost from the electric motor only when necessary. At slow speeds, the electric motor powers the car on its own. During normal driving, the smaller combustion engine runs with a consistent power output and therefore can be optimized to operate close to the optimum efficiency point. Every time additional power is needed (e.g. for accelerating or hill climbing), the electric motor kicks in and gives the car an extra power boost. Along with idle-off and the recapturing of energy through regenerative braking, hybrids save a lot of fuel in comparison to conventional cars. The Toyota Prius gets a combined mileage of 55 mpg1 (4.28 l/100 km), which is very low considering that it is a midsize car. Hybrids have a lot of potential for fuel and emission saving (Friedman, 2004): In the future, a full hybrid with advanced technology could get 2.5 times better fuel economy than a conventional vehicle. Over its lifetime, fuel savings would amount to about 1
The fuel efficiency numbers used in this thesis are EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) estimates and derived under ideal testing conditions. In real world driving, the vehicle usually gets 5-10 % less mileage.
29
Percentage CO2 emissions due to land transport in the US
31 %
Journeys made in urban areas in the US
75 %
Energy normally lost in braking in urban driving
40-45 %
Energy potentially recoverable by regenerative braking
50-80 %
Overall potential for CO2 reduction
4.7-8.0 %
Table 3.1: Potential for the reduction of CO2 emissions in the US by use of regenerative braking. Source: Jefferson and Barnard, 2002 5,000 $2 and greenhouse gas savings to 47 tons. An advanced mild hybrid would still get 100 % better mileage than a conventional car and avoid 41 tons of greenhouse gases. Since a hybrid consumes less fuel, it also emits less harmful substances. On the global level, HEVs contribute to the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because braking energy is lost as heat in conventional vehicles and because this loss constitutes up to 45 % of the energy consumed by a car in city-driving, regenerative braking has tremendous potential for increasing fuel efficiency and cutting emissions. Jefferson and Barnard (2002) estimate that CO2 -emissions and fuel consumption could decrease by as much as 8 % if regenerative braking was applied to every car in the US fleet (see Tab. 3.1). At first sight, it seems highly unlikely that every car in the US will be equipped with this feature in the near future. But it has been done before: the catalytic converter has become widespread despite its high costs. Sound emission policies led to its diffusion. On the local level, gas-electric vehicles have a decent environmental record. They emit less noxious particles than most conventional cars. Especially full hybrids are clean in city driving, because up to a speed of 15 mph they drive in electric mode. And urban agglomerations are the place where cleaner cars are most urgently needed. All the hybrid models currently on the market 2
Note: Friedman (2004) assumes a fuel price of 1.40 $ per gallon. At current fuel prices of 2.50 to 3 $, the savings would be even higher.
30
meet today’s most stringent federal emission standards, the Tier 2 standards, and comply with the even stricter California ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) or even SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) standards.3 It is important to note that some conventional vehicles also attain these standards, which means that hybrids are not inherently cleaner. But considering that we stand only at the beginning of the technological trajectory, it is safe to assume that there is room for improvement. Maybe more so than for conventional vehicle technology, which is very mature and has already exhausted a lot of methods to reduce emissions. Weiss et al. (2000, pg. 12) state that among all the vehicle designs examined in their study on the life-cycle effects of automobile technologies, “vehicles with hybrid propulsion systems using either ICE or fuel cell power plants are the most efficient and lowest-emitting technologies assessed.” The effect of hybrids on greenhouse gas emissions, air quality and fuel consumption depends of course on their diffusion. Analyzing the economics of hybrid cars can shed light on their overall potential to attain a more sustainable transport system.
3.2
The economics of hybrid cars
In terms of energy demand and ecological impact, hybrid technology seems promising - but what about the market prospects? Will they be able to overcome the market entrance barrier and attain wider diffusion? 3
A thorough description of the regulatory environment and an analysis of federal and California emission standards can be found in Chapter 5.
31
3.2.1
The market for HEVs - current situation and projections
The demand for gas-electric cars is growing fast. Although they still account for only a minuscule portion of the US automobile market - more precisely 0.5 % - the high growth rates in hybrid sales give reason to conjecture a more considerable market share in the next years. According to Toyota Motor Company, global demand for the Toyota Prius rose by 71 % percent from 2003 to 2004 (Inoue, 2004). With only five days on dealer lots, the Prius has the fastest turnover rate of all vehicles in the US (J. D. Power and Associates, 2004b). In another study by J. D. Power and Associates (2004c), 63 % of interviewees state they are probably interested in hybrid technology and 5 % state they are definitely interested. Awareness of hybrid technology is already high, which is additional evidence that hybrids are in for a fast rise. Suppliers seem to anticipate a sustained growth of the demand for hybrids. Otherwise they would not be scrambling to bring their own models to the market. Currently, there are only a few HEV models being sold, but more are soon to come. Honda and Toyota were the first-movers. The Honda fleet contains three mild hybrids, the Civic Hybrid, the Accord Hybrid and the first commercial hybrid ever, the 1999 Insight. In 2001, Toyota came out with the first full hybrid, the Prius, which remains the most successful gas-electric car to date. 2004 saw the first hybrid sport utility vehicle (SUV), the Ford Escape. Toyota followed suit with the Highlander in spring 2005. The American “Big Three” auto-makers are scheduled to come out with their own models (two pickups and a SUV) by the end of this year. All in all, by the end of 2008, there will be more than 20 hybrid vehicles on the US market (see Tab. 3.2). But the exact growth rates of hybrid demand remain uncertain. The available scenarios diverge widely in their projections of future HEV market share and the impact on fuel consumption and transport emissions. Gov32
Make
Model
Type
Year
Honda
Insight
Compact car
1999
Accord Hybrid
Midsize car
2004
Civic Hybrid
Midsize car
2003
Compact car
2001
Highlander
Midsize SUV
2005
Camry Hybrid
Midsize car
2006
RX 400 Hybrid
Luxury car
2005
GS 450h
Midsize car
2006
Escape
Compact SUV
2004
Fusion
Midsize car
2008
Tribute Hybrid
Compact SUV
2007
Honda
Toyota Toyota
Lexus
Prius
Ford Ford
Mazda Mercury
Mariner Hybrid
Midsize SUV
2005
Milan Hybrid
Midsize car
2008
General Motors GMC
Yukon Hybrid
Fullsize SUV
2007
Sierra Hybrid
Fullsize pickup
2008
Malibu
Midsize car
2007
Silverado
Fullsize pickup
2005
Tahoe
Fullsize SUV
2007
Saturn
VUE
Compact SUV
2006
Dodge
Ram Diesel HEV
Fullsize pickup
2005
Mercedes
Sprinter Hybrid
Van
2005
Nissan
Altima Hybrid
Midsize Car
2007
Chevy
Daimler-Chrysler
Nissan
Table 3.2: Currently available hybrid electric vehicles and planned introductions. Data compiled from DOE/EPA (2005) and automobile industry websites ernment sources remain cautious in their predictions. According to DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook (DOE/EIA, 2005b), gasoline-electric light duty cars
33
Category
Cars
HEV All cars % HEV sales
Light duty trucks
HEV All cars % HEV sales
Total light duty vehicles
HEV All cars % HEV sales
Sales 2002
Sales 2020
(thousands)
(thousands)
19.60
481.20
8175.10
8144.10
0.24
5.91
0
515.80
7919.00
10635.70
0
4.85
19.60
9970
16094.10
18779.80
0.12
5.31
Table 3.3: The IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2005 - A conservative projection of hybrid-electric light duty vehicle sales, 2002-2025. Source: DOE/EIA, 2005c and trucks will only attain a combined market share of 5.31 % in the year 2020 (see Tab. 3.3). Industry expert J. D. Power and Associates (2005) recently published a similarly conservative prediction: Because of insufficient model diversity, the higher purchase price and the competition by ever more fuel efficient ICE vehicles, J. D. Power forecasts that gas-electric vehicle sales will level out at 3 % market share by the end of the decade. Other available scenarios converge around a considerably more positive outlook for hybrids. Greene et al. (2004) use a quantitative model combining announced and expected new hybrid introductions and a model of car choice to project demand for hybrids. For 2008, they predict a market share between 4.6 % and 7.1 %. By 2012, hybrids could make up as much as 10 to 14.9 % of the US car fleet. The scenario also includes diesel vehicles and projects the combined effects of hybrids and diesels on fleet fuel efficiency. The average fuel economy of light duty vehicles is projected to reach 24.6 to 24.8 mpg by 2008, up from 24.3 mpg in 2002. By 2012, it could attain 24.9 to 25.2 mpg. These increases may seem small, but this is due to the incorporation of a sales mix shift in the model. The authors assume that part of the 34
efficiency gains through hybrids will be offset by a trend towards heavier and stronger cars, which could very well reflect reality. Without hybrids, fuel efficiency could stagnate or even decline - as it has done for most of the last decade. As in any model, some simplifications have been made. For example, no improvements in ICE fuel efficiency are assumed over the time period. Moreover, the scenario is based on the assumption of the political status quo, i.e. the potential influence of tougher emission or fuel efficiency standards is not taken into account. If adequate measures were taken, the market share of hybrids could be even higher than projected here. Unlike Greene et al. (2004), Gott et al. (2002) incorporate a geopolitical and regulatory dimension. The authors develop three scenarios with diverging prospects for hybrids. The ‘baseline’ scenario computes market share based on an unchanged economic and regulatory environment. Under these circumstances, the authors see a combined market share of 9 % for mild and full hybrids in 2020, and an additional, considerably higher share of 58 % for micro-hybrids (i.e. only using idle-off). The prediction changes under the condition of more stringent environmental standards. In the ‘easy street’ scenario, the assumption is that particulate matter will be more strictly regulated, but fuel prices will be low and the economy robust. In that case, the authors predict a market share of 11 % by 2020 for full and mild hybrids together and of up to 57 % for micro-hybrids. The third scenario is based on the assumption of a considerably less friendly economic environment and stricter regulations. ‘Rough Ride’, as it is called, depicts a situation with disruptively high fuel costs, little or no economic growth and tough environmental standards. Under these circumstances, hybrids are predicted to capture a quite substantial market share by 2020: 46 % for mild hybrids, 11 % for full hybrids and 37 % for micro-hybrids. However, Gott et al. (idem) ascribe only a 10 % probability to this scenario. In contrast, “Baseline” has a 50 % and “Easy Street” a 20 % chance to come true. Unfortunately, the authors fail to expose the explicit computation of their scenarios, although their approach
35
seems rather comprehensive.4 Burke and Abeles (2004) project at least 30 % of hybrid penetration by 2020 but they also fail to make their methodology explicit. The divergence of the available scenarios mirrors the existing uncertainty about the long-term fate of hybrids. One thing, however, seems certain: With the right policy measures, hybrids could capture a significant market share and have a tangible impact on both fuel consumption and vehicle emissions.
3.2.2
Overcoming the market entrance barrier
Judging by the fast rise in demand, HEVs are about to surmount the market entrance barrier and attain wider diffusion. This successful start is puzzling for two reasons: Their cost structure compared to conventional cars, and the fact that non-gasoline, non-ICE vehicles to date have not been doing overly well. In the US, green cars have a history of being confined to niche markets. The gasoline fueled internal combustion engine remains the state of the art with alternative vehicles capturing only small market shares. In 2004, they accounted for a mere 6.10 % of new car sales (Tab. 3.4). Ethanol flex fuel cars that can use both gasoline and another fuel were doing relatively well, with an overall market share of 4.4 % in 2004. However, demand for these cars is growing very slowly and even by the EIA’s conservative predictions, hybrids will have caught up with them by 2008 (DOE/EIA, 2005c). With demand doubling every year for the last two years, they have already surpassed all other alternative vehicles currently available in the US. Hybrids’ promising start is especially noticeable when comparing them to electric vehicles. Although the latter were the hope of the 90s and regulators have tried to force their commercialization with countless measures, only 4
It includes the analysis of vehicle use patterns and trends, an assessment of current vehicle technologies, interviews with personnel from more than 50 European, Japanese and American companies in the component supply industry and an analysis of possible developments of oil price and availability, of emissions and fuel efficiency regulations and of economic growth.
36
Type of vehicle
2002
2003
2004
Ethanol-Flex Fuel ICE
364.6
362.6
370.4
Ethanol ICE
0.6
0.6
0.6
Electric Vehicle
2.3
2.2
2.2
19.6
40.9
80.9
Electric-Gasoline Hybrid Compressed Natural Gas ICE
0.2
0.2
0.2
Compressed Natural Gas Bi-fuel
11.2
10.9
10.9
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Bi-fuel
42.9
41.6
41.7
Total alternative car sales Total new car sales Percent alternative car sales
441.4
459.0
506.8
8175.1
8110.8
8308.0
5.40
5.66
6.10
Table 3.4: Alternative vehicle sales in the US (thousands), 2002-2004. Source: DOE/EIA, 2005c slightly over 2000 electric vehicles are sold per year in the US. They account for a mere 0.03 % (see Tab. 3.4) of total new light vehicle sales. Reasons for the failure of electric vehicles are plentiful: They have a low range, low maximum speed, and need to be plugged in over-night. Their operating costs top those of a comparable ICE vehicle, not to mention that their purchase price is twice as high (Kreith et al., 1999). Like electric cars, hybrids have elevated operating costs (Lipmann and Delucchi, 2003). At the current price of roughly 2.20 $ per gallon, they offer only moderate fuel cost savings. In the dealer-lot, they feature much higher price tags than comparable vehicles. All this results in a drawn out payback period. Nevertheless, demand for hybrids was already rapidly growing in 2002 and 2003, when gasoline was considerably less expensive and the payback period even longer. Standard economic theory cannot account for this success. It sees actors as rational individuals who are able to draw up a hierarchy of needs, who will always maximize their utility and who are provided with perfect information on market conditions. Thus, it would have predicted little initial interest in hybrids. Indeed, before the introduction of HEVs in the US, the importance of pricing was emphasized if they were to be successful (Santini et al., 1999). The purely economic view led to the pre-
37
diction of a very limited market for hybrids. The homo œconomicus model cannot fully explain hybrids’ real world appeal. Two years ago it did not seem rational at all to buy a gas-electric vehicle. Today, opinions about whether hybrids have reached cost effectiveness diverge. The calculation depends indeed on the factors included and on the vehicle the HEV is compared to. Tab. 3.5 shows a comparison of the three most successful hybrid models with three similar conventional cars. For the two Honda models, a conventional and a gas-electric version of the same cars exist. A comparatively luxurious counterpart was chosen in contrast to the hybrid model. HEV models all come with a large package of standard equipment. Thus, it seemed plausible to compare the two Honda models to a higher tier car. This renders our model slightly biased in favor of hybrids. The payback periods calculated are conservative, because the price difference is relatively small. For the Toyota Prius, the comparison is more difficult than for the Honda models. In size, power and attributes, it ranges somewhere between the smaller Toyota Corolla and the larger Toyota Camry, which is why we chose to compare it to both of them. For all three models, a federal tax credit of 2000 $ was included in the calculation. A tax deduction of 560 $ was assumed, which is equivalent to a marginal federal income tax rate of 28 %.
Fuel Type
2005
2005
2005
Accord Hybrid V6
Civic Hybrid
Prius
Regular
Regular
Regular
ft3
96 ft3
Passenger Volume
103
Luggage Volume
11 ft3
10 ft3
16 ft3
Auto (L5)
Auto (CVT)
Auto (CVT)
MPG (city)
29
48
60
MPG (hwy)
37
47
51
MPG (comb)
32
48
55
Transmission
91
ft3
38
Annual Fuel Cost ($)
2005
2005
2005
Accord Hybrid V6
Civic Hybrid
Prius
Aa
1031
688
600
Bb
825
550
480
Cc
1406
938
818
Dd
1125
750
655
30140
20900
20979
MRSPe
Compare to
Fuel Type
2005
2005
2005
2005
Accord EX-V6
Civic EX
Corolla LE
Camry LE
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
ft3
ft3
103
Luggage Volume
14 ft3
12.9 ft3
14 ft3
16.7 ft3
Auto (5 sp)
Auto (4 sp)
Auto (4 sp)
Auto (5sp)
MPG (city)
24
29
30
24
MPG (hwy)
34
38
38
34
MPG (comb)
27
33
33
28
1222
1000
1000
1179
Annual Fuel Cost ($)
Aa
89
101.8ft3
Passenger Volume
Transmission
88.1
ft3
Bb
978
800
800
943
Cc
1667
1364
1364
1607
Dd
1333
1091
1091
1286
28850
18560
15790
19025
Accord Hybrid V6
Civic Hybrid
Prius
vs.
vs.
vs.
Accord EX-V6
Civic EX
Corolla LE
Camry LE
Purchase price differential ($)
1290
2340
5189
1954
Federal tax creditf
560
560
560
560
Purchase price differential after tax creditb ($)
730
1780
4629
1394
MRSPe
Yearly fuel cost
Aa
191
313
400
1179
savings ($)
Bb
153
250
320
943
Cc
260
426
545
1607
Dd
208
341
436
1286
39
Payback periodg
Aa
3.8
5.7
11.6
1.2
Bb
4.8
7.1
14.5
1.5
Cc
2.8
4.2
8.5
0.9
Dd
3.5
5.2
10.6
1.1
a
15,000 mi/year, 2.20 $/ga
b
12,000 mi/year, 2.20 $/ga
c
15,000 mi/year, 3.00 $/ga
d
12,000 mi/year, 3.00 $/ga
e
Manufacturer’s recommended retail price
f
Tax deduction = marginal federal income tax rate (here: 28%) x 2000 $.
g
Payback period = price differential / annual fuel cost savings
Table 3.5: Cost structure of the three most successful hybrid models and comparable conventional cars. Data compiled from automobile industry websites and DOE/EPA (2005)
The payback period changes with the number of miles driven and the level of fuel prices. The more fuel prices rise, the higher the fuel cost savings and the shorter the payback period. Driving a lot also shortens the payback period. This means that in scenario C, where 15,000 mi/year are driven and fuel costs reach 3.00 $/ga, the hybrids are most cost-effective in comparison to their counterparts. As the average new car buyer keeps it for five years, the pay-back period should not exceed this timespan. Being cost-efficient in all scenarios, the Honda Accord boasts the best record, followed by the Civic which is at the brink of becoming cost-efficient. But remember that the calculations are biased towards the hybrid cars. For the Prius, the results are mixed - in comparison to a Corolla, it features a bad cost-efficiency, whereas it seems very rational to buy a Prius if the reference is a Camry. According to Lipmann and Delucchi (2003) the price increments cited in the literature converge around 3,000 $, which shows that the price increments assumed by us are rather small. We also omitted non-fuel operating costs, which are higher for hybrids and prolong the payback period. Lipmann and Delucchi (2003) estimate
40
that operating costs are 13 % higher for a Prius than for a comparable ICE vehicle. Offsetting fuel savings and higher purchase price alone does not suffice. For instance, insurance and vehicle registration tax depend on the value of a vehicle and so will be higher for the more expensive hybrids. While some routine non-fuel operating and maintenance costs and the warranty for vehicle components not part of the hybrid system are roughly the same for the compared vehicles, there is a difference in the warranty for the hybrid components. The Prius battery, for example, is only warranted for eight years or 100,000 miles. As of now, there is uncertainty about the long-term reliability of the battery component and the cost of replacing it. It could cost 5,000 US $ or more to change the battery pack. Last but not least, the resale value of the car has to be taken into account. It will depend on the level of fuel prices and on the perception of their future development, as well as on expectations about non-fuel operation costs (Abrahamson, 2005). As the expiration date of the battery pack warranty nears, the resale value of a gas-electric vehicle is likely to take a steep drop. Taking into account the higher price and operating costs and the remaining uncertainties, hybrid cars have not yet attained full competitiveness with conventional cars. Mainstream economic theory would forecast little consumer interest in hybrids - contrary to the reality of fast growing demand and high latent interest. Economic theory is insufficient to explain the triumph of hybrid cars. Thus, we have to look to other, more comprehensive theories to find an explanation.
41
Chapter 4 Accounting for hybrids’ success: sociological contributions The description of the gaps of economic theories in accounting for hybrids’ success has shown that additional explanatory factors are necessary. We attempt to prove the importance of sociological theory in this respect.
4.1
Literature review
Four bodies of literature are of importance for our analysis: First, studies dealing with the social shaping of technology can give an insight into the social character of technical change. Second, the sociology of consumption should not be neglected, because unlike most sociological innovation studies, it deals with the diffusion stage. Diffusion means the dissemination of a product beyond a small group of original suppliers and users and ultimately, the adoption of a technology by the majority of firms and consumers. The third body of literature represents the technical-regime approach, which is included for its ability to conceptualize innovation as a dynamic process. Lastly, paying tribute to the topic of this study, a short review of sociological literature concerning visions of the automobile is appropriate. 42
4.1.1
Theoretical background: Acknowledging technology’s and consumption’s social character
Why have hybrids experienced a comparatively successful launch, even though they are more expensive than comparable cars and green cars were never much of a success in the US? The explanatory power of the homo œconomicus model falls short of expectations in this regard. There has to be something else to hybrids. Finding out what this ‘something else’ is could teach us important lessons on how to further facilitate penetration of HEVs and other green cars. Social shaping of technology In order to account for hybrids’ success, it is necessary to go beyond a onesided economic approach and conceive of the car not as a mere object, but as a material artifact endowed with social meaning and subject to social shaping. We need to awaken to the fact that all human artifacts are social in essence. Only then can we lay claim to start grasping the meaning of a technology and the nature of its interaction with the social world. The inherent social constructivity of technology has not been acknowledged in sociology from the beginning. Rather, social scientists have focussed on the social effects of technology. Karl Marx, the eminent 19th century sociologist, saw technology as a self-propelled, extraneous force, outside of political or cultural influence. In the 20th century, Jacques Ellul (1954, 1977, 1988) became famous for his trilogy about the role of technology as a factor permeating and blindly changing society according to its own logic. The tradition of seeing technology as a force independent of the social world is also apparent in innovation studies, where it resulted in the so-called technologypush approach. It is centered on the idea of a one-way-street from science to technology to production, where innovations are mere derivatives of scientific discoveries and neither market nor social forces play a role in determining
43
technical progress. In the last decades, however, the intrinsic social character of technology has increasingly been recognized. A significant body of literature deals with social and cultural aspects of technological change.1 The social shaping of technology is more and more seen as a decisive aspect of the innovative process. Especially studies about how social processes affect the success and failure of certain technologies abound.2 The seminal work of Pinch and Bijker (1987) is of particular importance here, because it first theorized the social construction of artifacts. Today, the study is recognized as the founding text of the approach known as SCOT (Social Construction Of Technology). It is concerned with the earlier stages of the innovation process, when interpretative flexibility of technical artifacts is high, different definitions of an artifact are in competition and processes of closure and stabilization are the norm. SCOT helps explain the very early stages of innovation, when the social definition of the technology and its user context are decisive. With regard to the diffusion stage of the innovative process it is less useful. In general, this stage has been far less the subject of sociological research. But a sociology of consumption does exist and it is essential to examine in how far it illuminates the diffusion stage of innovation. Sociology of consumption While a lot of attention has been granted to psychological and economic motivations behind consumption patterns, the social institutions shaping them 1
A good starting point for further reading are the overviews of current research in the field in the US (Copock, 1992) and in Germany (Rammert, 1992). A more historical perspective can be found in Wagner (1998) and Zukin and Smith Maguire (2004). Alcorn (1997) and Pool (1997) examine in how far technology is integrated in and shaped by social processes. Practical implications for policy makers are described in Rip et al. (1995) and Schot (1992). 2 Kline and Pinch (1996) recount the social construction of cars in the rural United States. Knie (1991) describes the evolution of the typewriter and the failure of the Wankel engine (1994). Other examples are the history of the electron microscope (Kunkle, 1995) and an account of the Challenger accident (Vaughan, 1996)
44
have been neglected. The majority of consumption studies stems from the domain of marketing (Warde, 1996). Zukin and Smith Maguire (2004) deplore the lack of contemporary sociological research into consumption behavior in the US and Dant (2000) criticizes that a lot of sociological work on consumption is caught up in the field’s economic origins. The material culture, he says, can only be understood in its social context. A central part of his argument is that consumption goes beyond the act of purchase and encompasses the use of and interaction with artifacts, as well as the meanings attributed to them. But in North America, the focus has been on the economic side of consumption for a long time.3 Contrary to the US, consumption as a means of social distinction has dominated the early discussion in Europe. The French philosopher and sociologist Jean Baudrillard (1986) emphasizes the symbolic meaning of what we consume (and what we do not consume) in his Soci´et´e de consommation. In today’s societies, consumption is not only a means to fulfill one’s needs, but a way to distinguish oneself from others. His compatriot Pierre Bourdieu (1979) explores the subject of consumption from a social differentiation perspective in his well-known work La Distinction. Contemporary social studies of consumption have been critical of an overly narrow focus on differentiation.4 Today, the emphasis is on the role of consumption in the construction of identities and the pursuit of life interests (Otnes, 1988). The idea is that economic behavior has a social context. Moorhouse (1983) was one of the first to recognize the central part consumption plays in people’s life in his study about American workers and 3 This neglect of the social aspects of consumption has not always been the case - America produced one of the founding fathers of sociological consumption theory, Thorstein Veblen. His seminal work Theory of the leisure class (1992) was first published in 1899 and has since become a classic of sociological literature. It is centered on the concepts of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure, which, respectively, describe the waste of money and time in order to attain a higher social status. 4 Longhurst and Savage (1996), for instance, favor an extension of Bourdieu’s concepts to social networks and sociation.
45
their cars. Another good example is a monograph edited by Lunt and Livingstone (1992), which is concerned with the everyday experience of mass consumption and its influence on personal identities. The new focus on identity aspects does not foreclose a critical view of consumption - Ritzer (2001), the author of the famous McDonaldization thesis, examines the unintended consequences of modern consumerism. Another recent development in the field is the study of the environmental consequences of mass consumption. Krarup and Russell (2005) and Myers and Kent (2004) look at the effects of consumerism on sustainability. A common view emerges from these studies - patterns of consumption are perceived as social patterns with social consequences. This is in contrast to a purely economic viewpoint, which sees consumption as the mere utilization of and the expenditure for final goods and services. Contemporary sociology has come to take into account the social character of consumption and the social practices behind it. Sociology of consumption, then, is concerned with the study of the interdependence between the use of material artifacts and the social world. While the market is the ultimate instrument of selection in the diffusion stage, consumption remains in essence a social act and is influenced by social rules, institutions and underlying values. It does not end with the act of purchase, but encompasses the interaction with artifacts and the meanings we attribute to them. What and how we consume determines our social interactions. What the sociology of technology can gain from the sociology of consumption is an insight into the stages after the initial market entry. The forces at work here determine a technology’s diffusion and ultimate success or failure. Expectations about these forces and user feedback shape the ongoing design process. The short review of relevant literature in the previous section has provided some insights into the development of two branches of social science research: the constructivist studies of technology and the sociology of consumption. Based on this exploration of the social character of consumption
46
and technology, the following section will look into the pivotal theoretical concepts employed in this study.
4.1.2
Pivotal theoretical concepts: Socio-technical regime and ‘leitbild’ approaches
Subsequently, the focus will be on a theoretical concept that stands at the crossroads of the aforementioned approaches: The socio-technical regime approach. In addition, the importance of the ‘leitbild’ or cultural vision for the understanding of technical regime stability shall be discussed. Technical change and the socio-technical regime approach The dynamic nature of technical change, which includes both market and social forces, and stretches across the invention, production and diffusion stages has perhaps been captured best in the socio-technical regime approach. The notion was first developed by Nelson and Winter (1977) in their evolutionary theory of technical change. They understand technical regimes as mindsets of engineers, i.e. what they think is technologically feasible or at least worth trying. In this approach, the focus lies on engineers’ perceptions and on market selection environments, which together determine the path of technical change. While the authors admit to the existence of a non-market selection environment, they do not attach great importance to it. In their opinion, it consists only in political or regulatory control. The great short-coming of this approach therefore is the complete lack of a social dimension. Price is the only thing product users are believed to react to. Giovanni Dosi builds on the foundation set by Nelson and Winter in his work on the direction of technical change. He defines technology as a “set of pieces of knowledge, both directly ’practical’ (related to problems and devices) and ’theoretical’ (but practically applicable although not necessarily already applied), know-how, meth47
ods, procedures, experience of successes and failures and also, of course, physical devices and equipment.” (Dosi, 1982, pg. 151f.) This means that technology includes the perception of a limited set of possible alternatives and future developments. Dosi captures this idea by introducing the concept of the technical paradigm, in analogy to Kuhn’s scientific paradigm (Kuhn, 1996). It is conceptualized as a pattern of solution of technical problems, based on certain scientific principles and certain technologies. On the basis of such a technical paradigm, a pattern of normal problem solving activity evolves, which Dosi terms a technical trajectory. This approach has the merit of enlarging the concept of selection environments. In fact, Dosi represents the institutionalist branch of evolutionary economics. He emphasizes the influence of institutions such as the military for the direction of technical change (Dosi and Orsenigo, 1988). In another study inspired by Nelson and Winter, Kemp et al. (1998) argue for an even further expansion of the original technical regime concept. They seek to enlarge it to encompass not only engineering and production practices, knowledge and perceptions, but also the selection of a technical path by the institutions, infrastructures and social interactions surrounding the technology in question. They describe barriers for sustainable technologies in the transport sector. Mentioning technological, political and cultural factors on the demand and supply side, they argue: “What we have is not a set of factors that act separately as a containment force, but a structure of interrelated factors that feed back upon one another, the combined influence of which gives rise to inertia and specific patterns in the direction of technological change.” (Kemp et al., 1998, pg. 181) In the style of Nelson and Winter, they term such a pattern a technical regime. Their approach can inform us about the importance of social and cultural factors in the innovation process. But again, the focus is on the 48
earlier stages of innovation, when products are not yet ready for the mass market and are only experimentally employed in niche markets. With regard to the diffusion chances of sustainable technologies, it will be necessary to integrate social and cultural factors into the analysis of a more advanced innovative stage. A promising approach comes from H˚ ard and Knie (2001). Based on the concept of cultural ambiance introduced by Staudenmaier (1985) as an atmosphere permeating both the context of a technology and its design, they identify non-technical determinants of failure and success. To them, success depends on whether the artifact complies with legal structures, fits into existent organizational networks and discursive structures and is attuned to fixed routines and expectations of users. Although the label is different, this approach is clearly following the path of the socio-technical regime approach. Its merit consists in drawing attention to social practices, user perceptions and discursive patterns. Unfortunately, the authors neither develop a causal model of the cultural ambience, nor do they attempt to operationalize their concept. They content themselves with describing examples of failed technologies in the transport sector without specifying concrete indicators for the dimensions they name; possibly because the examples they look at never made it beyond niche markets. Conversely, a model that is concerned with the prospects of mass diffusion of a technology should explain drivers of consumption that propel products beyond niche markets. Cultural visions of technical artifacts and the orthodoxy of the automobile ‘leitbild’ The variations of the socio-technical regime approach presented above all give indications as to the requirements a new product has to fulfill. It is important to remember that a new technology always has to establish itself against what came before it. The transport system is an excellent example for the difficulties emerging technologies have to overcome: Every alternative 49
technology is measured against the status quo of ICE technology. The failure of new technologies to prevail over old ones can often be retraced to the stability of established technological visions. With regard to hybrid vehicles, the challenge is to find out what helps sustainable vehicle technologies overcome this particular barrier. What makes hybrids different from other green cars - or more similar to conventional cars? What are the elements a new vehicle technology has to accommodate in order to stand up to conventional automobiles? A number of German and Scandinavian scholars (Canzler and Knie, 1994; Canzler, 1999; Dierkes, 1994; Dierkes et al., 1996; H˚ ard and Knie, 2001; Knie, 1994, 1997) offer some answers to these questions. They describe the influence of an established vision (a so-called ‘leitbild’) on the success and failure of technologies. Dierkes (1994) first applied the concept of ‘leitbild’ to the social study of technology.5 The term stems from the German words for ‘guiding image’. In the English translation, Dierkes et al. (1996) use the term cultural vision as an approximation. A ‘leitbild’ is a crystallization point around which converge conceptions, images and goals connected to a technology as well as visions of what might be attempted or attained. It encompasses past experiences and expectations about the future direction of technical development.6 The merit of a ‘leitbild’ is that it creates a common ground between experts and laypersons. Rammert (1992, pg. 84) emphasizes that the ‘leitbild’ concept stands for a “guiding vision” or the “key frameworks of orientation for making decisions”. The key difference with the socio-technical regime is the integration of cultural aspects. Several longitudinal empirical studies have been conducted employing the 5
Originally, the term was used in urban development (‘desirable and feasible developments of urban settlements’) as well as in business management (‘a vision of future goals of a business’). 6 A number of examples for the concept are conceivable - for instance, ‘knowledge society’ can be deemed a ‘leitbild’. Another good example is the term ‘information highway’, which was coined by Al Gore. It evokes the image of a speedy transmission of information while at the same time breaking down the abstract concept of remote data transfer.
50
‘leitbild’ approach.7 Of particular significance for our study is the application of the ‘leitbild’ concept to the automobile by Canzler and Knie (1994). They describe how the early history of the automobile shapes its design even today. When cars first took to the streets at the end of the 19th century, they were a plaything of the rich and an important instrument for enhancing social status. Races were a favorite pastime of the upper class and many race car drivers worked closely with the constructing engineers. Consequently, early motor vehicle design sought to enhance the mechanical properties that guaranteed racing success: good acceleration, maximum speed and a long range. Today, these attributes continue to set the standards every new car has to live up to. The internal combustion engine as conceived by Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Friedrich Benz in the Mercedes race car soon became the dominant compulsion technique for automobiles. And this despite its many disadvantages, such as the smelly exhaust gases, the low energy efficiency and the necessity for a transmission system and an external starter! According to Knie (1997), another element originating from the early days of the automobile is the size of a typical car. The complex machinery and the high susceptibility to a break-down made it necessary to have a mechanic on board. In addition, the cars were usually not steered by the owners themselves, but by a driver. And the owner wanted to be able to take along at least one additional passenger. Therefore, the typical design of a car became very early on that of a four-wheeled four- to five-seater with enough room for everyone’s baggage. In all probability, this design was also influenced by the example of the carriages, although Knie does not address this possibility. Canzler and Knie (1994) summarize the aforementioned attributes under the label ‘race and travel limousine’. According to them, this is the cul7
Rogers (1990) examines AT&T’s quest to realize the vision of a universal telephone service. Knie (1991) analyzes the consolidation of the unpractical QWERTY typeset combination due to the rigidity of a ‘leitbild’ established in the early days of the mechanical typewriter.
51
tural vision dominating the automobile regime to this day. A look at any contemporary automobile advertisement confirms their point of view: Speed and power are still the dominant concepts. And the trend goes toward ever increasing size and torque. Ironically, the average maximum speed of today’s new cars exceeds US speed limits by far. Canzler (1999, pg. 73, translation by author) gives a very apt summary of what the ‘race and travel limousine’ stands for: “According to the reigning understanding of what makes a fullyfledged car, there are four essentials in the task list of an engineer, which [...] establish the universal conception of the automobile: Thus, a car has to offer good acceleration, an acceptable maximum speed, room for at least four passengers and their baggage and a minimum range of 500 km [300 mi] per fuel-up. These requirements are closely connected to the properties of the combustion engine and run like a common thread through the history of the automobile. They do allow for a variety of vehicle types [. . . ]. But at the same time, the development sketch of the ’race and travel limousine’ acts as a veto as soon as one or several of those essentials are not achieved.” The ‘race and travel limousine’ vision consolidated quite quickly and has since been very stable. The history of the electrical car is revealing: Although quite common in the early days of the automobile, the ICE soon became the standard, for all the reasons described above. Since that first lost battle, the electrical vehicle never stood a chance. Today, ICEs are embedded in a larger transportation system, whose infrastructure, legal rules and social practices all contribute to deepen path dependence (Kirsch, 2000). According to Fleischmann (1998), the automobile paradigm is one of the most stable in the history of technology. The transportation system is a large sociotechnical system and as such, it displays considerable resistance to change. 52
In order to make such systems more sustainable, Weber (2003) suggests to intentionally construe shared visions of emerging technologies. Through bottom up processes, especially strategic niche management, the transformation of large socio-technical systems can be attained. Traditionally, the explanations for the dominance of the ICE were either technology deterministic (‘the internal characteristics of ICE technology were superior to all other available technologies’) or social deterministic (‘technological closure was attained by social processes’). The merit of the socio-cultural ‘leitbild’ approach is that it gives room to both explanations. Internal aspects of a technology are seen as important. But they are not seen as objectively better or worse. Their advantages and disadvantages are context-dependent. The ‘leitbild’ approach seeks to explain a technological path by going back to its very beginning and taking into account the early technical restrictions and social processes that shape the future development of the technology. Knie’s (1997) analysis of the automobile’s history and the consolidation of the technical path of the combustion engine is therefore highly relevant to the study of alternative vehicle technologies: it points to the barriers any new vehicle technology has to surmount in order to stand up against the conventional vision of what a car should offer and of what it should look like.
4.2
Propositions for an appended concept of the socio-technical regime
We have discussed different sociological approaches with respect to the innovation process and its diffusion stage. None of these approaches lend themselves perfectly to the purpose of this study: explaining the success of an alternative vehicle technology. As will be laid out in the following section, an appended concept of the socio-technical regime comes closest to this endeavor. 53
4.2.1
Theoretical construct
The socio-technical regime approach (Dierkes, 1994; Kemp et al., 1998) allows for a theoretically and empirically sound analysis of the process of technical change. The reason for this is its dynamic modelling of the innovation process and its ability to incorporate different selection environments. But it has two major shortcomings with regard to our proposed subject of analysis: 1. a focus on supply-side aspects and the early stages of innovation 2. a negligence of non-economic aspects of user acceptance. We therefore propose to append the socio-technical regime concept by introducing demand-side aspects and looking at the diffusion stage, both of which have been neglected in sociological innovation studies (Zukin and Smith Maguire, 2004). The diffusion chances of hybrid technology can be studied by taking into account the relevant selection environments, which act as barriers or facilitators. A new technology either has to be able to accommodate the combined requirements of the diverse selection environments or it has to change them to its advantage.8 When a new technology is introduced, it has to find its space in an established socio-technical regime. If that is not possible, either the technology fails or a disruptive change occurs, which transforms the whole regime. In the case of hybrids, the technology is not disruptive: It neither demands a fundamental change in production methods, nor in user habits. Thus, we will focus on the way hybrids are making a place for themselves in the existing automobile regime. In how far do they manage to accommodate the different selection environments? And which selection environments are relevant anyway? The selective forces named in the older approaches - markets and institutions - are of course important and will be analyzed. But among others, 8
Of course, the requirements from different selection environments can also be conflictuous, which complicates the situation.
54
H˚ ard and Knie (2001) and Kemp et al. (1998) have drawn attention to the importance of social and cultural selection. We attempt to build on their work by defining these dimensions more specifically, operationalizing them and testing them empirically for the first time. Factors like the political climate and the public discourse connected to a technology completely lack in all of the approaches discussed above. We endeavor to include them under the label of a political dimension. Thus, in our discussion of hybrids’ success, we concentrate on the economic, the political, the cultural, the social and the institutional dimensions of selection. Some of them are more relevant to producers of a technology, others are more relevant to the demand side. For sustainable vehicle technologies to be successful, it is not sufficient that price, quality and the manufacturer’s profit are right. The political climate has to be favorable, too. Users have to be persuaded that the new product fits into their routines. The new vehicle has to fit common beliefs and established visions of cars. Firm’s institutional capabilities and the legal regulations will also affect diffusion. Subsequently, the dimensions will be set forth in more detail. Economic dimension The economic dimension relates to the price structure of a new technology and its ability to compete with existing technologies. It is of course of importance for both the demand and the supply side. For manufacturers, the most important question is: Will there be sufficient demand for the new technology so that the investments made pay off? For consumers, the question comes down to what they get for their money in comparison to established technologies. Quality, reliability, choice and price play a role for them. Political dimension The negligence of the political environment is a gap in the technical regime approach we try to fill. By political environment we do not understand pol55
itics in the common sense, but the public discourse around a technology, the level of attention a technology is granted and the state of the political climate. Clean technologies may be subject to special political and public attention depending on the level of salience of environmental, health and energy issues. Salience is a concept employed in the fields of political bargaining theory and consumer psychology. In the latter field, it refers to the level of awareness of certain informations about products, leading to attitude construction (Reed II et al., 2002). Political salience describes a period of high attention paid to an issue or a phase of high awareness for it, resulting in mobilization of the electorate across partisan divides (Givens and L¨ udtke, 2004; Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). If a new technology’s positive (negative) effects are subject to high political salience, public support for the technology will be maximal (minimal) and the progress of the technology will be smoothed (hindered). With regard to green vehicles, the relevant questions are: What is the political salience of environmental and energy issues? Does the public perceive the technology as a solution to existing problems? Are there risks or negative effects associated with the technology? The political dimension is relevant to the supply side in so far as the public image of a technology affects demand both directly and indirectly, through the level of public acceptance for supportive policy measures. Media coverage and the way political actors seize the issue are important. Manufacturers will of course try to influence this image positively. On the demand side, political salience can have an influence on purchase decisions.9 Cultural dimension By bringing in cultural and social aspects of selection, our approach draws on the concepts of cultural ambiance (H˚ ard and Knie, 2001; Staudenmaier, 1985) 9
For example, a person might decide to buy chicken instead of beef, because concerns about mad cow disease are prominent in the media.
56
and cultural vision (Dierkes, 1994; Knie, 1997). The two are closely related in that they both pertain to ‘soft’ selection factors. They are not necessarily obvious or easily graspable. Nonetheless, their influence on the success or failure of a technology should not be underestimated. Regarding the cultural dimension, it is important to note that new technologies are measured against the existing status quo. Cultural visions of what is technically desirable and feasible determine the acceptance of innovations that aim to substitute the standard technology. Norms, values and beliefs play a central role here (H˚ ard and Knie, 2001). Cultural visions are not only about the simple minimum requirements. They are also about the dreams and desires connected to an artifact and the image its use is thought to convey. Because the cultural dimension is mostly captured in expectations about product attributes, it forms some sort of product ideology. The relevant questions are: What are the attributes expected from a certain technology? What are the norms, values and beliefs attached to a technical artifact? The cultural dimension is important on both sides of the market: cultural visions of technology not only exist in the mind of the consumer, but also in the mind of the engineer and the manager. Automanufacturers will build cars they believe will be accepted by the consumer. In short, they have expectations about the expectations of consumers. Social dimension The social dimension is more about the daily routines and social interactions that make the use of a technology seem more or less advantageous. It captures such diverse phenomenons as social practices and interactions as well as social gratification and group dynamics. Social practices are to a certain degree resistant to change. Here, they are understood as structured social activities linked to the use of an artifact. A technology that accommodates existing social practices will be more easily accepted than a technology that demands behavior changes. In addition, questions of social gratification and 57
the acceptance of the technology by relevant social groups play a role. With respect to the social dimension, we can ask: What are the social practices attached to the technology? What are the needs and constraints that shape people’s use of the technology? How large is the social gratification derived from the use of a technology? Is the technology accepted by relevant social groups? Again, not only the real social practices and interactions are relevant, but also what manufacturers expect about them. Both on the demand and on the offer side, social selection of technologies occurs. Institutional and regulatory dimension Finally, the institutional and regulatory environment should not be neglected. Dosi and Orsenigo (1988) already pointed out the importance of these factors in shaping the path of a technology. We subsume regulatory and institutional aspects in this dimension, because of their close relationship both in formation and effect. After all, legal regulations are nothing but frozen social rules and their codification can be seen as a product of institutionalization. Both regulations and institutions simultaneously facilitate and restrict our options of behavior. Existing regulations tend to favor the status quo (Fleischmann, 1998). Thus, the more radical an innovation, the less likely it is to comply with existing regulations and the more difficulties it will face to ingrain itself. However, sometimes a policy is specifically designed to bring about new technologies, and is therefore called a commercialization or technology forcing regulation (Wallace, 1995). These regulations, often to be found in the environmental or energy field, set standards that are difficult to comply with when the status quo of technology is used. Thus, they accelerate manufacturers’ search for alternatives and their commercialization. But firms are not completely free in their choices. Technological capabilities are firm specific and path dependent: “What the firm can hope to do technologically in the future is narrowly constrained by what it has been capable of doing in the 58
past.” (Dosi, 1988, pg. 1130) Therefore, it can be assumed that the chances of a technological regime change towards more sustainability depend on firms’ experiences with sustainable technologies. In general, firms from countries with stronger environmental regulations and fuel efficiency standards have better capabilities in this respect. Inside the margin of action set by their capabilities, firms are going to choose the technology that promises the most profit with the least costs. It is possible that the technology they choose is more sustainable than other options, but more often than not, it is not the case. This is where technology forcing regulations are useful. Firms will opt for technologies that help them attain compliance with regulations. The relevant questions here are: Can the technology help manufacturers comply with regulatory measures? Will there be need for new regulations? What are firms’ capabilities to adopt the new technology? The institutional and regulatory dimension are of primordial importance on the supply side. They determine whether a firm is capable of adopting the new technology and they set incentives for firms to move into new technological areas. On the demand side, these factors only act indirectly, by determining the choices available to consumers. In sum, our supposition is that the successful launch of hybrids is due to their ability to adjust to the selection environments described above. The venture is succeeding to make a place for hybrid electric vehicles in the sociotechnical regime dominating the transport system. While economic viability is certainly a precondition, the launch of a new technology is facilitated if it accommodates the social practices, the cultural representations, the political climate and the institutional requirements connected to the artifact it is supposed to replace. It is our aim to remedy the negligence of non-economic aspects in studies of technology diffusion. We propose a two stage model, in which a descrip59
tion of selection effects on the supply side is followed by an empirical analysis of user attitudes towards hybrid electric vehicles. On the supply side, the institutional dimension is the single most important selection environment in the diffusion stage. Because an empirical study would go beyond the scope of this thesis, we undertake an interpretative analysis of institutional capabilities and relevant regulations. On the demand side, a quantitative survey of hybrid-owners will help determine the importance of cultural visions, social practices and public discourses connected to the use of HEVs. The economics of hybrids have been described above and shall only be briefly recapitulated. However, where appropriate, user perceptions of hybrid’s economic aspects shall be taken into account. The central purpose of this thesis is to find out whether and how social, cultural and political demand side aspects are involved in gaining user acceptance for hybrid technology and how this could ultimately be exploited to create a cleaner automobile market. In how far can hybrid technology bring about a transformation towards more sustainability in the socio-technical regime of the transport system? Can early adopters teach us how to make other users - who may be insensitive to energy security and environmental concerns and plagued by more immediate troubles and constraints - take an interest in energy-efficient and clean technologies and use them in a way effectively spinning off energy savings and pollution reduction?
4.2.2
Hypotheses
To recapitulate our model, it is appropriate to divide our assumptions according to whether they concern the supply side or the demand side of the socio-technical regime. On the supply side, producers’ endorsement of a technology will be facilitated if the technology can • accommodate existing regulatory measures, • attain consistency with firms’ institutional capabilities, 60
• meet the manufacturers’ requirements for the functionality of a product and for the profit that can be derived from it. On the demand side, user acceptance is attained if a technology has the basic ability to • meet users’ requirements for functionality, pricing and choice, • gain political support for the problem-solving strategy it proposes, • accommodate social practices and norms linked to the technology, • fulfill cultural visions of what is technically feasible and desirable. Based on the theoretical insights described above, several hypotheses were formulated. Supply side: endorsement of hybrid technology by producers On the supply side, cultural and social aspects are of utmost importance in the early stages of innovation. When a technology has already attained market entry, as in the case of hybrids, economic and institutional factors gain weight. We have decided to confine ourselves to a qualitative-interpretative analysis of these two dimensions, because they are the most decisive dimensions in the current stage of diffusion. Economic dimension H1. The better hybrids’ cost competitiveness compared to conventional cars and the higher the potential profits that can be derived from them, the more likely manufacturers are to increase the production of hybrids. Every aspect that positively influences hybrids’ price competitiveness - such as higher fuel prices or tax credits - increases diffusion. Institutional dimension H2. Producers are more likely to increase the number of hybrids they bring to the market a) if hybrid technology can help them better than conventional vehicle technology to comply with fuel 61
efficiency, emission and safety standards. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that the institutional capabilities a firm has acquired in implementing sustainable technologies influence the speed of adoption of hybrid technology by that particular firm. Demand side: aspects of user acceptance On the demand side, the most influential selection environments are the economic, the political, the social and the cultural dimension. A quantitative survey of HEV owners will help test the hypotheses empirically. Political dimension H3a. The bigger the concern about fuel prices and energy dependence and the more fuel efficient cars are identified as a possible solution to these problems, the more a person approves of measures supportive of fuel efficient automobiles. Heightened concern about environmental pollution by automobile traffic and the identification of cleaner cars as a solution to this problem has the same effect. Political dimension H3b. The bigger the concern about fuel prices and energy dependence and the more fuel efficient cars are identified as a possible solution to these problems, the higher the interest in hybrid technology. Heightened concern about environmental pollution by automobile traffic and the identification of cleaner cars as a solution to this problem has the same effect. Social dimension H4a. The interest in hybrid technology will be higher among users who perceive hybrids as being accepted by the social groups most relevant to them. Social dimension H4b. The interest in hybrid technology will be higher among users who perceive hybrids as providing social gratification. Cultural dimension H5. The interest in hybrid technology will be higher among users who perceive hybrids as offering the same attributes they have come to expect from conventional cars. Economic dimension H6. The better hybrid’s price competitiveness with 62
conventional cars and the higher diversity of available models, the more demand for hybrids will increase. Because of the price premium, higher income classes are more likely to purchase a gas-electric vehicle.
63
Chapter 5 Supply side: The institutional and regulatory dimension of hybrids’ diffusion The dissemination of hybrid technology depends to a great extent on the willingness and capabilities of manufacturers to employ it in the cars they produce. Economic, institutional and regulatory aspects determine producers’ ability and readiness to make use of a certain technology. The economics of hybrid diffusion have been discussed in Chapter 3 but a short recapitulation seems appropriate: Due to the sophistication of the propulsion system, hybrid cars will always be more expensive to manufacture than their ICE counterparts. However, once HEVs reach mass production, costs will fall because of scope and scale effects. And as fuel prices rise, hybrids will become more cost-effective for consumers. All major producers have announced hybrid models for the near future, or already sell them. With gas prices on the rise, manufacturers should have even greater incentives to move into the hybrid market segment. But financial considerations do not completely determine the development on the supply side. Regulatory and institutional aspects are also influential. 64
5.1
The regulatory environment
With regard to the diffusion of a new technology, the regulatory environment gains importance as far as it facilitates or impedes the adoption of a technology by a company. Sometimes, a new technology will ease compliance with certain regulations. We would then expect manufacturers to adopt it more readily than in the opposite case. In the case of HEVs, three bodies of law affect diffusion: energy policy, emission standards and safety standards. Hypothesis 2 states that producers are more likely to increase the number of hybrids they bring to the market if the feel that now and in the future, hybrids can help them to comply better than conventional vehicles with policy regulations. Conversely, if new standards are necessary, because a technology exceeds the frame set for existing technologies, it can slow down market penetration. In the following sections, the current regulatory environment and its potential influence on the diffusion of hybrids are discussed. To contrast the situation in the US with alternative development paths, a comparison with other industrialized countries is included where pertinent.
5.1.1
Energy policy
Hybrid vehicles are subject to the same fuel efficiency standards and taxes as conventional vehicles. But because of HEVs’ lower fuel consumption, taxes, subsidies and standards result in different incentives to produce these cars. Excise taxes on fuels for transport and motor vehicle taxes As shown in Chapter 3, fuel taxes are relevant for hybrids’ diffusion because they affect the length of the payback period. The more expensive gasoline becomes, the easier it is to set off the higher purchase price through fuel cost savings. The US federal excise tax on motor vehicle fuels is very low in international comparison (OECD/IEA, 2004b). The current rate is 18.4 cent per gallon (cpg) for gasoline and 24.4 cpg for diesel. In addition, oil spill and 65
clean-up taxes are levied on crude oil and oil products. As of January 2005, state excise taxes on motor vehicle fuels ranged from 8 cpg (Alaska) to 31 cpg (Rhode Island) for petrol and from 8 cpg (Alaska) to 36.4 cpg (Pennsylvania) for diesel (FTA, 2005). On the state level, varying registration and license fees are applicable. A motor vehicle tax does not exist on the federal level, with the exception of the Gas Guzzler Tax. In an effort to discourage the sale of fuel squandering cars, the federal administration introduced it in 1978. It is levied on individual cars that do not meet statutory standards of fuel economy and paid by the producer. The combined effect of these taxes on hybrids’ chances of diffusion is mixed. Economists argue that an increase in fuel prices is the most efficient incentive to increase offer and demand of more economical cars (Porter, 1999). High excise taxes in some European Union countries and resulting high fuel prices have led to a better fleet fuel efficiency than in the United States. The comparatively low fuel taxes and prices in the US do not offer huge incentives for selling (and buying) fuel efficient cars. A fact in support of this argument is that hybrid sales are concentrated in the US regions with the highest state excise taxes, i.e. at the East Coast and in California. As to the motor vehicle tax, it does not result in differences between hybrid and conventional vehicles, so there is no effect on the offer of hybrids. It is a missed opportunity, because motor vehicle taxes can be used in order to support ecological technologies.1 The Gas Guzzler Tax was well-intended, but it is counterproductive: Because it applies to cars only and not to trucks, it encourages the sale of vehicles that do not fall into the car category. The biggest gas guzzlers - for instance the Hummer - are not subject to the tax at all. The negative effect of this tax is the same for hybrids and other fuel efficient, lighter vehicles. 1
In some EU countries, owners of diesel cars pay a higher circulation tax to compensate for the fact that diesel generally faces a lower excise duty than petrol. In Germany, owners of low emission cars pay lower circulation fees.
66
Gross vehicle
Maximum deduction
weight
amount ($)
over 26,000 lb
10,000
up to 26,000 lb
6,000
10,000 to 14,000 lb
2,500
under 10,000 lb
1,000
Table 5.1: Hybrid Motor Vehicle Credit: Maximum deduction amounts by vehicle weight. Source: United States Senate, 2003 Energy related programs, subsidies and tax exemptions Energy related programs, subsidies and tax exemptions make up an additional set of regulations affecting hybrids. Rising oil prices and heightened concern about energy security have led to a number of measures in favor of fuel efficient cars. The Energy Tax Policy Act of 2003 (United States Senate, 2003) is exemplary for this development. With regard to hybrids, its most important provision is the hybrid motor vehicle credit. Tab. 5.1 gives the deduction amounts. This tax credit allows producers to sell their cars at a higher price. As such, it encourages rather than discourages producers to offer hybrids and other alternative cars. The 2003 Energy Tax Policy Act also contained a provision for the increase of the federal fleet’s fuel economy by at least 3 mpg by 2005. Moreover, a 200 million $ grant program assists states and localities in acquiring alternative-fuel, hybrid, fuel cell and ultra-low sulfur diesel vehicles. Hybrid vehicles are very well suited to the city driving that fleet cars are most used for. It can be expected that this measure furthers manufacturers’ willingness to produce hybrids in so far as it provides them with a small but secure market segment. In 2005, a new energy bill (United States House of Representatives, 2005) was introduced, which extended the tax deduction for hybrids. The focus of the bill, however, was to lower energy prices by increasing production. The bill provides for subsidies towards increased oil recovery efforts. The indirect effect of lower gasoline prices would be less in-
67
terest in hybrids, which is why the impact of the 2005 Energy Bill on HEVs is mixed. Efficiency standards and energy conservation standards Efficiency standards play an important role for the diffusion of hybrids. The stricter they are, the more urgently manufacturers need to find technologies that help them comply. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1978 established fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars. The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards indicate the combined fuel economy of a fleet of new cars sold by a company (Bamberger, 2003). Since 1978, the standards have been increased periodically, but in the last decade, they stagnated (see Tab. 5.2). Only on April 1, 2003, did the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue a rule to boost CAFE of light-duty trucks by 1.5 mpg by 2007 (DOT/NHTSA, 2004a). It is the first increase in CAFE since 1996. Currently, light truck fuel economy standards do not apply to vehicles above 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). This leads to the same effect as described for the Gas Guzzler Tax: An incentive for the automotive industry to sell heavier, bigger cars to which the regulation does not apply. In August 2005, under the impression of higher fuel prices, the Bush administration publicized plans for more changes in fuel economy regulations (Hakim and Broder, 2005). Not only are CAFE standards to rise even higher (23.5 mpg for light trucks by 2010), but the government is also willing to abolish the old model of overall corporate fleet economy. Its plan is to differentiate light trucks into six groups according to their dimensions. Critics say that again, this system is subject to exploitation.2 The provisions continue to exclude the biggest gas guzzlers in the Hummer category. They are less stringent than the ones California proposed and which some 2
For instance, Subaru need only increase the size of their Outback model by a few inches to fall into a higher, less strict category.
68
Year
Passenger cars
Light trucks
1992
27.5
20.2
1993
27.5
20.4
1994
27.5
20.5
1995
27.5
20.6
1996-2004
27.5
20.7
2005
27.5
21.0
2006
27.5
21.6
2007
27.5
22.2
Table 5.2: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks: model years 1992 through 2007 (mi/ga). Source: DOT/NHTSA, 2001, 2004a states in the Northeast and Northwest have signalled they want to adopt, too. These states plan to introduce indirect efficiency measures by regulating emissions, as the amount of CO2 emitted is directly related to fuel consumption. While under the federal plan, fuel savings are projected to reach 10 billion gallons over 10 years, California proposes to save 1.7 billion gallons in California alone over a period of only five years (Hakim, 2005a). It already has the strictest emission and efficiency standards in the whole United States. However, the new federal proposal maintains that the California regulations meddle with its own regulatory authority. In addition, manufacturers are already suing California about its proposed emission standards. It is therefore not sure if the states will be able to realize their plans. So what is the effect of efficiency standards on the offer of hybrids? It is already apparent that manufacturers concentrate their offer of hybrid cars in the regions with high emission (and therefore fuel efficiency) standards. We can deduce that the regulations are technology forcing and serve as a strong impetus to offer hybrid cars. The federal standards are weaker, but their specific design could actually help hybrid technology: CAFE is based on the average fuel consumption of all cars sold by a company in one year rather than on the consumption of the different models sold. Bigger, heavier cars are 69
more profitable for the producer and at current fuel price levels, consumers tend towards these cars. But their sales are limited by the necessity to comply with CAFE. To balance their fleet average fuel economy, manufacturers must persuade some consumers to buy smaller, lighter, more efficient cars (Lave and Lave, 1999). They have done this by lowering prices. In fact, General Motors (GM) and Ford loose money on small cars. Hybrid technology offers a way out of this dilemma. Because it grants efficiency gains, but does not rely on the usual method of downsizing and light weight materials, it is especially well suited for large vehicles. It could entice manufacturers to raise the fuel economy of their large cars instead of having to sell small cars at a loss. It cannot come as a surprise that out of the six hybrid vehicles GM plans to bring to the market by 2008, five are SUVs or trucks (see Tab. 3.2, pg. 33). Hybrid vehicle technology is a means to comply with existing standards without sacrificing profits and as such is attractive to automakers. The technology eases compliance with fuel efficiency regulations, which is why the automotive industry should be willing to adopt it.
5.1.2
Environmental policy
Emission standards: greenhouse and global emissions The Clean Air Act (EPA, 2002a) of 1990 established National Ambient Air Quality Standards and implemented regulatory measures on stationary and mobile sources. It includes tighter pollution standards for emissions from automobiles and trucks, reducing tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matters on a phased-in basis which started in 1994, with the Tier 1 standards. It also requires onboard diagnostic systems in vehicles. The permitted concentrations are detailed in the National Emission Standards Act (EPA, 2002b). Tab. 5.3 gives an overview of the most important substances. Tighter Tier 2 standards are currently being phased in and will enter into force in 2009.
70
Vehicle Type
Tier
CO
HC
NOx
Particulates
LDV
Tier 0
3.4
0.41
1.0
0.20a
Tier 1
3.4
0.41
0.4b
0.08
-
0.4b
0.08 0.08
LDT 1
Tier 1
3.4 4.4
-
0.7c
LEV
3.4
0.075
0.2
ULEV
1.7
0.040
0.2
SULEV
1.0
0.010
0.020
LDT 2
Tier 1
a
applies to diesel vehicles only 1.0 for diesel-fueled vehicles through 2003 model year c does not apply to diesel-fueled vehicles Vehicle life used for the purpose of emission regulations is 5 years or 50,000 miles b
Table 5.3: Federal certification exhaust emission standards for light-duty vehicles (passenger cars) and trucks (up to 6,000 lb), g/mi. Source: EPA, 2005 Under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, states are granted the possibility to develop their own provisions for emission control (EPA, 2002a). The socalled State Implementation Plans (SIPs) can provide for emission standards and pollution controls exceeding the federal provisions.3 Some states, led by California, have used this opportunity. The impact of pollution standards on the automotive industry’s willingness to build HEVS is probably similar to the impact of efficiency standards: The stricter the regulations, the stronger the push towards hybrids. Especially the fact that stricter standards are coming into effect in the next years is an advantage for hybrid technology. Fuel Quality Control The Clean Air Act also provides for fuel quality standards (EPA, 2002a). A lead phase down starting in 1973 was followed by a complete lead ban in 1995. Other steps taken include reductions in gasoline volatility to decrease evaporative emissions of gasoline in the summer months, the treatment of 3
SIPs also include voluntary mobile source emission reduction programs, e.g. work schedule changes, vehicle use limitations/restrictions, small engine and recreational vehicle programs and special event travel demand management
71
gasoline with detergents and deposit control additives and standards for low sulfur gasoline and low sulfur diesel. At first sight, these measures do not have a direct effect on the offer of hybrid vehicles. But we have to keep in mind that cleaner, low sulfur fuels are necessary for catalytic converters to work properly. Better fuel quality is a prerequisite for cleaner vehicle technologies. On the state level, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) established a very effective fuel quality program. The Clean Fuel Car Pilot Program required the phase-in of tighter emission limits for 150,000 vehicles by model year 1996 and 300,000 by model year 1999. The quotas can be met with any combination of technology and cleaner fuels and became stricter in 2001. While the initial purpose was to get more electric vehicles on the road, manufacturers increasingly turn to gas-electric propulsion systems in order to fulfil the requirements. The advantage of this technology forcing measure is its flexibility. Only the goal is prescribed, not the means to attain it. The automotive industry seems to recognize the potential of hybrids to help them reach this goal: All manufacturers sell more hybrids in California than anywhere else in the US.
5.1.3
Safety policy
Safety aspects can also play a role in the diffusion of a technology. Because hybrid technology means a change in design and components, vehicle safety in accidents could be altered. Two aspects of the technology affect safety - one positively and one negatively: The electric components and the lower center of gravity of hybrid cars. The high-voltage batteries in hybrids provide a potential risk. New regulations were necessary under the federal motor vehicle safety standards (DOT/NHTSA, 2004b). Standard No. 305 regulates electrolyte spillage and electric shock protection: The electrical components of hybrids have to be completely sealed off so that nobody can be hurt or killed by an electrical shock in the case of an accident. This means two 72
things for manufacturers: They have to spend money on the insulation of the electrical components, which increases the cost of the technology. And because new regulations were necessary, uncertainty about the future of the technology probably reigned in its early diffusion stage. The latter hurdle has been taken, but in the case of radical innovations, the need for new regulations can delay the process of market entry (Fleischmann, 1998). For the second aspect named above, the lower center of gravity, the effect on vehicle safety is positive. Because of their battery packs, hybrids are heavier than comparable conventional vehicles. The packs can partly be stored under the floor of the passenger area, thus lowering the HEVs’ center of gravity. It makes them less vulnerable to roll-overs - the primary cause of death in car accidents. According to a NHTSA study (Lombardo, 2001) the increasing number of fatalities in light truck vehicle crashes is mainly due to roll-overs. These vehicles have a very high center of gravity making them prone to topple. For this reason, stricter safety regulations for SUVs and trucks (side airbags, rollover-ratings) are in the pipeline. Hybrid technology is a good possibility for manufacturers to lower the center of gravity and make SUVs and light trucks safer. In sum, the balance sheet for safety aspects is mixed. The hurdle of introducing new safety regulations has been taken. Compared to conventional cars, hybrid manufacturers still have to make an extra production step to ensure safe sealing of the electrical components. In contrast, hybrid technology has advantages for the stability of the vehicle. It could be a solution to SUV’s propensity to roll over. Overall, the regulatory environment is more positive than negative for hybrids. The technology is similar enough to conventional ICEs to accommodate most of the existing regulations. In some cases, it can even help manufacturers to attain environmental and efficiency standards. In the mind of the automotive entrepreneurs, this should make hybrid propulsion systems a viable alternative to ICEs provided that the price structure is adequate.
73
5.2
Manufacturers’ capabilities
Even if regulations steer firms towards some technology paths and away from others, their institutional capabilities in implementing sustainable technologies determine the actual speed of adoption. The US is the world’s largest automobile market and all the big manufacturers are present there. But their records in the adoption of sustainable technologies vary greatly. It is likely that firms also have different abilities to bring hybrid vehicles to the market. Looking at the CAFE values of the different automakers (see Tab. 5.4), it indeed stands out that domestic companies are performing worse than their foreign counterparts. Ford, Daimler-Chrysler and GM have the lowest average fuel economy of all manufacturers. On the other side of the spectrum stand the Japanese groups Honda and Toyota. The top performer, Honda, gets 28 % better fuel economy than Ford at the tail end. A study on the effects of climate change regulations on value creation in the automobile industry (Austin et al., 2003) comes to the conclusion that the three USbased companies are badly prepared to cope with stronger regulations. The carbon intensity of profits4 is higher for Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler than for their Asian and European competitors.5 In the case of stronger carbon constraints they are more vulnerable and will have to bear the brunt of the costs. American manufacturer’s have concentrated on developing the profitable large car and light truck market segments. In doing this, they somewhat neglected immediately applicable sustainable technologies. Companies with large market shares in Europe have focussed on the economical diesel cars. But diesels are big polluters and under the outlook of tighter particulate matter emission standards, their prospects suddenly look bleak. Some com4
The carbon intensity of profit measures the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the cars of a manufacturer per US $ of profit. 5 The notable exception is BMW. But the German company is oriented towards the luxury segment and as such has a higher ability to pass on costs to consumers.
74
Manufacturer
Average fuel economy (mpg)
Ford
22.8
Daimler-Chrysler
23.2
General Motors
24.0
Others (2 %)
24.3
Nissan
25.4
Hyundai-Kia
26.1
VW
27.3
Toyota
27.5
Honda
29.3
All
24.6
Table 5.4: Corporate fuel economy values for model year 2005. Source: Heavenrich, 2005 panies, especially GM and Daimler-Chrysler, have focussed their research efforts on the development of fuel cell vehicles. But these cars will only be ready for the market a decade or more from now. Hybrid technology was dismissed as too complicated and expensive in the last decade. Honda’s and Toyota’s success has hit the competition as a surprise. All manufacturers are currently scrambling to develop a sound hybrid system for their product line. For instance, General Motors started a hybrid joint-venture with Daimler-Chrysler at the end of 2004 and BMW joined the group in September 2005. Ford’s vice president for product creation, Martens, recently declared his company’s commitment to hybrid technology and announced the development of a hybrid system that could be used in a variety of models (cited in Treece, 2005). But he also admitted to the scarcity of qualified engineers in the field (idem, pg. 35): “There’s a lot of headhunting going on. [...] It’s as bad as I’ve ever seen it.” American and European automakers are trying to catch up on hybrid technology, but the process is not without problems. At the moment, Toyota and 75
Honda definitively have a competitive edge over the rest of the automotive industry (Austin et al., 2003). In nearly a decade of research and development in hybrids, they have accumulated theoretical knowledge and technical know-how that other automakers will find hard to build from scratch in a short period of time. The prospects of hybrids in the United States are also marred by the pervasive crisis of the American automobile industry. In May 2005, Standard & Poor Ratings Services lowered the credit ratings for GM and Ford to junk status. Horrendous costs for health care and pension plans were part of the reason, but the devaluation also resulted from doubts in the companies’ product strategies (Der Spiegel, 2005b). Both firms depend on the larger vehicle classes for their profits. Under the prospect of higher fuel prices and global warming, analysts believe that their management strategies are illadapted to deal with the arising competitive challenges (New York Times, 2005a). And their bad financial situation will make it difficult to find the necessary means to close the technology gap. Domestic automakers’ bad shape also creates a problem for policy makers: If they grant subsidies or tax credits for hybrids, they help foreign manufacturers rather than GM or Ford. The same goes for raising the CAFE standards. The domestic automakers would bear a disproportionate part of the costs of higher fuel efficiency standards. This situation puts Congress in a bind. The decision to grant tax credits for all hybrid cars, regardless of their relative fuel efficiency, illustrates this. Under the new energy bill, tax credits will apply to such models as the Mercury Mariner Hybrid, a pick-up whose efficiency improvement is only marginal compared to the conventional Mariner. Compared to an average car, its fuel efficiency is much worse. With domestic automakers under pressure, the situation is potentially dangerous for their foreign-based competitors. Toyota has identified the threat of possible protectionist measures in order to save US manufacturers. It recently announced its willingness to cooperate with GM in the de-
76
velopment of a hybrid system. The question now is whether the technology transfer will be successful and how fast it will come about. At the present time, it is difficult to make a final statement about manufacturers’ capabilities with regard to hybrid technology. But it seems as if the competitive pressure on the part of the Japanese automakers will induce US manufacturers to quicken the pulse of hybrid development - provided that they can find the necessary human and financial capital for it. Our exploration of supply side aspects shows that hybrids still face a lot of difficulties. Nevertheless, HEVs have already surmounted a number of supply side obstacles impeding diffusion. Ultimately, success will depend on their acceptance by end users.
77
Chapter 6 Demand side: Empirical study on the user acceptance of hybrid electric vehicles The demand side of HEV diffusion regards all aspects of the use of this technology. Presents users are early adopters, they differ from the mass market. Nevertheless, examining their attitudes empirically can render valuable insights into the conditions for a further successful diffusion of hybrids. It can also help answer the question of hybrids surprising success compared to other green vehicle technologies. This chapter describes the research approach, the design of the study and how the data was analyzed.
6.1
Design of the study
In order to gain data about early adopters of HEVs, an online survey was devised. Respondents were asked to answer a number of questions concerning their attitudes towards hybrid technology, their awareness of environmental and energy issues and their driving behavior.
78
6.1.1
Selection and composition of respondents
The link to the study was posted in several internet forums concerned with hybrid cars. Considering the small number of present hybrid owners, this was the most viable path to gather data. The chances to gain access to data of hybrid users were slim and an internet-based questionnaire promised good response rates. Choosing an online survey over a traditional mail or telephone survey has multiple advantages (Tuten et al., 2002). The comparative ease of data gathering, increased response speed and the low costs of the procedure were all benefits that were of importance in this study. But the online method has a downside, too. Not everybody has internet access - hence an inherent selection effect occurs. And if a survey is posted online with open access for every internet user - as in our case - there is no control over who will fill out the questionnaire.1 Hence, data gathered from open internet surveys is not sufficient to obtain general statements on the internet user population or the overall population. In contrast to this, online questionnaires can be helpful where particular populations or well-defined topics are concerned. Considering this, we will not presume to draw conclusions about the general population from our study. But this is not the goal anyway. Instead, the aim of the survey is to gain information about attitudes prevalent among early adopters. It is reasonable to assume that the large majority of the respondents are strongly committed to hybrid technology. Examining the group’s opinion on hybrids can help us understand why HEVs have gained more widespread acceptance than other green vehicle technologies. And comparing hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners in the group can help us understand what triggers the final decision to commit to a green technology in a group with a high latent interest in the technology. 1
There are other distortions of results that can occur. For example, a person might have an interest in filling out a questionnaire multiple times. A possible motivation is the belief that the survey is read by decisionmakers, who need to be made aware of the ‘righteous cause’. We protected against misuse by limiting the number of times a person could gain access to the survey from the same computer to one access.
79
Figure 6.1: Distribution of hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners Publishing the study on web-sites concerned with HEVs made it possible to find these highly committed users: We assumed that respondents recruited from these web-sites were likely to display a disproportionately high interest in hybrids, and probably also an unusually positive view of the technology. Indeed, out of 181 US American2 respondents, 60 % own a hybrid car themselves, and another 35 % say they can imagine buying a hybrid car at some point (Fig. 6.1). As to the demographics, the average age of respondents in the survey is 45.5 years, with over 70 % being between 35 and 60 years of age. The interviewees are highly educated: Only 14.9 % do not have a college degree, and a third of the respondents hold a postgraduate degree or had completed some postgraduate schooling. They are also relatively affluent: More than half of them (53.4 %) have a household income of over 90,000 $ per year and another 19.1 % earn more than 60,000 $ per year. The gender balance in the 2 11 respondents stated their country of origin as Europe, Japan or Canada and were excluded from the analysis.
80
study is skewed, with only 30 respondents out of 181 being female. These numbers certainly differ from a representative image of US residents. But they are fairly typical for new car buyers, whose income is disproportionately high and whose education is better than the average person’s. They are also more often male than female. In so far, the composition of respondents in our study is not atypical. A comparison with other studies shows fairly similar demographics. Our numbers coincide well with the picture painted by Walter McManus (cited in HybridCars.com, 2005), automotive industry expert and director of the Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation at the University of Michigan: In a study of over 50,000 hybrid-owners and potential buyers, the average HEV buyer was close to 50 years old and his level of education and income were both well above average. In a representative survey of Toyota Prius owners undertaken in Switzerland (de Haan and Peters, 2005), men are overrepresented, as is the age category from 45 to 69 years. In addition, income and education levels were well above average. The distribution of hybrid models owned by the respondents in our study also mirrors the real world market shares (Tab. 6.1): By far the largest group (83 %) consists of Toyota Prius owners, and this also happens to be the most popular hybrid model. The only other significantly sized group is made up of Honda Civic owners (9.4 %), the second most popular hybrid model. Except for the tiny two-seater Honda Insight, all other models have come to the market only recently and it is not surprising that few interviewees already own one.
6.1.2
The key variables
The questionnaire contains diverse questions on attitudes toward hybrid cars. The complete list can be found in the appendix. Some of them were included to find out descriptive details about people interested in hybrid technology, others were used to obtain variables employed in the statistical testing of 81
Hybrid model owned
Frequency
Percent
Toyota Prius
88
83.0
Toyota Highlander
1
0.9
Honda Insight
4
3.8
Honda Civic Hybrid
10
9.4
Ford Escape Hybrid
2
1.9
Lexus RX 400 Hybrid Total
1
0.9
106
100
Table 6.1: Distribution of HEV models owned by respondents the hypotheses. The following section describes the most important of these variables. The central independent variable is ‘interest in hybrid technology’. It is used to measure the commitment to hybrid technology among respondents. In the questionnaire, an answering scale ranging from 1 ‘not interested at all’ to 5 ‘extremely interested’ was provided. Tab. 6.2 presents the frequency distribution among the respondents. There is a large group with a very strong (64.6 %) or strong (24.9 %) interest in hybrid technology, followed by much smaller clusters of respondents who showed moderate (7.2 %), little (2.2 %) or no (1.1 %) interest. The data is leptokurtic and negatively skewed, which means, respectively, that the cases are clustered tightly around the mean and that most of the cases are positioned to the right of it. The uneven distribution of the cases is of course connected to the selection bias of our survey - the respondents were all recruited through internet forums on hybrid vehicles. The low variance among respondents potentially results in a systematic underrating of correlations. This has to be kept in mind when examining the results from the statistical analysis. However, because we can control for hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners, and significant differences occur between these two groups, we are able to use the variable in the analysis. Where appropriate, the dichotomously coded variable ‘own hybrid/do not own hybrid’ is employed in order to examine
82
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
not interested at all 1
2
1.1
1.1
2
4
2.2
3.3
3
13
7.2
10.5
4
45
24.9
35.4
extremely interested 5
117
64.6
100.0
Total
181
100.0
100.0
Table 6.2: Frequencies: Interest in hybrid technology among survey respondents intra-group variance. An additional independent variable is the extent of support for policy measures favoring hybrid cars. Support was measured by the number of items checked on a list of five policy measures designed to facilitate hybrid diffusion. The more items a person checked, the higher her/his overall support. As to the key independent variables, they consist of questions about attitudes toward the technology and its use. In addition, two economic aspects were asked for, i.e. the regional fuel price and the expectations about the future development of fuel prices. The attitudinal measures are concerned with social practices related to car use, the ideology surrounding the product and the beliefs about the technology’s problem solving capacity with regard to environmental and energy issues (see Tab. 6.3 for a list of independent variables and their coding). The respective sections contain a more thorough description of how the hypotheses were operationalized. Five-point scales and three-point scales were used to measure the attitudes. Although the variables are, strictly speaking, ordinal, they are used as ratio-scaled variables. It is common practice in the social sciences to assume that such variables are effectively continuous, by assigning them equallyspaced integer values and by combining them into composite indices through addition (Babbie, 1998). We chose this path in order to have access to a wider array of statistical procedures, which cannot be applied to ordinal variables.
83
Dimension
Variable
Coding
Political
Increase/Decrease of
- Energy dependence
1 - less worried
concern about . . .
- Environmental issues
3 - more worried
Hybrid technology seen
- Energy dependence
1 - strongly disagree
as a solution to . . .
- Environmental issues
5 - strongly agree
- Rising fuel prices Social
Cultural
Social gratification: Driving
- Helps the environment
1 - strongly disagree
a hybrid conveys a positive
- Contributes to national
5 - strongly agree
feeling because it . . .
energy conservation effort
Acceptance by relevant
- Friends
1 - strongly disagree
social groups
- Family
5 - strongly agree
Expected vehicle attributes
- Handling
1 - strongly disagree
- Performance
5 - strongly agree
- Safety
Table 6.3: List of attitudinal measures employed in the study
6.2
Statistical analysis
In the following section, the statistical analyses performed are presented. The hypotheses are tested and an exploratory model is devised that attempts to capture the combined influence of social, cultural and political factors on hybrid-ownership.
6.2.1
Testing the hypotheses
In the section on the demand side of hybrids’ diffusion, several hypotheses were formulated. They regard, in turn, political, social, cultural and economic aspects of the use of hybrid technology. Political dimension The first cluster of hypotheses concerns the political dimension. We expect perceived political salience of environmental and energy issues to influence hybrid diffusion by means of more support for political measures facilitating their diffusion. While the other hypotheses mirror the direct effect of
84
attitudes on hybrid-ownership, the political dimension has an indirect effect: High political salience and therefore more support for policy measures favoring HEVs create a politically advantageous climate for the wider diffusion of these cars. In this respect, it is also interesting to examine the variance of perceived political salience between people who own hybrids and those who do not own such a vehicle. Firstly, the correlations between the support for policy measures and the awareness of environmental and energy issues were calculated. Two independent variables were correlated with the ‘support’ variable: The increase/decrease of concern about environmental and energy issues and the perception of hybrid technology as a solution to these issues. The first measure serves as indicator whether heightened concern for an issue exists. The other one is used to find out whether hybrid technology is seen as a solution to perceived problems. The idea is that political salience exists if there is heightened awareness of an issue and possible solutions are defined. Because hybrid technology is potentially relevant both to environmental and energy issues, we look at both aspects. For each of the two independent variables, respondents were asked about air pollution and climate change to obtain a measure for the environmental issue. They were asked about energy security and fuel prices to obtain a measure for energy issues. Additive indices were used whenever the internal consistency measures allowed it. The relationship between environmental aspects and support for policies turned out to be relatively pronounced (see Tab. 6.4). Heightened concern about environmental issues strongly influenced the number of policy issues supported, with a Pearson’s R of 0.378. The perception of hybrid technology as a solution to environmental problems (Pearson’s R = 0.262) is moderately strongly correlated with the ‘support’ variable . Thus, among the interviewees, a person who sees hybrid technology as a solution to climate change and air pollution is more likely to support several policy measures facilitating hybrid diffusion. This is also the case for respondents whose concern about
85
Increase/decrease of concern about environmental problems in the last 2 years less worried
unchanged
more
Total
worried
Total
Number of measures
0
0
1
0
1
promoting hybrid
1
1
5
0
6
cars supported
2
6
12
0
18
3
2
32
19
53
4
0
33
34
67
5
0
19
18
37
9
102
71
182
Total Pearson’s R = 0.378 Standard error = 0.057 N of valid cases = 182
(a) Concern about environmental issues HEVs as solution to environmental problems strongly
strongly
disagree
agree
Total
Number of measures
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
promoting hybrid
1
0
0
0
3
2
5
cars supported
2
1
2
5
5
4
17
3
0
5
3
24
22
54
4
0
3
5
26
34
68
5
0
1
2
9
25
37
1
11
16
67
87
182
Total Pearson’s R = 0.262 Standard error = 0.070 N of valid cases = 182
(b) HEVs as technical solution of environmental problems
Table 6.4: Crosstabulations: Influence of environmental issues’ salience on support for policy measures
86
environmental problems grew during the last two years. Contrary to the environmental aspects discussed above, energy related aspects could not be combined into an additive index.3 Energy issues’ influence on the support of policy measures for hybrids is generally weaker than that of environmental issues. Heightened concern about fuel prices does not have a sizeable effect on the number of policy items supported. But a correlation with the ‘support’ variable exists both if hybrid technology is perceived as the key to more energy independence (see Tab. 6.5(a)) and if it is seen as helping to cope with high fuel prices (see Tab. 6.5(b)). The relationship is stronger for energy independence (0.269) than for fuel prices (0.196). Finally, if a person is concerned about energy security, the number of items supported also increases (see Tab. 6.5(c)). The correlation of 0.276 is relatively strong. One aspect is noteworthy: Not a single person in the survey was less concerned about energy dependence than two years ago. This is not surprising given the current political situation (Iraq war, California energy crisis etc.). Nevertheless it is a strong indicator that the political climate is favorable for the introduction of fuel efficient vehicle technologies. In sum, political salience of environmental and energy issues has a positive impact on the support for policies favoring hybrids. This confirms Hypothesis 3a and 3b about the effect of political salience. All the independent measures detailed above were examined for variance between hybrid-owners and the rest of the group. For some of the measures, the two groups did not diverge significantly. Whether a person owned a hybrid or not did not make a difference for any of the energy related issues. However, concern about environmental issues and the perception of hybrid technology as a solution to environmental problems both display F-ratios that differ from 1 at the 0.05 significance level. Attitudes towards environmental issues not only play a larger role for the support of policy measures, but hybrid-owners in the study also display stronger environmental attitudes than 3
The internal consistency measure Cronbach’s α lies below the advisable value of 0.8.
87
HEVs as solution to energy dependence strongly
strongly
disagree
agree
Total
Number of measures
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
promoting hybrid
1
0
0
3
0
2
5
cars supported
2
1
2
2
7
6
18
3
3
3
7
15
20
48
4
0
5
7
16
36
64
5
0
0
3
7
24
34
4
10
23
45
88
170
Total Pearson’s R = 0.269 Standard error = 0.065
(a) HEVs as technical solution of energy dependence HEVs as a way to cope with high fuel prices strongly
strongly
disagree
agree
Total
Number of measures
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
promoting hybrid
1
0
1
0
2
2
5
cars supported
2
4
2
2
4
6
18
3
4
4
6
15
19
48
4
1
6
7
22
27
63
5
1
1
5
8
19
34
10
14
21
51
73
169
Total Pearson’s R = 0.196 Standard error = 0.075
(b) HEVs as a way to cope with high fuel prices Increase/decrease of concern about energy dependence in the last 2 years less worried
more unchanged
worried
Total
Number of measures
0
0
1
0
1
promoting hybrid
1
0
2
3
5
cars supported
2
0
7
11
18
3
0
12
36
48
4
0
9
56
65
5
0
4
30
34
0
35
136
171
Total Pearson’s R = 0.248 Standard error = 0.080
(c) Concern about energy dependence
Table 6.5: Crosstabulations: Influence of energy issues’ salience on support for policy measures 88
those who drive a conventional car. Political salience also has a direct influence on the interest in the technology. Interviewees who thought hybrids had the potential to solve these problems displayed a higher interest in the technology than the rest of the respondents. The influence of hybrids’ perceived problem solving capacity with regard to environmental problems is exceptionally high: The correlation between this measure and the interest in hybrid cars is 0.383, as shown in Tab. 6.6. Problem solving with regard to energy issues also influences interest. Respondents in the study who were convinced that hybrid technology is a way to cope with high fuel prices displayed a higher interest in hybrids than others. Again, the correlation is quite high, with a Pearson’s R of 0.302. Strong agreement with the statement ‘Hybrids will reduce US dependence on foreign oil, because they bring down overall fuel consumption’ was correlated with interest in hybrid technology at 0.345. It is evident that people who ascribe a high problem solving capacity to hybrids are much more likely to take an interest in hybrids than others. Conversely, heightened concern about energy dependence did not lead to a significantly higher interest in hybrid technology among the respondents. Only heightened concern about environmental problems caused by vehicle traffic had an impact, albeit not a very strong one (Pearson’s R = 0.170). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) is useful to see what triggers a purchase decision among a committed group. Hybrid-owners in the study show a high level of awareness for environmental problems and energy dependance, but not more so than those who drive conventional cars. The two groups differ in another aspect: HEV-owners are much more convinced that hybrid cars have a high problem solving capacity. The ANOVA results and the fact that ‘Concern’ has less effect than ‘Problem solving capacity’ are important for several reasons. On the one hand, they prove that heightened environmental concern does not necessarily result in a change of consumer behavior towards
89
Hybrid technology perceived as solution to environmental issues Totally
Totally
disagree
agree
Total
0
1
1
0
0
2
in hybrid
0
3
0
1
0
4
vehicles
0
2
3
1
6
12
0
3
5
19
17
44
very high
1
1
8
42
63
115
Total
1
10
17
63
86
177
Interest
none at all
Pearson’s R = 0.383 Standard error = 0.086 N of valid cases = 177
Table 6.6: Crosstabulation: Influence of perceived problem solving capacity on interest in hybrid vehicle technology more sustainability. The weakness of the link between environmental attitudes and action, and especially between attitudes and the willingness to pay for the environment has been demonstrated before (Engel and P¨otschke, 1998). Attitudes alone cannot explain variance in behavior satisfactorily. On the other hand, the strong influence of perceived problem solving capacity indicates that the social definition of a technology is very important. Public discourses play a big role in the acceptance of a technology. Hybrid cars are portrayed as a solution to environmental and energy issues in the media and by the manufacturers themselves. In so far as this positive definition of hybrids is accepted by a person, it leads to a heightened interest in the technology. Thus, the obstacle for hybrid vehicle diffusion is not so much the lack of environmental attitudes, but the lacking conviction that hybrid technology can really do something against environmental problems. The same argumentation is valid for energy dependence issues. Social dimension The social dimension is relevant because it adds explanatory elements to an incomplete economic view of technology use. If driving a hybrid car is 90
not rational in a purely monetary sense, a person must gain something else from it. Social factors play an important role in this regard. As set forth in Chapter 4, economic theories often have difficulties to explain social actions. A good example for this is the explanation of voting: Given that a single vote makes almost no difference among an electorate constituted of thousands of voters, an individual does not have huge incentives to go to the trouble of voting. Still, a majority of people vote. Social action theory explains this phenomenon by aspects such as social gratification that add an element of utility to the seemingly irrational act of voting. Gratification involves an enjoyment in the use of an artefact. Contrary to personal satisfaction, social gratification is derived not from personal pleasure in doing something but from the feeling to have fulfilled a social obligation. It is the experience of acknowledgement and the feeling of having done something for the community at large that makes social gratification such a powerful motor of action. A prerequisite for experiencing social gratification is empathy with the general public. The following quote from one of the interviewees illustrates this: “I bought my Prius knowing it cost more than a relatively equal non-Hybrid car, but I did so as an act of social responsibility.” In our study, social gratification derived from the use of an HEV was measured by the fact whether a person agreed or disagreed with the following two statements: ‘Driving a hybrid feels good because it helps the environment’ and ‘Driving a hybrid feels good because it contributes to the national energy conservation effort.’ Respondents were asked to rate these statements on a scale from 1 (I totally disagree) to 5 (I totally agree). Given the almost perfect internal consistency of the measures, they were then combined into an additive index. The more social gratification an individual feels can be derived from a certain action, the more likely this person is to execute it. We therefore 91
Social gratification: HEVs perceived as conveying ... ... very little
... very high
social gratification
social gratification
Total
0
1
1
0
0
2
in hybrid
1
0
2
0
1
4
vehicles
0
4
0
4
5
13
2
0
4
17
20
43
very high
6
0
9
23
78
116
Total
9
5
16
44
104
178
Interest
none at all
Pearson’s R = 0.291 Standard error = 0.087 N of valid cases = 178
Table 6.7: Crosstabulation: Influence of perceived social gratification on interest in hybrid vehicle technology expect a significant difference between hybrid-owners and non-owners in the study regarding the extent of social gratification felt. We also expect interest in the technology to be higher among respondents who feel there is a lot of social gratification to be derived from driving a hybrid. The crosstabulation in Tab. 6.7 shows that the higher perceived social gratification from driving a hybrid, the higher the interest in hybrid technology. With a correlation of 0.291, the link between the two measures is relatively strong and our initial assumption can be regarded as confirmed. This calculation does not provide information about the differences between hybrid owners and drivers of conventional vehicles. If they diverged regarding the perceived extent of social gratification, we would have identified a driver of the purchase decision. It is therefore adequate to perform an analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the two groups. However, the ANOVA procedure does not generate significant results. Inside the committed group, the variance is necessarily quite small. It seems as if in the study, the social gratification derived from driving a hybrid is not perceived very differently by actual users and by non-users. It is possible that a comparison of our committed group with a representative control group would produce more significant results. Unfortunately, with the limited data 92
Acceptance by relevant social groups: HEVs perceived as having ... ... very little
... very high
acceptance
acceptance
Total
1
0
0
0
0
1
in hybrid
0
1
1
0
0
2
vehicles
0
3
2
4
2
11
1
2
8
18
10
39
very high
4
7
16
44
37
108
Total
6
13
27
66
49
161
Interest
none at all
Pearson’s R = 0.228 Standard error = 0.095 N of valid cases = 161
Table 6.8: Crosstabulation: Influence of acceptance by relevant social groups on interest in hybrid vehicle technology set at hand, we cannot test this. Besides social gratification, the other important social dimension aspect influencing interest in hybrid technology is the level of acceptance by social groups relevant to a respondent. Because humans are, in essence, social animals, the opinions of those they esteem are of importance to them. Family and friends are the two most influential social groups against whose opinions and attitudes we measure our actions. Respondents were therefore asked to assess their families’ and their friends’ image of hybrid technology - did they think buying and driving a hybrid was a good decision? The two measures were combined in an additive index measuring acceptance by relevant others. The influence of this measure is less strong than the influence of social gratification. But with a correlation of over 0.2, it is still quite marked (see Tab. 6.8). The ANOVA procedure also shows that there are dissimilarities between hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners in this regard. Among the committed group in the study, the acceptance of hybrids by friends and family is perceived differently by users and by non-users. The F-ratio diverges significantly from 1 (see Tab. 6.9) and a Scheff´e test showed that especially for the higher values of perceived acceptance, the two groups differ. Generally, hybrid owners report the reactions of friends and family to be more positive. 93
Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
F
Significance
2.573
0.040
2.319
4
0.580
Within Groups
34.925
155
0.225
Total
37.244
159
Table 6.9: Variance in hybrid-owners’ and non-owners’ perception of acceptance by relevant social groups A possible reason is that they have experienced positive feedback in the real world, while non-owners can only speculate. It would be interesting to compare pre- and post-purchase perception of acceptance by the same person. Does little perceived social acceptance keep some people from buying a hybrid? Or is higher perceived acceptance a consequence of the purchase? We cannot conclude an answer from the available data, but it is an interesting question for further research. The analysis of the social dimension has demonstrated that the assumed correlations exist indeed between social gratification, social acceptance and interest in hybrid technology. But the social dimension does not seem to be a very strong trigger of the purchase decision. This could be the effect of low intra-group variation in the study. In a representative study, the social dimension would probably show more variance between owners and non-owners of a hybrid vehicle. Cultural visions Cultural visions of technology are also of interest. The term refers to the wide-spread and fixed expectations of what is desirable and feasible with regard to a specific technology. People have come to anticipate certain attributes from cars. Can hybrids fulfill these expectations? It is the prerequisite of success for this technology. Without it, only a limited number of people will be ready to buy a hybrid. And because HEVs are still not quite price-competitive, it is likely that they need additional attributes to overcome the price disadvantage. Do they have some added plus points that 94
make them attractive? We expect interest in hybrid technology to be higher for respondents who think that performance, safety and handling are similar in hybrids and in conventional vehicles. Indeed, the three measures are positively correlated with interest in the technology: Seeing hybrids as offering the same safety as conventional cars has the strongest influence, with a correlation of 0.193 (Tab. 6.10(c)). It is followed by performance (R = 0.174, Tab. 6.10(b)) and handling (R = 0.168, Tab. 6.10(a)). Interviewees who think HEVs offer at least as much safety, performance and ease of handling as conventional cars show a higher interest in the technology. It is apparent that hybrids are compared to the status quo of vehicle technology. If they are found deficient, interest in the technology suffers. Hypotheses 5 is thus confirmed. The three measures were also tested for mean differences between the respondents who own a hybrid and those who do not. Although the means are generally a bit higher for hybrid-owners than for the rest of the respondents, none of the results from the ANOVA procedure was significant at the 0.05 level. Again, it is possible that the low intra-group variance is due to the selection bias of our study. But it is also possible that there is little variance in the general population, and thus also in our group. This would mean that cultural visions linked to the automobile are very stable. Even people who drive an alternative vehicle are not ready to give up attributes they consider indispensable. This could in part explain the failure of electric cars: Their performance is bad and they force users to change their behavior (lower range, necessity to plug car in etc.). Two additional questions concerned more subjective product attributes: design and innovative image. They relate to the ‘desirability’ side of the cultural dimension and the image its use is ascribed. In the media, these two aspects have been extensively discussed (see for example Dell, 2005; Koerner, 2005) and it was interesting to see whether this is mirrored in the answers in the study. Indeed, both the interviewees who thought hybrids had a cool
95
‘Handling a hybrid is similar to handling a conventional car.’ totally
totally
disagree Interest
none at all
agree
0
1
0
1
0
in hybrid
0
0
1
1
1
vehicles
3
0
0
3
5
2
4
1
16
22
6
5
5
29
69
11
10
7
50
97
very high Total Pearson’s R = 0.168 Standard error = 0.081
(a) Handling ‘The performance of a hybrid is as good as that of any conventional car.’ totally
totally
disagree Interest
none at all
agree
0
0
1
0
1
in hybrid
0
0
2
0
0
vehicles
0
3
4
1
3
2
4
9
11
18
very high
6
4
15
31
58
Total
8
11
31
43
80
Pearson’s R = 0.174 Standard error = 0.074
(b) Performance ‘A hybrid is a safe as any conventional car on the market.’ totally
totally
disagree Interest
none at all
agree
0
0
1
0
1
in hybrid
0
0
2
0
1
vehicles
2
0
2
2
6
2
2
6
9
24
very high
5
3
6
14
84
Total
9
5
17
25
116
Pearson’s R = 0.193 Standard error = 0.080
(c) Safety
Table 6.10: Crosstabulations: Expected vehicle attributes and their impact on interest in hybrid technology 96
design and who thought hybrids conveyed an innovative image displayed a higher interest in hybrid technology. With a Pearson’s R of 0.284, the correlation with the interest in hybrids was quite strong for agreement to the statement ‘Driving a hybrid means being open to innovations’. Affirmative answers to the question whether hybrids had a stylish design were correlated with the ’Interest in hybrid technology’ variable at 0.247. Especially the Toyota Prius has a devoted fan crowd and many people who drive it like its high-tech appeal. At the end of our survey, respondents had the opportunity to include some additional remarks. Although they have of course no representative value, these statements are quite revealing. One person gave being a “technogeek” as the main reason why he bought a hybrid, another one pointed to “... the ‘cool’ factor of driving the smartest car on the road. People can’t believe the car unlocks for my hand only, and that I don’t need to fumble with a key, let alone getting twice the miles per gallon they are getting.” A third respondent - this time the owner of a Ford Escape - made it clear that the innovative technology was the major reason he bought a hybrid: “Though I own a 2006 Ford Escape Hybrid, ‘Green’ reasons were not my primary motivation when purchasing. It was the technological innovations that made up my mind over a conventional Escape; It was the fact that I could get all the cutting edge technologies affordably that was a motivating factor, the environmental benefits were secondary. Fuel efficiency was a major plus [...], but concerns over greenhouse gas emissions were not among my top tier, and barely entered into my decision; though they are a nice bonus.” All of this already indicates that the purchase of a hybrid is not totally dependent on objective factors such as price and model diversity. But the 97
Count
% of cases
Lower price
135
79,9
More model diversity
115
68,0
Tax incentives
103
60,9
Other incentives
80
47,3
Better performance
56
33,1
More room for passengers
34
20,1
More room for baggage
29
17,2
(HOV lanes, free parking)
N of valid cases = 169
Table 6.11: In your opinion, which of the following aspects could increase hybrid sales in the U.S.? (Multiple responses possible) latter remain important drivers of the purchase decision, which is why the economic dimension should not be left out. Economic dimension The last set of hypotheses concerns economic aspects. We postulated that increased price competitiveness and model diversity will facilitate diffusion. Economic theory holds that a lower price for the same quality (or the same price for higher quality) increases demand (Samuelson and Nordhaus, 1995). We also expect income to affect hybrid ownership. Measuring the price competitiveness of hybrids is beyond the scope of this study, but some measures can give an indication as to the influence of economic aspects on hybrid diffusion. For instance, an overwhelming majority of interviewees saw model diversity and price as the key factors for increasing hybrid sales (see Tab. 6.11). As to the influence of income on the propensity to buy a hybrid car, there is an impact, albeit not a strong one. The correlation measure for the two variables treated as ordinal here is γ = 0.185. Another aspect affecting hybrids’ price competitiveness is the regional fuel price - the higher it is, the more it pays off to drive a hybrid. We would expect Californians to buy more hybrids than Alaskans, because fuel prices are considerably higher in 98
California. However, no correlation exists between regional fuel prices and hybrid-ownership. It is possible that fuel prices have not yet passed the critical threshold. The expectations about the development of fuel prices in the coming years did not have a significant effect either. Almost a third of the respondents in the study believe that fuel prices will rise between 0 and 20 cents per year (Fig. 6.2). Close to 20 % believe that fuel prices will rise more than 61 cent annually. An analysis of variance showed that whether a respondent owned a hybrid or not does not make a significant difference for their expectations about fuel price development. Apparently, among the committed group in our study, this is not what triggers a purchase decision. But a difference seems to exist between the committed and the uncommitted. In a study by industry experts J. D. Power and Associates (2004a), owners of an HEV were considerably more pessimistic than drivers of conventional cars: They expected gas prices to rise 6 % per year, as opposed to 2 % for owners of gasoline-powered vehicles. How are the high purchase price and the long payback period for hybrids perceived among a committed group? The aim of these questions was to get an insight into the economic rationality behind the purchase of a hybrid. Are (potential) owners conscious of the fact that buying a hybrid might not pay off? On average, a hybrid owner assumes that it takes 5.63 years for an HEV to pay off, the rest of the respondents are slightly less optimistic and think it takes 5.9 years. Given that the typical time until a car is resold is 5 years, most of the respondents seem to think that hybrids are close to being price-competitive. However, not included in the calculation of the mean were answers like ‘don’t know’, ‘never’ or ‘depends’. The question was asked in an open form to avoid biasing the answers by limiting the answer choices. Consequently, the well-known problems associated with open questions appear: the difficulty to interpret and group answers and the higher propensity for missing
99
Figure 6.2: Estimated change of fuel prices cases. Overall, a sixth of the respondents felt they could not answer the question. And it is likely that some of those who answered guessed. Kurani and Turrentine (2004) conclude from a qualitative study that most people have difficulties assessing the trade-off between higher purchase price and better fuel economy. There are signs of this phenomenon in our survey, too. In calculating fuel cost savings, the point of comparison is often the cost of fuel for the former car. Thus, the amount of money households feel they save by driving a hybrid really depends on what car they traded in for it. Consider this quote from the comment box at the end of the survey: “Our primary vehicle was an SUV. We filled up approximately once a week, on average for $ 40 - $ 52 per tank. The hybrid has replaced the SUV as the primary vehicle and we fill up every other week for $ 12 - $ 15 per tank full. You do the math. The hybrid is not the answer to energy independence but a step in the 100
right direction and I don’t mind saving money while taking that step.” It is evident that the interviewee in question would have come to a different conclusion had he owned a smaller car before. The point of comparison is indeed of importance: If potential buyers compare a hybrid’s price not to other cars they are interested in, but to their old car, the calculation looks quite different. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to explore this topic more thoroughly. But we should keep in mind that findings like this cast a shadow of doubt on the assumption that economic agents are completely rational. The calculation of the payback-period is related to the willingness to pay a higher price for hybrids. Among respondents who did not own a hybrid yet, 42.1 % were ready to pay a purchase premium of more than 2000 $ for a hybrid, i.e. the actual price premium. Among hybrid-owners, the willingness to pay the real world price differential was of course much higher: 72 % would pay more than 2000 $ for a hybrid. Nevertheless, when comparing these numbers, we have to consider that it is a post-purchase measure for the owners, while it is a pre-purchase measure for those who do not own a hybrid. Owners are likely to be better informed about the actual price and there might also be an element of justifying their decision included in the measure. The univariate, bivariate and multivariate results from the empirical study show that what common sense tells us about hybrid owners is not always true. They are not driven by economic rationality alone. The results from the political dimension prove that the public discourse about a green technology’s problem solving capacity is decisive for its acceptance. The missing link between green attitudes and green behavior (here: the use of hybrid technology) is assigned problem solving capacity. As to social aspects, we can see that the attribution of a positive social meaning is important. Both political and social aspects demonstrate that early hybrid adopters do not buy these cars because they get such good value for their money, but out of 101
conviction. Still, cultural visions of cars are very stable and if green cars do not bow to these expectations, they have little chance to succeed. With hybrids, manufacturers have offered the utmost they thought costumers would accept: An ICE vehicle with a green tinge. They have ventured from the technical path defined a century ago, but not very far. Compared to hybrids, electrical vehicles were already too far removed from the accepted vision of a car. Our findings help refine the selection dimensions used to explain technical regime change. Not only have political aspects been largely neglected in the study of technical regimes, but the impact of social and cultural matters has been underestimated. Focusing too one-sidedly on technological and economic matters results in a skewed image of technology competition. In contrast, examining social routines, cultural visions and the political climate renders a more accurate picture of the dynamic selection process. Our contribution to the literature on socio-technical regimes is a stronger focus on non-economic factors that are socially and not technically determined. By applying this approach to the study of an innovation in competition with a firmly established technology, we can draw conclusions on how established socio-technical regimes can be transformed. In addition, our analysis renders insights into the adaptive processes new technologies undergo in order to conform to existing socio-technical regimes. Thus, we hope to create a body of knowledge useful to policymakers.
6.2.2
An exploratory model of political, social and cultural factors’ influence on hybrid technology diffusion
The statistical calculations described above have demonstrated the role of non-economic aspects for the interest in hybrid technology. What is their influence in actual car purchase behavior? In the literature, car purchase
102
Figure 6.3: Initial model of hybrid-ownership behavior is usually ascribed to effects of price and product attributes. A good overview of current models of car ownership can be found in de Jong et al. (2002). Vehicle type choice models usually include aspects like prize, size, vehicle class, fuel consumption, equipment, safety and quality scores. Rarely included are lifestyles, social practices related to car use and visions of the car as a social and cultural object. McEwen (2004) suggests that the way purchase behavior is commonly measured leads to the assumption that brand relationships are determined by price and quality alone. But in reality, purchase behavior is not only rationally driven by economic factors, but it also has psychological and social roots. The influence of the social world on ecological consumption decisions is at the heart of our research. In the following section, we introduce an exploratory model of political, social and cultural factors’ influence on hybrid-ownership. To this end, we build a regression model containing the dimensions described above as covariates. Because our dependent variable, hybrid-ownership, is dichotomous, we employ a binary logistic regression. The initial model depicted in Fig. 6.3 is deduced from the theoretical reflections described in Chapter 4. Besides economic factors, social, cultural
103
Figure 6.4: Revised model of hybrid-ownership and political selection environments determine the decision for or against ecological technologies. The model mirrors the assumption that the cultural dimension is the prerequisite and the only dimension with a direct effect on hybrid ownership. The other dimensions are mediated by it. Although it is likely that the model has some explanatory value if used on HEV-owners and a representative control group, a test-run showed that the intra-group variance in our study is too low to employ it. From the ANOVA results we know that the committed group in our survey does not show variance between owners and non-owners with regard to all tested independent factors. Thus, our initial model is not applicable to the data at hand. Through a variety of simple regressions, the factors were tested and the ones with low significance were excluded. This was done in order to obtain a model of what triggers the decision for or against an ecological technology among a group with a high interest in it. The revised model can be seen in Fig. 6.4. The remaining factors with
104
explanatory value were the three variables measuring the cultural dimension (equal performance, safety and handling), the problem solving variables from the political dimension, and income and regional fuel price as economic factors. As none of the measures from the social dimension resulted in a significant outcome, they were excluded. The measures from the political and cultural dimension are internally consistent and were combined into additive indices, respectively named ‘P’4 and ‘C’5 . The economic variables were treated separately: ‘Income’ refers to the influence the amount of money available has on the purchase decision, ‘Fuel price’ refers to the influence of cost. Hybrid ownership was calculated as follows: O = αc + βI + γC + δC ∗ F + ηF ∗ P + λC ∗ F ∗ P O = 16.789c + (−0.213)I + (−1.377)C + 0.079C ∗ F +(−0.573)F ∗ P + 0.041C ∗ F ∗ P O= c= C=
HEV-Ownership Constant HEVs perceived as being equal to conventional cars
I= F= P=
(Cultural Dimension) Income (Economic Dimension) Fuel Price (Economic Dimension) Problem solving (Political Dimension)
The model provides asymptotic 95 % confidence intervals for parameters α, γ, η and λ. The influence of income and the cultural dimension is negative and the combined effect of fuel prices and problem solving, too. This is contrary to the assumptions deduced from the theoretical reflections. A possible explanation is the leptokurtic and skewed distribution of the data. Only two measures are positively correlated with hybrid-ownership: fuel prices medi4
P - Problem solving: Additive index of v15a (Solution to energy dependence), v15b (Solution to air pollution), v15c (Solution to climate change) 5 CV - Cultural visions: Additive index of v9a (Handling), v9e (Performance), v9h (Safety)
105
ated by the cultural dimension (C*F) and the interaction of all co-variates (C*F*P*S). The proportion of variation in the dependent variable explained by this model is 15.3 % (Nagelkerke R square = 0.153). The force of prediction is not very strong. In general, the model is quite instable: The addition of other variables results in large changes of the Beta values in the regression. The model can thus at best be called exploratory. Because of its instability, it cannot be deduced that it refutes the theoretical approach, even if it is inconsistent with it in some points. Rather, the inconsistency between theory and empirical data is the consequence of an inadequate data set and probably also ill-adapted measures. The application of the regression model to the group in our study probably results in a systematic underestimation of R square. This effect is due to the low intra-group variance: The respondents in our study who do not own a hybrid vehicle are still highly interested in the technology. It is likely that the explanatory force would be stronger, if the model was used to compare hybrid-owners with a group representative of the general population. In addition, the measures used have to be refined to obtain better validity and reliability of the data. The measures used here apparently cannot capture the dynamic interaction between different dimensions of technical regime change. Further research is much needed to refine the model. Testing a model of social, cultural and political aspects’ influence on hybrid-ownership for significance on a representative cross-section of the population could yield indications as to how early adopters of green technologies diverge from the mass market. If we know which attitudes trigger the decision for a green technology, we can deduce measures to help build these attitudes. Our empirical results are not representative, but they give indications as to the usefulness of certain measures. Before we turn to the tentative conclusions on policy implications, some additional findings shall be presented.
106
6.2.3
Additional results
The following section contains result not employed in the testing of the hypotheses, which are nonetheless revealing of the characteristics of hybrid owners and people interested in the technology. Opinions about policy measures and the future success of hybrids One question inquired about what could help increase hybrid sales in the US. The respondents could check multiple answers. As shown in Fig. 6.5, the hierarchy of answers is the same for hybrid-owners and non-hybrid-owners: Both groups are convinced that a lower price and more model diversity will help most to increase hybrid sales. The following comment from one of the respondents summarizes these attitudes quite well: “Hybrids are a great idea but need to be made cheaper and available in more sizes, I currently drive a light car and would have bought a hybrid if one existed in this category with 4 seats, none currently do.” In general, hybrid-owners are more opinionated about aspects that affect hybrids attractiveness as a whole: price, model diversity, taxes and other incentives. Interestingly, performance, storage and passenger space are seen as less of a problem by hybrid owners. This might be caused by their own good experience driving a hybrid or by their smaller disposition to attach importance to these aspects. After all, they would probably not have bought a gas-electric car, if they had thought it was too small and too feeble for their needs. The respondents’ attitudes towards policies concerning hybrids were also examined. Interviewees were asked to indicate whether they supported or opposed several policy measures (Fig. 6.6). The support for tax credits for hybrid vehicles is very wide-spread, both people who already drive hybrids and those who do not were overwhelmingly (85.7 and 79.2 %, respectively) in 107
Figure 6.5: What could increase hybrid sales in the US? favor of financial incentives to buy hybrids. For possessors of a gas-electric car, this category is the most strongly supported policy measure, followed closely by tighter emission (81 %) and fuel consumption (82.9 %) control. The role tax credits played for their own purchase decision might influence the answer here. The rest of the people in the study favor higher emission (83.3 % in support) and fuel efficiency standards (93.1 % in support) over tax credits. In contrast to the widespread support for tighter standards, higher fuel taxes are only backed by roughly half of the respondents in both groups. Travel behavior The travel behavior of hybrid owners is also of interest: Are hybrids chosen by people who cover a comparatively long distance per year because they can thus save on fuel? On average, a respondent of the study travels 15,762 miles annually by car. This is much less than the average American, who 108
Figure 6.6: Support for policy measures drives 18.944 miles per year (FHWA, 2003). Common sense tells us that it should be the other way around - after all, driving a hybrid only makes economic sense for above average distances driven. Otherwise the payback period is too long to redeem the higher purchase price. The surprising result is circumstantial evidence that for these early adaptors, price cannot be the one and only driver for buying a hybrid. Hybrid-owners in the study were asked to compare their travel behavior to that of the average driver (see Tab. 6.12). The data is evenly distributed, 39 % think they drive as much as the average person, while 33.3 % think they drive more and 26.7 % think they drive less. Their self-assessment is quite accurate - the distances stated are very highly correlated with the perception of how much a person traveled in comparison to other drivers (γ = 0.860). The even distribution means that we cannot draw the conclusion that hybrids are bought only by people who drive a lot. 109
Miles driven per year (in thousands) up to 10
up to 15
up to 20
up to 25
over 25
Comparison of
More
0
5
15
9
6
33.3
own travel
As much as
5
25
9
1
1
39.0
distance to the
Less
20
7
0
1
0
26.7
average person’s
Not sure
0
1
0
0
0
1.0
23.8
36.2
22.9
10.5
6.7
100
% of total
% of Total
γ = 0.860 Standard error = 0.050 N of valid cases = 105
Table 6.12: Crosstabulation: Actual distance driven and comparison to the average driver Another common assumption is that people buy fuel efficient cars because they anticipate the need to drive more. We tested this assumption by asking about the change of travel behavior after the purchase. From our data we cannot deduce its validity: Only 14 out of 106 HEV-owners in the study say they drive more now. We can only speculate on the reasons for this. Our group of early adaptors probably differs from the mass market. It is possible that the environmental sensibilisation prevalent among hybrid-owners motivates them to drive less. Again, cost does not seem to be the prime motivator for driving a gas-electric vehicle. Purchase behavior Not only is it important to know what kind of travel behavior is linked to hybrid cars, but also how their availability affects purchase behavior. Did the respondents jump vehicle classes when they purchased a hybrid? Tab. 6.13 shows the type of car traded in for the hybrid and the hybrid vehicles by vehicle class. The numbers printed in bold indicate the cases in which owners purchased an HEV that was smaller than the car they previously owned. The numbers printed in italics indicate the opposite case. They reveal that indeed a sizeable group chose to jump vehicle classes from larger to smaller. We assume that this is because only a limited range of HEV 110
Type of car traded in for the HEV Subcompact
Compact
Midsize
Luxury
SUV, Pick-Up or Mini-Van
HEV owned
Subcompact
-
1
0
0
2
by vehicle
Compact
5
27
13
6
24
class
Luxury
-
-
1
-
1
SUV,Pick-Up
1
3
1
-
5
or Mini-Van
Table 6.13: Vehicle class - HEVs and the vehicles traded in for them models is on the market: Most of the interviewees owned a compact Toyota Prius. Once more model diversity is given, we can expect this pattern to change. This supposition is sustained by the results from a question about the potential attractiveness of hybrid SUVs. Out of the 195 respondents in the study, 17.9 % would buy such a car in any case and 41 % would buy it, if it got excellent gas mileage. Concerns have been voiced already that part of HEVs’ efficiency gains will ultimately be eaten up by a move towards bigger, heavier vehicles. Our results show that this concern can not easily be refuted. It seems as if hybrids’ better fuel economy might induce more people to buy a SUV. In sum, the findings from our empirical study of hybrid users demonstrate the role non-economic factors play in the early adoption of ecological technologies. Due to the stability of the automobile regime, ecological innovations have to fulfill a lot of preconditions in order to be accepted: The cultural vision of the car is very much fixed. But once these prerequisites are given, it seems as if consumers are ready to accept some restrictions (higher price, insecurity about battery life etc.) if they see a real advantage for society as a whole in the new technology. What can these findings teach us about the right policy options for increasing hybrid diffusion?
111
Chapter 7 Policy implications The right policies can induce consumers and producers to make the decision for more sustainable technologies. Our analysis of the supply and the demand side gives some indications as to the usefulness of certain measures to promote hybrids.
7.1
A short assessment of available policy options and their efficiency
Externalities are defined as costs not included in the cost function of those who use or manufacture a product. Transport has various externalities, e.g. noise, accidents, pollution and excessive energy consumption. In our study, we have concentrated on the last two effects. How useful are different policy measures in internalizing them? From the literature, different types of measures emerge that can facilitate diffusion of green technologies (Button, 1990; Klemmer et al., 1999). First, command and control measures promote environmental innovations either by defining requirements or by banning polluting substances or techniques. Second, taxation measures render the production or use of sus-
112
tainable technologies less and the use of other technologies more expensive. Consumers and producers will modify their behavior accordingly. Pigouvian taxes have to be mentioned at this point: They are designed to make polluters pay for the full amount of external costs they are generating. Third, subsidies accelerate diffusion by providing positive incentives for producers and consumers. The fourth type of policies comprises so-called soft measures, like information and product labelling. The effectiveness of theses measures varies. From an economic viewpoint, Pigouvian taxes are the most efficient policy tool. They make the polluter pay directly and give incentives for behavioral changes. From a political viewpoint, however, they are difficult to impose. Take the example of higher fuel taxes: Because the right to cheap individual mobility is so engrained in peoples’ heads, proposing a sizeable increase in fuel taxes is almost synonymous with political suicide. For this reason, politicians have tended to favor command and control measures. They are easy to put into action and understandable for transport users. The downside is their inefficiency in economic terms. Standards usually follow the ‘one size fits them all’-doctrine and are often ill-adapted to local specifics. They also lack incentives to improve emissions or efficiency beyond the required level (Button, 1990). Subsidies are similarly inefficient and similarly popular with policymakers. Here, the goal is to stimulate demand for sustainable technologies by providing a monetary incentive to potential buyers. These often voiced assumptions (Howitt and Altshuler, 1999; Porter, 1999) about the public acceptance of transport policy measures are confirmed in our study. Figure 6.6 (Chapter 5, pg. 109) shows that the respondents are much less supportive of higher fuel taxes than of tax breaks or tighter emission and fuel efficiency standards. Thus, the dilemma is that the most efficient policy measures encounter the fiercest opposition. Still, it is possible to deduce some policy recommendations from our analysis of the present situation of hybrid technology. They are desirable, but their realization will depend on the political will to impose them. Our
113
policy proposals are twofold: Most importantly, commercialization of hybrid technology has to be forced. The most promising policies are Pigouvian taxes on fuel and pollution as well as reforms of standards and subsidies. The other important field of policy action should be to exploit hybrids full potential, for example by offering a plug-in option.
7.2
Forcing hybrids’ commercialization
Commercialization forcing consists in helping a viable technology overcome barriers to mass diffusion. In contrast, technology forcing tries to help new technologies enter the market at all. In the case of hybrids, the first step towards diffusion has already been taken. Now, policies should be about helping them to become a product of mass consumption.
7.2.1
The case for Pigouvian taxes
Several regulations are useful to force the commercialization of a new technology. One possibility is to make it more price competitive. As said above, taxes are a powerful and efficient tool in this respect. They set clear signals and have immediately noticeable effects on prices. Two pigouvian taxes are conceivable with regard to hybrids: Policymakers can levy higher excise taxes on fuel, or they can tax pollution. Economists agree that raising fuel prices is a very effective way to simultaneously induce households to drive less and to buy more fuel efficient cars (Porter, 1999; Fulton, 2004). As outlined in Chapter 2, the USA currently has the lowest tax proportion in fuel prices of all developed countries. Consequently, there is considerable leeway for action. Notwithstanding the hopes set in higher fuel taxes, one thing is seen critically by some authors (see for example Button, 1990): Excise taxes are levied on the inputs into the transportation system, not the outputs. They are related to the external effect of excessive fuel consumption, but there is
114
no direct link to pollution.1 This is why proposals for environmental taxation are increasingly being voiced. Some countries already use differential registration taxes or vehicle use fees to put a lid on rising demand for bigger, heavier cars. A tax that varies according to greenhouse gas and particulate matter emissions would help hybrids and all other clean car technologies to gain ground. Manufacturers have argued that it is unfair to introduce such measures, because it curtails ‘consumer sovereignty’. After all, if consumers want to buy SUVs and Hummers, shouldn’t we let them? However, the manufacturers’ argument has a fundamental flaw: It disregards the fact that individual choices can have unintended social consequences. All the individual wants is a larger, more powerful, flashier car. But the aggregated choices of many individuals lead to an overall increase in vehicle size and weight, and thus, to an increase in overall fuel consumption and emissions. Because oil resources are finite and climate change is impending, this development is not desirable for society as a whole. It is the duty of the political system to correct the unintended consequences arising from consumers’ taste for bigger and faster cars. Because the social costs are so high (less safety, excessive pollution and fuel consumption), society as a whole should come before individual preferences. We should not be blind to the fact that unrestrained consumer sovereignty is not necessarily sustainable or market efficient.
7.2.2
The case for a reform of existing standards and subsidies
Standards and subsidies are also policy options that have to be discussed with regard to commercialization forcing of hybrids. Standards are tailored to the supply side. For every sales year, they set maximum emission and minimum 1
The new diesel engines, for example, are highly fuel efficient and the high European fuel prices have led to a 50 % market share. But diesel cars are much more polluting than gasoline cars - a circumstance that is not captured by excise taxes.
115
efficiency values that manufacturers have to attain. The CAFE standards and the automobile pollution standards enjoy very high acceptance among the American public. But they have been criticized for their inflexibility and for the lack of incentives to exceed the norms (Lave and Lave, 1999; Porter, 1999). Another disadvantage are the numerous loopholes: CAFE has weaker standards for light trucks than for cars, thereby providing incentives to shift the sales mix towards heavier vehicles. A comparison with other industrialized countries shows that there are better ways to curb fuel consumption and emissions. In Japan, the ‘Top Runner Program’ requires manufacturers to reach, with a certain delay, the level attained by the best vehicle in a weight class (Fulton, 2004). The EU has voluntary fuel economy agreements with automakers. The merit of these two approaches is that manufacturers are flexible in the methods they use to attain the goal and are stimulated to do more than the absolutely necessary. If the US were to imitate the example of Japan or Europe, it could make its system of standards more effective. Among other efficient, clean automobile technologies, hybrid technology would profit from such an approach. Last but not least, it is necessary to raise the question whether subsidies will affect hybrid diffusion positively. Some comments in the open part of our survey let us assume that tax breaks are largely welcomed. This is hardly surprising - after all, everybody is happy to get a little financial support. The problem with the current design of tax breaks for hybrid and other green vehicle technologies is that they do not consider the actual increase in efficiency or decrease in emissions. Instead, they only look to the fact whether hybrid technology is incorporated. Thus, a buyer can get a tax credit for the purchase of the Lexus RX400 - a luxury car which gets a combined fuel efficiency of 31 mpg. Seeing that this is only 3.5 mpg above the 2005 CAFE standards, the question is whether such a car really merits a tax break for fuel efficiency.2 Subsidies should consider the actual energy 2
Flex-fuel cars are another good example: Manufacturers receive subsidies for the pro-
116
and/or environmental advantages of a car and not merely be based on the technology a car incorporates. Policy makers also have to prevent that hybrid technology goes the way other efficiency increasing technologies have gone before it. It is increasingly used to boost performance instead of fuel efficiency (New York Times, 2005b). If policy makers want to avoid that hybrids’ efficiency gains are canceled out in the race for more performance, they have to take measures that curb demand for faster, more powerful cars. This short discussion shows that only a combination of different policies can make the US transport system more sustainable. One of the most important lessons from the shortcomings of current policies is strictness in goals, but flexibility in means. The measures discussed are not unique to hybrids, but they could well help them to attain wider diffusion as part of a general transformation towards more sustainability.
7.3
Exploiting hybrids’ full potential
Not only is it important that hybrids gain wider diffusion, but also that their full potential is realized. On the one hand, hybrids apparently make drivers change their driving style towards more efficiency. Can we learn from this for the design of other cars? On the other hand, HEVs would offer even better efficiency, if they could be connected to the grid.
7.3.1
The case for electronic fuel efficiency displays in all vehicles
Technology is important in the endeavor for a sustainable transport system. But we cannot rely on it alone: There is no technological fix for social problems. Fuel consumption and emissions are not determined by the type of car duction of cars that can run on ethanol as well as on gasoline. But most consumers are not even aware that their car is a flex-fuel vehicle and simply use gasoline.
117
purchased alone - much more so, they depend on the way this car is used. Together, the purchase and usage choices of millions of individuals add up to overall fuel consumption and emissions. Although HEVs are a step towards sustainability, they are only a technical solution for a problem that has to be attacked on a behavioral level, too. The term travel behavior often refers to the distances covered. But it also includes things like driving style. An efficient driving style can save up to 10 % of fuel (UNEP, 2005b). The interesting thing about the Toyota Prius is that it motivates owners to change the way they drive. There is circumstantial evidence from our survey for this. Consider the following quotes: “The most important thing about my hybrid vehicle is the instantaneous mileage meter built into my console - it has changed my driving habits by keeping me always aware of my current fuel economy. I think all vehicles, hybrid or not, could vastly benefit from the inclusion of this feature.” “As the Prius taught me how to maximize the mileage I could achieve, by monitoring the consumption screen, I gradually became aware of a sense of calm associated with the NEW getting from here to there.” A look at any internet site committed to hybrid cars confirms that the Prius’s big fuel consumption screen gets a lot of attention. It gives the momentary mileage and shows whether the car is in electric or combustion mode. It seems as if careful observation of the screen teaches drivers which driving style is most efficient. Apparently, among hybrid owners, a high mileage is a source of pride (Koerner, 2005). This is interesting because it might have implications for other cars, too. The screen supplies immediately available information about fuel economy. Thus, it raises consciousness about the actual amount of fuel used and incites consumers to keep an eye on what kind of driving results in high or low consumption. 118
The importance of information is noted in the literature on energy consumption behavior (for an overview of research see Krarup and Russell, 2005). But often, information is not immediately available in a situation where it could influence behavior. With the fuel efficiency screen, this is not the case. If it became obligatory to equip all cars with such a screen, maybe driving styles would become more efficient. Unfortunately, in the absence of quantitative data, this remains speculation. But it is a point worth considering and an interesting field for further research.
7.3.2
The case for a plug-in option
Our second proposal for the exploitation of hybrids’ potential is to make them rechargeable from the electricity grid. None of the available models offers a plug-in option. But with a battery range of 20 miles, a third of daily driving could be covered in electric mode. At 60 miles, most of the driving could be done this way (Friedman, 2004). Because energy plants are more efficient than the internal combustion engine, sizeable energy savings would occur. The environmental impact is more of a concern, because most of the electricity plants in the US use coal. But if HEVs were recharged from a renewable energy grid, the benefits could be enormous. At least among the early adopters of hybrid-technology, an extended electric range is seen as desirable. Asked whether they thought hybrids lacked any essential attributes, 47 respondents in our study said they wanted a ‘plug-in option’, although we did not specifically ask for this aspect. Unfortunately, automakers have worked very hard to convince consumers that hybrid-electric vehicles do not need to be plugged in. Tinkering with a hybrid to extend its electric-only range is punished with the loss of vehicle guaranty. Evidently, the effort to differentiate hybrid from electric vehicles is due to the failure of the latter. Electric cars’ limited range is seen as the main reason for their inability to catch on with consumers. But an extended electric autonomy would not result in a restriction of hybrids’ overall range. 119
They dispose of a combustion engine, which could satisfy the driving needs exceeding the battery capacity. By distancing themselves from any association with electric vehicles, manufacturers demonstrate the stability of the automobile technical trajectory. The minds of engineers and marketing specialists are very much set on the combustion engine. The general assumption is that every car that is too far removed from the ideal of Canzler and Knie’s (1994) ‘race and travel limousine’ has no chance of succeeding on the market. In an industry sector with such a high degree of lock-in into established technology visions, it is high time for some unorthodox thinking. Manufacturers do not seem willing to make a plug-in option available. But the problem here is one of commercialization forcing, not technology forcing, which makes things considerably easier. When the California’s CARB introduced a quota for zero emission vehicles in the 90s, it had in mind that this would force manufacturers to build marketable electric vehicles. The approach did not work, because neither the technology nor the consumers were ready. But in plug-in hybrids’ case, the technology is already working and it is on hand, says Danny Hakim (2005b) of the New York Times: “[. . . ] the technology for these vehicles is available now to the point that people are building them in garages.” It would not make a huge difference in the manufacturing process to provide HEVs with a plug. There is no doubt that plug-in hybrids are technologically possible. And they are worth it: Energy savings for a hybrid with 60 miles electric range could amount to 85 % (Jones, 2005). Therefore, policy makers should find a way to make manufacturers produce them. A quota system’s disadvantage is the lack of incentives to exceed the expected quantities. A more efficient system would reward the production of such vehicles (e.g. with a tax break) once an obligatory quota is fulfilled or introduce a trading system.
120
7.3.3
The case for soft measures
The policies mentioned above are influencing demand mostly via economic (dis)incentives and command and control regulations. But our survey indicates that soft measures are also of importance: It is necessary to frame hybrid technology in a way that makes people feel good about using them. If the media, policymakers and manufacturers can create an image of hybrid technology that conveys social gratification, a lot could be won. The magic formula is ‘Eat your cake and have it, too’. With regard to hybrids, this means convincing consumers that they do not have to sacrifice performance, safety or comfort in order to consume more ecologically. Information campaigns are necessary to this end. The same goes for the public perception of hybrid vehicles’ problem solving capacity. Sensibility for environmental pollution or concern about energy dependence are not enough to interest consumers in hybrid technology. They also have to perceive HEVs as a solution to these problems to display heightened interest in them. Again, in the public opinion, hybrids have to be defined as offering an answer to these issues. In sum, the measures described above could make hybrids more competitive with conventional vehicle technology in the eyes of manufacturers, render them more attractive for consumers and exploit their full potential.
121
Chapter 8 Conclusion Hybrid cars have the technological and economic potential to alleviate the lack of sustainability in the transport system. Momentarily, they are still in an early diffusion stage. Our assessment of regulatory environments, automakers’ capabilities and user attitudes has shown that although some barriers remain towards mass diffusion, they are not insurmountable. Under the given circumstances and with the right policies, it is likely that hybrids will have a positive impact on the transport system. One caveat has to be voiced, however: Without external correction of the market, increased efficiency is eaten up by consumption. Jevons (1866, excerpts from Ch. I and Ch. VII) was the first to demonstrate this by means of the coal question in 19th century England: “It is very commonly urged, that the failing supply of coal will be met by new modes of using it efficiently and economically. The amount of useful work got out of coal may be made to increase manifold, while the amount of coal consumed is stationary or diminishing. [. . . ] It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth. [. . . ] It is the very economy of its use which leads to its extensive consumption.” 122
The logic behind Jevon’s argument is that increased energy efficiency results in lower production cost, which in turn increases demand. In the end, the amount of energy consumed is equal to or higher than the original amount. Because the correlation between increased efficiency and increased consumption is not evident, it became known as ‘Jevon’s paradox’. If increases in energy efficiency do not result in net savings, does this mean that hybrid cars are superfluous anyway? The answer is no. First of all, hybrids also have environmental benefits and they are a stepping stone towards fuel cell technology. In addition, the situation described by Jevon changes as soon as depletion draws nearer. A barrel of oil could soon cost as much as 200 $. Under such circumstances, the less oil dependent the transport system, the better. But most importantly, Jevon speaks about a situation where the market is left to its own devices. In the absence of government intervention, efficient technologies really increase consumption. All of this makes sound policy measures all the more important. Hybrid technology can do its share to render transport more sustainable, but it is only part of the solution. Ultimately, a change of behavior has to come about. Otherwise, motorized transport will fall victim to its own success.
123
Chapter 9 R´ esum´ e: Les voitures hybrides - succ` es sans pr´ ec´ edent et effets sur le syst` eme de transport am´ ericain Les voitures hybrides connaissent un succ`es sans pr´ec´edent sur le march´e des ‘voitures vertes’, et ceci ne reste pas sans effet sur le syst`eme de transport am´ericain. Ces v´ehicules combinent moteur `a combustion et moteur ´electrique. Leur efficacit´e ´energ´etique est sup´erieure `a celle des voitures traditionnelles et leur incidence sur l’environnement est plus mod´er´ee. Elles pourraient contribuer `a surmonter les d´efis auxquels le syst`eme de transport am´ericain est confront´e : consommation de carburant et production de gaz `a effet de serre parmi les plus ´elev´ees du monde, et extrˆeme pollution de l’air dans les r´egions urbaines. Les principes du d´eveloppement durable ne sont pas respect´es dans le secteur am´ericain du transport. De ce fait, le succ`es des voitures hybrides est fortement souhaitable. Elles semblent ˆetre sur la bonne voie pour atteindre une diffusion plus large. Toutefois, l’essor pr´ecoce des voitures hybrides ne va pas de soi. His124
toriquement, aucune voiture alternative n’a jamais ´et´e capable de concurrencer les automobiles `a moteur `a combustion. En outre, le coˆ ut ´elev´e de ces voitures, associ´e au faible coˆ ut de l’essence aux Etats-Unis, a pour effet que l’achat d’un tel v´ehicule ne paraˆıt pas rationnel sur le plan ´economique. Comment expliquer alors le succ`es extraordinaire de ces voitures sur le march´e am´ericain de l’automobile? Ni l’exp´erience historique, ni la th´eorie ´economique ne parviennent `a fournir de r´eponse `a cette question. Pour parvenir `a une explication satisfaisante, il faut donc faire appel `a d’autres facteurs, tels que les pratiques sociales, les habitudes culturelles et le discours public sur l’automobile. Quels sont les effets de ces aspects sur la diffusion des voitures ´ecologiques et sur la viabilit´e du syst`eme de transport am´ericain? Et qu’estce que cela implique pour les politiques publiques de soutien aux technologies ´ecologiques? Dans un premier temps, nous analyserons dans quelle mesure les voitures hybrides offrent une solution technologique `a un syst`eme de transport am´ericain en crise. Puis nous examinerons les conditions d’un succ`es permanent: l’´etat actuel de l’acceptation de cette technologie exige de bonnes politiques publiques afin d’obtenir un syst`eme de transport en accord avec les crit`eres du d´eveloppement durable.
9.1
Les voitures hybrides offrent une solution technologique face ` a la crise du syst` eme de transport am´ ericain
La mobilit´e `a l’am´ericaine n’est pas viable sur le long terme: non seulement le syst`eme de transport consomme trop d’´energie, mais en plus il nuit `a l’environnement. La nouvelle technologie automobile des voitures ´electrohybrides pourrait repr´esenter une alternative.
125
9.1.1
La soci´ et´ e automobile et son impact sur la consommation d’´ energie et sur l’environnement
La forte croissance de la mobilit´e individuelle accentue les cons´equences n´egatives du transport motoris´e. Le d´ eveloppement de la mobilit´ e motoris´ ee et ses effets globaux Les soci´et´es modernes sont caract´eris´ees par le d´eveloppement rapide de la mobilit´e. Le transport motoris´e fait partie int´egrante de ce processus. Sa croissance est favoris´ee par trois aspects: la g´eographie de l’habitat humain, les conditions socio-´economiques et l’´etat du syst`eme de transport. C’est principalement la dispersion spatiale des activit´es humaines dans les soci´et´es occidentales qui fait que la demande de transport augmente. Autrefois, les lieux de travail, d’habitation et de loisirs ´etaient concentr´es au mˆeme endroit. Aujourd’hui, la plupart des personnes doivent couvrir une certaine distance afin de relier leurs diff´erents lieux de vie. Le d´eveloppement des banlieues am´ericaines en est le signe le plus ´evident. Etant donn´e la structure dispers´ee des villes modernes, la demande de mobilit´e individuelle est satisfaite en grande partie par la voiture. Ainsi, la distance totale effectu´ee augmente, mais aussi le pourcentage des trajets en voiture (voir Fig. 2.1, pg. 6). En ´ 2001, aux Etats-Unis, 86.3 % de la distance parcourue ´etait effectu´ee en voiture (DOT/NHA, 2004). Le deuxi`eme facteur important qui entre en jeu dans l’accroissement de la mobilit´e est la prosp´erit´e. Plus les conditions socio-´economiques sont favorables, plus le pourcentage de voitures par habitant est ´elev´e, et plus le nombre de kilom`etres effectu´es en voiture, en comparaison avec les autres moyens de transport, est important. Les soci´et´es occidentales sont presque totalement motoris´ees. Bien sˆ ur, il existe aussi un lien ´etroit entre l’´etat de l’infrastructure routi`ere d’une part, et le nombre de voitures et la distance parcourue d’autre part.
126
Le fort accroissement de la mobilit´e individuelle n’est pas sans incidence sur l’environnement et le march´e de l’´energie. Le secteur du transport d´epend en totalit´e du p´etrole, et il en constitue le principal facteur de l’accroissement de la consommation. Alors que la demande d’´energie du syst`eme de transport ne cesse d’augmenter, la consommation d’´energie de l’industrie et des m´enages a quant `a elle diminu´e. On estime que la demande de p´etrole provenant du transport motoris´e augmentera de 50 % dans les pays de l’OCDE entre 2000 et 2030 (OECD/IEA, 2004a). Pour les pays occidentaux, cela signifie aussi une d´ependance ´energ´etique accrue. La cons´equence la plus pr´eoccupante reste la possibilit´e d’un effet-ciseaux entre l’offre et la demande. Alors que la hausse de la demande mondiale de p´etrole est estim´ee `a 1,6 % par an, l’incertitude concernant les r´eserves p´etroli`eres disponibles augmente, et la question de l’acc`es `a ces r´eserves est source d’inqui´etude. Les pronostics sur ces r´eserves diff`erent largement: ´ l’Agence Internationale de l’Energie (OECD/IEA, 2004a), par exemple, estime que la production de p´etrole n’atteindra son point culminant qu’en 2030. D’autres sources (ASPO, 2005; Vidal, 2005) placent au contraire ce moment bien plus tˆot, avant 2010. L’or noir ne tarira certes que lentement, mais il deviendra plus rare, et donc plus cher. A court terme, c’est aussi la r´epartition g´eographique du p´etrole qui inqui`ete. Les r´eserves sont concentr´ees dans des r´egions politiquement et ´economiquement instables. Le trop petit nombre de raffineries dans le monde ajoute `a la p´enurie de carburant. Tout cela a pour effet que le prix du baril a fortement augment´e depuis 2002. En 2005, il a plusieurs fois d´epass´e la barre des 60 $. Selon le rapport de deux banques d’investissement (BBC, 2005; Rubin, 2005), il pourrait atteindre plus de 100 $ dans les ann´ees `a venir. Le secteur du transport devra d’abord faire face `a une ´enorme hausse des prix, et `a terme, `a la disparition de cette ressource. Le mauvais bilan ´energ´etique du transport motoris´e am´ericain ne constitue cependant pas l’unique probl`eme. Il existe ´egalement des effets n´efastes
127
sur l’environnement. Le rejet de gaz nocifs nuit `a la flore, `a la faune et `a la sant´e publique. La pollution de l’air, par des substances comme le dioxyde de carbone, le monoxyde de carbone et les particules de suie, est la source de nombreuses maladies respiratoires et cardiaques. En outre, les ´emissions produites par les voitures contribuent au r´echauffement de la plan`ete, ph´enom`ene dont l’existence n’est plus scientifiquement disput´ee (Hansen et al., 2005; Saltzman et Young, 2005). Le d´ebat politique continue pourtant - jusqu’`a pr´esent, tous les efforts fournis `a l’´echelon international n’ont pas r´eussi `a faire naˆıtre une action concert´ee, afin de faire face au changement climatique. Le protocole de Kyoto sera vou´e `a l’´echec aussi longtemps que les ´ Etats-Unis ne l’auront pas ratifi´e. Les v´ehicules motoris´es continuent ainsi `a ´emettre une grande quantit´e de gaz `a effet de serre. Apr`es le secteur de la production ´electrique, c’est le secteur du transport qui est le plus grand producteur de dioxyde de carbone, et le seul secteur dont le taux d’´emission continue `a augmenter (Ortmeyer et Pillay, 2001). Si la concentration de CO2 dans l’air doublait, le coˆ ut macro´economique de l’effet de serre pourrait atteindre les quelques cent milliards de dollars par an (voir Tab. 2.2, pg. 15). L’Humanit´e paie et continuera de payer encore tr`es cher le coˆ ut de la mobilit´e individuelle: le syst`eme de transport actuel est incompatible avec l’objectif du d´eveloppement durable. Et cela est particuli`erement vrai pour les Etats-Unis, o` u la mobilit´e individuelle est la plus importante au monde. Le syst` eme de transport aux Etats-Unis et ses effets environnementaux et ´ energ´ etiques Le syst`eme de transport am´ericain est caract´eris´e par une forte d´ependance envers la voiture et par des tr`es longues distances effectu´ees par tˆete. Mise `a part une mortalit´e routi`ere plus ´elev´ee qu’en Europe, c’est surtout l’´enorme consommation de carburant qui est cause d’inqui´etude. Entre 1990 et 2001, ´ cette derni`ere a augment´e de 19,7 % (OECD/IEA, 2002b). Les Etats-Unis 128
sont aujourd’hui le plus grand importateur mondial de p´etrole. La hausse pr´evisionnelle de la demande est estim´ee `a 1 % par an; parall`element, la production domestique baissera de 0,2 % chaque ann´ee (OECD/IEA, 2002a). De ce fait, la d´ependance ´energ´etique am´ericaine ira en s’accentuant. Aujourd’hui, les importations s’´el`event `a 50 % de la demande totale; en 2020, elles atteindront 63 % (OECD/IEA, 2002b). Les Am´ericains jouissent des plus bas prix du carburant parmi tous les ´ pays industrialis´es. En 1998 par exemple, le prix de l’essence aux Etats-Unis ´etait moiti´e moins ´elev´e qu’en France, qu’en Angleterre et qu’en Allemagne (Ortmeyer et Pillay, 2001). Mˆeme si depuis, les prix nominaux ont augment´e, en dollars r´eels, ils ne sont pas plus ´elev´es qu’au d´ebut des ann´ees 1980 (voir Fig. 2.4, pg. 19). Bien sˆ ur, le prix du carburant aux Etats-Unis d´epend du march´e mondial, et la hausse r´ecente du prix du baril a eu un effet sur la consommation. Mais le bas niveau des prix, compar´e `a celui des autres pays industrialis´es, r´esulte du fait que le taux d’imposition sur l’essence est faible. Naturellement, cela favorise la consommation. C’est pourquoi il n’est pas surprenant que les Am´ericains soient les plus grands conducteurs au monde, et que le nombre de v´ehicules par habitant soit le plus ´elev´e sur la plan`ete. L’intensit´e ´energ´etique des voitures am´ericaines est ´egalement la plus importante du monde (voir Tab. 2.3, pg. 18). La comparaison avec d’autres pays d´emontre qu’il existe un ´enorme potentiel pour ´economiser l’´energie dans le syst`eme de transport am´ericain. Mais cette opportunit´e n’a jusqu’`a pr´esent pas ´et´e saisie. La deuxi`eme crise affectant le syst`eme de transport am´ericain est celle de ses effets sur l’environnement. Alors que le pays ne compte que 4 % de la population mondiale, il produit presque un quart des ´emissions totales de CO2 (UNFCCC/UNEP, 2002). Le syst`eme de transport n’est pas seulement responsable en grande partie de ces ´emissions, il est aussi la principale cause de leur hausse: si aucune nouvelle r´egulation n’est mise en œuvre, le rejet de gaz nocifs pourrait s’accroˆıtre de 1872 millions de tonnes en 2005
129
`a 2796 millions en 2025 (DOE/EIA, 2005b). Malgr´e cela, le gouvernement am´ericain refuse d’introduire des lois plus strictes, et le Congr`es n’a pas encore ratifi´e le protocole de Kyoto. La raison avanc´ee est que cela nuirait `a la croissance ´economique. Le gouvernement met aussi en doute l’´etendue r´eelle des effets financiers sur le changement climatique. Cependant, les com´ pagnies d’assurance pr´edisent que les Etats-Unis devraient bientˆot d´epenser quelques 70 milliards de dollars par an pour combattre les dommages caus´es par l’effet de serre (Munich Re, 2001). L’autre probl`eme environnemental li´e au transport est la pollution de l’air. Les grands centres urbains de Californie et de la cˆote est souffrent du smog. Un syst`eme de restriction d’´emission par les voitures est en place, mais il ne suffit pas `a combattre de mani`ere effective la pollution. Plus de 60 millions d’Am´ericains habitent des r´egions dont la qualit´e de l’air ne satisfait pas aux standards du minist`ere am´ericain de l’environnement (OECD/WEP, 2000). En conclusion, on peut dire que le syst`eme de transport am´ericain est organis´e de telle sorte que ses effets externes ne sont pas internalis´es. Le d´eveloppement durable n’est donc pas acquis dans ce secteur. A l’heure actuelle, la crise n’a pas encore atteint son point culminant, mais les probl`emes s’accumulent d´ej`a. Il est grand temps de trouver un moyen de rendre le syst`eme de transport am´ericain plus durable. Il faut pour cela r´eduire la consommation d’´energie et les ´emissions de gaz nocifs. Et une des voies possibles pour atteindre cet objectif r´eside dans l’introduction de technologies automobiles alternatives.
9.1.2
Une technologie ´ ecologique au succ` es surprenant: les voitures hybrides
La technologie par propulsion hybride est une invention ´ecologique, dans ce sens qu’elle am´eliore le bilan ´energ´etique et environnemental d’une voiture, ´ en comparaison avec un moteur `a combustion. Aux Etats-Unis, les v´ehicules 130
hybrides ont rencontr´e un succ`es inattendu depuis leur introduction en 2001. Le bilan positif des voitures hybrides dans les domaines ´ energ´ etique, environnemental et ´ economique La technologie hybride combine un moteur `a combustion avec un moteur ´electrique. Un syst`eme de contrˆole ´electronique permet d’alterner entre ces deux modes de propulsion. Contrairement aux voitures traditionnelles, les voitures hybrides sont capables de rouler uniquement `a l’aide du moteur ´electrique. Et contrairement aux voitures ´electriques, il n’est pas n´ecessaire de les brancher `a une prise de courant. On distingue plusieurs stades d’hybridation (Friedman, 2004): • Idle-off: Ce terme anglais signifie que le moteur s’´eteint automatiquement d`es que la voiture s’arrˆete. Quand on appuie sur l’acc´el´erateur, la voiture red´emarre sans qu’il y ait besoin de tourner la cl´e. On appelle ce type de v´ehicule une voiture hybride ‘micro’ (en anglais: micro hybrid). • R´eg´en´eration de l’´energie des freins: L’´energie lib´er´ee en freinant est conserv´ee en vue de recharger les piles. • R´eduction du moteur: Grˆace au moteur ´electrique, le moteur `a combustion peut ˆetre plus petit. Un v´ehicule incorporant ces trois technologies est appel´e voiture hybride ‘mod´er´ee’ (mild hybrid). • Moteur ´electrique autonome: Si une voiture hybride dispose d’un moteur ´electrique suffisamment puissant pour propulser la voiture sans utiliser le moteur `a combustion, on l’appelle voiture hybride ‘totale’ (full hybrid). Le mode ´electrique est utilis´e `a vitesse mod´er´ee, quand il est le plus effectif. • Autonomie prolong´ee en mode ´electrique: Le dernier stade d’hybridation consiste `a ´equiper la voiture d’une fiche de contact, afin de 131
la recharger par le r´eseau ´electrique. C’est ce qui est appel´e voiture hybride ‘`a option de rechargement’ (plugin hybrid). Jusqu’ici, aucun constructeur n’a lanc´e une telle voiture sur le march´e. Le bilan ´energ´etique des voitures hybrides est bien sup´erieur `a celui des voitures traditionnelles. L’efficience thermique du moteur `a combustion n’atteint que 20 %. Ce dernier est destin´e `a supporter les occasions o` u sa capacit´e la plus grande est requise (lors des d´epassements, en montagne, ou en cas de chargement). Mais la plupart du temps, il tourne `a la moiti´e de sa capacit´e. La voiture hybride se contente quant `a elle d’un plus petit moteur `a combustion, assist´e d’un moteur ´electrique si besoin. Une voiture hybride consomme ´egalement moins de carburant, car d’une part elle capture l’´energie lib´er´ee en freinant, et d’autre part elle s’´eteint automatiquement quand elle reste sur place, au lieu de faire tourner le moteur `a vide. On estime que les voitures hybrides les plus sophistiqu´ees pourront atteindre une efficience ´energ´etique jusqu’`a 2,5 fois sup´erieure `a celle des voitures traditionnelles (Friedman, 2004). Parce que les voitures hybrides consomment moins de carburant, elles produisent ´egalement moins d’´emission. Toutes les voitures hybrides sur le march´e remplissent les conditions des standards d’´emission les plus strictes. Une voiture ´electrohybride ´economise plus de 40 tonnes de gaz `a effet de serre par an (Jefferson and Barnard, 2002). Elle est particuli`erement avantageuse en ville: `a moins de 25 km/h, elle roule en mode ´electrique, sans aucun rejet de gaz nocif. Sur le plan ´economique, la demande de voitures hybrides ne cesse de croˆıtre. Malgr´e une faible part actuelle de march´e (0,5 %), le taux ´elev´e de croissance laisse pr´esumer une ´evolution. A titre d’exemple, la demande de la Toyota Prius a augment´e de 71 % entre 2003 et 2004 (Inoue, 2004). Les autres mod`eles disponibles sur le march´e sont la Toyota Highlander, la Honda Insight, la Honda Civic Hybrid, la Honda Accord Hybrid et la Ford Escape. Le fait que l’industrie automobile lancera 20 mod`eles hybrides sur le march´e 132
d’ici 2009 d´emontre qu’elle compte sur l’int´erˆet prononc´e des consommateurs pour une telle technologie (pour une liste compl`ete des mod`eles annonc´es voir Tab. 3.2, pg. 33). N´eanmoins, les opinions divergent quant au futur des voitures hybrides. Le minist`ere am´ericain de l’´energie (DOE/EIA, 2005b) n’´evalue leur demande qu’`a 5,3 % du march´e en 2020, tandis qu’une analyse men´ee par une firme de conseil en entreprise dans le secteur automobile (Greene et al., 2004) pronostique jusqu’`a 14,9 % de part de march´e en 2012. Le sort des voitures hybrides d´ependra de diff´erents facteurs, dont le prix de l’essence et la l´egislation sur l’environnement. Il est donc tr`es difficile `a pr´edire. Mais on constate d´ej`a le potentiel des voitures hybrides. Avec des mesures politiques ad´equates, elles seront en mesure de faire la diff´erence. Avant cela, leur plus grand d´efi `a relever reste leur prix. En raison de leur technologie complexe, les voitures hybrides sont plus ch`eres que les voitures traditionnelles de mˆeme standard. En revanche, elles sont tr`es ´economiques. Ainsi, le propri´etaire d’une voiture hybride d´epensera moins d’argent dans l’essence. Mais le tableau 3.5 (pg. 40) d´emontre que le prix des voitures hybrides n’est pas encore comp´etitif. En outre, l’incertitude demeure quant `a la dur´ee de vie des piles, qui pourraient ˆetre tr`es ch`eres `a remplacer. On s’attendait donc `a de faibles records de ventes des voitures hybrides. Mais, comme on l’a d´ej`a soulign´e, la croissance de la demande est au contraire tr`es forte. D`es 2008, le march´e des v´ehicules hybrides d´epassera celui de toutes les autres voitures `a technologie alternative (DOE/EIA, 2005c). D’un point de vue historique, ce d´emarrage prometteur des voitures hybrides est ´egalement surprenant. Jamais une technologie alternative en mati`ere automobile n’a rencontr´e un tel succ`es. Malgr´e la forte volont´e politique des ann´ees 1990, les v´ehicules ´electriques n’ont jamais atteint une diffusion de masse. Les perspectives ne sont pas aussi mauvaises pour les voitures hybrides, mais leur faible comp´etitivit´e au niveau des prix fait que la th´eorie ´economique
133
standard ne pronostique qu’un faible engouement pour ces voitures. Cette th´eorie est fond´ee sur le postulat que l’acteur ´economique dispose d’une information parfaite, qu’il est capable de classer ses pr´ef´erences et qu’il maximise toujours son utilit´e. De ce point de vue, acheter une voiture hybride ne paraˆıt pas rationnel. Mais si l’on confronte les pr´edictions de la th´eorie ´economique avec la r´ealit´e, on se rend compte qu’elles divergent l’une de l’autre. Il semblerait donc qu’il y ait d’autres facteurs intervenant dans l’achat d’une voiture hybride. Les apports de la sociologie de la technologie et de la consommation La sociologie de la technologie et de la consommation permet de comprendre pourquoi les voitures hybrides connaissent un tel succ`es. Tout d’abord, il faut prendre en compte le caract`ere social de tout art´efact mat´eriel. Tout objet est form´e par les interactions sociales et est donc dot´e d’une signification sociale. La construction sociale de la technologie n’ a pas ´et´e accept´ee d`es le d´ebut de la sociologie. Les ouvrages de Karl Marx et de Jacques Ellul (1954, 1977, 1988) montrent une vision de la technologie comme force ext´erieure, ayant sa propre logique. En sociologie contemporaine par contre, le caract`ere social des objets technologiques est de plus en plus reconnu. Lors du processus d’innovation, l’influence du social sur la technologie est aujourd’hui vue comme primordiale. Il existe un grand nombre d’analyses sur l’aspect social du succ`es ou de la faillite d’une technologie.1 Le travail de Bijker (1987) et de Pinch et Bijker (1987) doit ˆetre ´evoqu´e, car ils ont ´et´e parmi les premiers `a th´eoriser la construction sociale des objets. Malheureusement, toutes ces analyses se bornent aux stades premiers du processus d’innovation. Il faut donc se tourner vers la sociologie de la consommation pour examiner le stade de la diffusion. En Europe, cette branche de la sociologie a traditionnellement port´e son attention sur les questions 1
voir par exemple Kline et Pinch, 1996: la construction sociale des voitures; Knie, 1991: l’´evolution de la machine `a ´ecrire; Knie, 1994: la faillite du moteur de Wankel; Kunkle, 1995: le d´eveloppement du microscope ´electronique
134
de diff´erenciation sociale. Pierre Bourdieu (1979) en est le repr´esentant le plus connu. Un autre th`eme de pr´edilection de la sociologie europ´eenne porte sur la signification symbolique de la consommation (Baudrillard, 1986). ´ Aux Etats-Unis, l’accent s’est d´eplac´e vers l’influence de la consommation sur l’identit´e (Moorhouse, 1983; Otnes, 1988) et vers ses cons´equences sur l’environnement et les relations sociales (Krarup et Russell, 2005; Myers et Kent, 2004; Ritzer, 2001). Un point de vue commun `a toutes ces ´etudes a ´emerg´e: la structure de la consommation est une structure sociale, ayant des cons´equences sur les interactions sociales. Cela contraste avec le point de vue purement ´economique, qui ne voit dans la consommation que l’achat et l’utilisation de biens. Ainsi, la sociologie de la consommation traite des interd´ependances entre l’utilisation d’objets mat´eriels et le monde social. L’acte de consommation est influenc´e par des r`egles sociales, des valeurs et des institutions. R´eciproquement, il d´etermine en partie nos relations sociales. La sociologie de la technologie devrait s’inspirer de la sociologie de la consommation pour expliquer de fa¸con plus pertinente les obstacles `a l’innovation. L’approche th´eorique suivante permet de combiner les concepts ci-dessus discut´es: Il s’agit de la th´eorie des r´egimes socio-techniques. Un tel r´egime d´etermine les repr´esentations de ce qui est faisable et d´esirable pour une technologie. Le concept a ´et´e invent´e par Nelson et Winter (1977) et d´evelopp´e par Dosi (1982). L`a o` u les deux premiers mettent l’accent sur la s´election par le march´e, Dosi souligne l’influence des institutions, en tant que moteur de s´election entre les diff´erentes alternatives technologiques. Il a cr´e´e la notion de trajectoire technologique, qui d´ecrit une voie de d´eveloppement, d´etermin´ee par une certaine fa¸con de r´esoudre les probl`emes technologiques. Selon lui, la technologie comporte toujours la perception d’un nombre limit´e d’alternatives technologiques. Hard et Knie (2001) tentent d’´elargir le concept de r´egime technologique. Ils soutiennent la th`ese que la r´eussite d’une technologie d´epend de son adap-
135
tation `a la structure juridique, aux r´eseaux organisationnels, ainsi qu’aux discours publiques. Il faut aussi qu’elle soit en harmonie avec les attentes et les habitudes comportementales des consommateurs. Le m´erite de cette approche est qu’elle introduit le concept d’environnements s´electeurs, tout en incluant les aspects culturels et sociaux. Pour autant, les auteurs n´egligent la construction d’un mod`ele causal, et se bornent aux stades pr´ecoces de la diffusion. L’approche des r´egimes socio-techniques omet par ailleurs la force du statu quo dans la concurrence entre technologies. Une nouvelle technologie doit s’´etablir en r´eaction aux pr´ec´edentes. C’est particuli`erement vrai pour le syst`eme de transport: la vision technologique de ce qui constitue une voiture est tr`es statique. Ainsi, jamais une technologie alternative en mati`ere automobile n’a pu s’imposer face au moteur `a combustion. Diff´erents chercheurs scandinaves et allemands (Canzler et Knie, 1994; Canzler, 1999; Dierkes, 1994; Dierkes et al., 1996; H˚ ard et Knie, 2001; Knie, 1994, 1997 ) ont th´eoris´e ce ph´enom`ene, sous le nom de ‘vision culturelle ´etablie’ d’une technologie. Les images, les buts et les attentes li´es `a une technologie convergent autour de ce dernier. Elle comprend les exp´eriences pass´ees ainsi que les attentes concernant son d´eveloppement futur. Canzler et Knie (1994) utilisent cette approche afin d’expliquer la stabilit´e de la configuration de l’automobile telle qu’on la connaˆıt aujourd’hui. Tr`es tˆot dans son histoire, les ´el´ements indispensables d’une voiture s’´etablirent de fa¸con stable. Autrefois, la comp´etition automobile ´etait la premi`ere fonction de la voiture, et le moteur `a combustion r´epondait alors le mieux aux propri´et´es m´ecaniques indispensables `a la course: vitesse, acc´el´eration et rayon d’action. Ainsi, ce type de moteur a pu s’´etablir d`es le d´ebut du 20e si`ecle, et sa pr´edominance n’a jamais ´et´e remise en question. Aujourd’hui, il est au cœur du syst`eme de transport, et l’infrastructure, les lois ainsi que les pratiques sociales contribuent `a renforcer sa pr´epond´erance. L’approche des visions culturelles comprend les caract´eristiques d’une
136
technologie non pas comme objectivement bonnes ou mauvaises, mais sp´ecifie au contraire que les avantages et inconv´enients d’une technologie d´ependent toujours du contexte. Ainsi, dans le contexte des courses automobiles, le moteur `a combustion ´etait le mieux adapt´e et est devenu la configuration dominante. Aujourd’hui, ce que le public attend d’une voiture n’est pas fondamentalement diff´erent de la configuration de la premi`ere Mercedes. C’est la stabilit´e de nos attentes, qui fait que toute alternative technologique a du mal `a s’imposer. Ici, les voitures hybrides sont les premiers v´ehicules alternatifs `a avoir le potentiel n´ecessaire pour remplacer les voitures conventionnelles. L’´etude de la litt´erature sociologique a montr´e que l’approche des syst`emes socio-techniques - avec leurs environnements s´electeurs - est ad´equate pour analyser le d´eveloppement des technologies alternatives en mati`ere automobile. Il reste cependant des lacunes - certes modestes - `a combler: cette approche met trop l’accent sur l’offre et le stade primaire de l’innovation. Elle tend `a n´egliger les attitudes des utilisateurs, les aspects non-´economiques et l’influence du statu quo technologique. De ce fait, il est n´ecessaire d’introduire ces aspects. Il est probable que le d´emarrage rapide des voitures hybrides s’explique par leur bonne adaptation aux diff´erents environnements s´electeurs. Toute nouvelle technologie doit trouver sa place dans le syst`eme socio-technique en place. Apparemment, la technologie hybride pourrait r´eussir dans ce processus. Elle cherche actuellement `a s’adapter aux dimensions les plus importantes de la s´election: les dimensions ´economique, politique, sociale, culturelle et institutionnelle. Nous avons vu que le bilan ´energ´etique et environnemental des voitures hybrides est positif, et que leurs perspectives ´economiques sont relativement bonnes. L’espoir plac´e dans ces voitures, pour transformer le syst`eme de transport, n’est donc pas vain. Toutefois, leur impact r´eel d´ependra d’un cˆot´e de leur acceptation par l’opinion publique et de l’autre cˆot´e de l’ad´equation des mesures politiques. Il faut donc analyser plus en d´etail l’adaptation aux diverses dimensions de la s´election, afin de d´eceler des ´el´ements de r´eponses
137
politiques appropri´ees.
9.2
Toutefois, leur impact r´ eel d´ ependra de leur acceptation par l’opinion publique et de l’ad´ equation des mesures politiques propos´ ees
L’analyse de l’acceptation des voitures hybrides par les producteurs et par les consommateurs pr´ecoces r´ev`elera que diff´erentes barri`eres persistent. Il faut alors d´eterminer les politiques publiques ad´equates, pour que les voitures hybrides aient des chances de diffusion de masse et qu’elles fassent la diff´erence en mati`ere ´energ´etique et environnementale.
9.2.1
L’´ etat de l’acceptation des voitures vertes par les producteurs et les consommateurs
La diffusion des voitures vertes d´epend, cˆot´e offre, des facteurs de s´election institutionnels, et plus sp´ecifiquement des r`egles juridiques et de la capacit´e des entrepreneurs. Cˆot´e demande, ce sont les attitudes des utilisateurs qui sont d´ecisives. Si les conditions requises pour le succ`es des voitures hybrides sont pr´esentes, il reste aussi des d´efis `a relever. Les facteurs de s´ election cˆ ot´ e offre : les r` egles juridiques et la capacit´ e des entrepreneurs L’effet s´electif de la dimension institutionnelle et r´egulatrice agit par le biais de structures sociales codifi´ees et institutionnalis´ees. Selon le cas, elles facilitent ou compliquent l’avanc´ee des technologies. Les r`egles juridiques favorisent souvent le statu quo, car elles sont bas´ees sur les techniques d´ej`a
138
existantes. Cependant, il se peut que des mesures incitent les producteurs `a introduire de nouvelles technologies. Quant aux capacit´es institutionnelles des entreprises, elles d´eterminent ce qu’une firme est en mesure de faire. Un producteur dot´e d’une riche exp´erience en mati`ere de technologies vertes aura moins de probl`emes pour suivre cette voie qu’un grand pollueur, qui lui doit entreprendre un retournement radical. Ainsi, tous les producteurs ne seront pas capables d’introduire de fa¸con rapide la technologie hybride. Tout d’abord, il est important d’examiner les r`egles juridiques s’appliquant aux voitures hybrides. Ce sont principalement des lois sur l’´energie et l’environnement. Si la technologie hybride facilite l’application effective de ces r`egles, l’industrie sera incit´ee `a augmenter sa production. Si au contraire, une innovation technologique cr´ee le besoin d’introduire de nouvelles r`egles, il se peut que la diffusion soit ralentie. Dans le domaine des lois sur l’´energie, les automobiles ´electro-hybrides sont sujettes aux mˆemes impˆots et standards que les voitures conventionnelles. De plus, il existe certains subventions et programmes incitatifs. Tout d’abord, la taxe sur l’essence joue un rˆole important. Son faible niveau a un effet n´egatif sur les voitures hybrides, puisque qu’il fait que la consommation de carburant n’est pas un facteur qui p`ese lourdement dans les caract´eristiques d’une voiture. La demande ´etant insuffisante, les producteurs n’ont pas la motivation pour vendre des voitures ´economes. Il n’existe pas d’impˆot sur le v´ehicule lui-mˆeme, c’est-`a-dire que cet outil pour avantager les ´ voitures ´ecologiques n’est pas utilis´e aux Etats-Unis. Tout cela joue contre les voitures hybrides. Il existe ´egalement des mesures qui favorisent ce type de v´ehicules, mais leur effet reste limit´e. Une taxe sur les v´ehicules gaspillant de l’essence (‘gas guzzler tax’) a ´et´e introduite, dans le but de d´ecourager les consommateurs `a acheter de tr`es grosses voitures. Les propri´etaires de voitures hybrides ont par ailleurs droit `a une subvention, et un programme f´ed´eral soutient le grand public dans l’achat de ces v´ehicules alternatifs.
139
Enfin, il est n´ecessaire d’´evoquer les standards de consommation de carburant (‘Corporate Average Fuel Economy’, CAFE). Ils existent depuis 1978 et ont ´et´e renforc´es plusieurs fois, bien qu’ils aient stagn´e entre 1995 et 2004 (voir Tab. 5.2, p. 69). Ce n’est que sous la pression de l’augmentation du prix de p´etrole qu’ils ont ´et´e relev´es. Malheureusement, ils restent faibles et trop s´electifs: avec 9,56 litres/100 km, la consommation moyenne des nouvelles voitures reste ´elev´ee (Heavenrich, 2005).2 Les standards sont encore moins stricts pour les v´ehicules tout terrain, et les plus gros v´ehicules y ´echappent mˆeme totalement. Ainsi, les producteurs sont pouss´es `a vendre des voitures toujours plus grandes, afin de contourner les standards. Les v´ehicules tout terrain repr´esentent d´ej`a 50 % des ventes des voitures r´ecentes. L’effet des lois sur l’´energie est donc mitig´e: les subventions et le programme pour l’achat de v´ehicules verts agissent certes en faveur des voitures hybrides, mais le faible niveau de la taxe sur l’essence ainsi que les standards mal d´efinis incitent l’industrie `a produire des voitures grosses, lourdes et peu ´economes. Ils y gagnent par ailleurs plus qu’avec les petites voitures. Paradoxalement, cela pourrait jouer en faveur de la technologie hybride: les producteurs sont contraints de fa¸con momentan´ee `a vendre `a perte de petites voitures, afin d’atteindre le standard CAFE, qui d´efinit une consommation moyenne pour toutes les voitures vendues par un mˆeme producteur. C’est que l’approche conventionnelle de l’augmentation de l’efficience passe par la r´eduction de la taille et du poids. D´esormais, l’hybridation offre une solution pour accroˆıtre l’efficience de la voiture, sans toucher `a sa taille. L’hybridation facilite l’observation des standards, y compris pour les grandes voitures, garantissant ainsi un surcroˆıt de profit pour les producteurs. Si le niveau actuel des normes ne d´esavantage pas les voitures hybrides, leur renforcement pourrait ˆetre plus b´en´efique - et pour la technologie hybride, et pour la consommation d’´energie. Quant aux lois sur l’environnement elles ont aussi un effet sur la diffusion 2
En Europe, la consommation moyenne de carburant ne d´epasse pas les 7 litres/100km.
140
des voitures hybrides. En 1990, la Loi sur la Puret´e de l’Air (‘Clean Air Act’) introduisait un r`eglement limitant le rejet de gaz nocifs par les voitures (pour une liste des substances r´eglement´ees et des concentrations autoris´ees, voir Tab. 5.3, pg. 71). En 2009, on passera d’une premi`ere phase de restrictions `a une seconde, qui sera alors plus stricte (EPA, 2002a). L’industrie automobile doit trouver un moyen de produire des voitures moins polluantes d’ici 2009. Il est fort probable que la technologie hybride sera utilis´ee `a cette fin. Plus les normes d’´emission seront stricts, plus les producteurs seront incit´es `a miser sur les voitures hybrides. A cet ´egard, il est int´eressant de citer le programme californien concernant les voitures non pollueuses. Dans les ann´ees 1990, l’´etat le plus peupl´e des ´ Etats-Unis a introduit des standards d’´emission tr`es stricts et des quotas pour les voitures `a ´emission z´ero. Cette derni`ere mesure visait `a l’origine les voitures ´electriques, mais les difficult´es de commercialisation sont telles que les producteurs misent de plus en plus sur les voitures hybrides pour remplir ces quotas. Apparemment, l’industrie automobile a pris conscience du potentiel de la technologie hybride pour observer les standards d’´emission de l’´etat de Californie et du gouvernement f´ed´eral. Ainsi, on voit que les r`egles juridiques existantes sont en mesure d’exercer une pression sur les producteurs automobiles, pour proposer sur le march´e des voitures plus ´economes et moins pollueuses. L’hybridation constitue une voie technologique possible pour atteindre ce but. Mais le temps qui s’´ecoulera d’ici `a son introduction dans la production de masse d´ependra aussi des capacit´es techniques des firmes. Auront-elles toutes v´eritablement la mˆeme aptitude `a utiliser la technologie hybride? En effet, les bilans des producteurs automobiles diff`erent en mati`ere de technologies durables. Le tableau 5.4 (pg. 75) pr´esente les consommations moyennes de carburant pour les ventes de diverses compagnies. Les producteurs japonais tiennent le haut de la liste, avec 8 litres/100 km pour Honda et 8,5 litres/100 km pour Toyota. On trouve ensuite les producteurs europ´eens,
141
puis en fin de liste les producteurs domestiques: Ford est la lanterne rouge (10,3 litres/100 km), pr´ec´ed´e de Daimler-Chrysler (10,1 litres/100 km) et General Motors (9,8 litres/100 km). La performance des diff´erents producteurs en mati`ere de consommation de carburant d´emontre ce que Austin et al. (2003) ont d´etermin´e dans leur analyse de la future cr´eation de valeur dans l’industrie automobile: les producteurs am´ericains sont mal pr´epar´es face `a un possible renforcement des standards d’´emission et de consommation de carburant. Ils ont mis l’accent sur le d´eveloppement du march´e des voitures tout terrain. S´eduits par un faible coˆ ut de l’essence et des standards ´elargis, ils ont n´eglig´e le d´eveloppement des technologies durables. Ainsi, les producteurs japonais, pouss´es par la stricte r´eglementation de leur pays, ont pu acqu´erir une avance sur les autres firmes automobiles (Austin et al., 2003). Pour l’instant, tout les producteurs automobiles essaient de rattraper le retard. Mais la p´enurie en ing´enieurs qualifi´es se fait d´ej`a sentir (Treece, 2005) et les firmes doivent partir de z´ero pour atteindre un niveau de savoir-faire comparable `a celui de Toyota ou Honda. La situation est aggrav´ee par la crise g´en´eralis´ee de l’industrie automobile am´ericaine. En mai 2005, Standard & Poor’s Rating Services a assign´e General Motors et Ford `a la plus mauvaise classe de solidit´e de cr´edit (Der Spiegel, 2005b). En vue de la hausse du prix de p´etrole et du r´echauffement de la plan`ete, les analystes estiment que l’industrie automobile am´ericaine n’est pas prˆete `a relever les d´efis comp´etitifs s’offrant `a elle. Il en r´esulte un dilemme pour l’intervention gouvernementale: si la technologie hybride est soutenue, c’est avant tout les producteurs ´etrangers qui en profitent. L’unique facteur positif de cette situation r´esulte du fait que le transfert technologique pourrait ˆetre acc´el´er´e: par peur de mesures protectionnistes, les producteurs japonais ont consenti `a entrer en coop´eration avec d’autres firmes et `a licencier la technologie hybride. Combien de temps s’´ecoulera, jusqu’`a ce que tous les producteurs acqui`erent des aptitudes satisfaisantes en mati`ere de technologie hybride ? Pour l’instant, il est difficile
142
de formuler une opinion pr´ecise. Mais il est sˆ ur que la pression comp´etitive des firmes japonaises acc´el`erera la diffusion de la technologie parmi les autres producteurs. En fin de compte, les r`egles juridiques agissent d´ej`a en faveur de la technologie hybride, mˆeme si elles n’exploitent pas son plein potentiel. Les insuffisances de capacit´es de l’industrie automobile constituent actuellement le plus grand obstacle `a sa diffusion. Les facteurs de s´ election cˆ ot´ e demande : les attitudes des utilisateurs Au-del`a de l’acceptation par les producteurs, ce sont surtout les attitudes des utilisateurs qui d´etermineront le sort des voitures hybrides. La litt´erature ´etant tr`es parsem´ee `a cet ´egard, il convient de faire une enquˆete parmi les utilisateurs pr´ecoces. L’´etude empirique pr´esent´ee par la suite s’appuie sur un sondage ´electronique. Publi´ee par des sites internet sur les voitures hybrides, elle comporte des questions sur les habitudes de transport, les attitudes envers la technologie hybride, et la sensibilisation aux probl`emes environnementaux et ´energ´etiques. L’enquˆete n’est certes pas repr´esentative, elle donne n´eanmoins des indications sur l’acceptation de la technologie hybride. La d´emographie des personnes sond´ees est comparable `a celle de deux autres sondages (voir HybridCars.com, 2005 et de Haan et Peters, 2005), et semble typique des acheteurs de voitures hybrides. 181 citoyens am´ericains ont particip´e `a cette enquˆete, dont 60 % poss`edent une telle voiture (voir Fig. 6.1, pg. 80). Les consid´erations th´eoriques expos´ees en premi`ere partie laissent supposer que l’int´erˆet pour la technologie hybride d´epend non seulement de facteurs ´economiques, mais aussi d’habitudes sociales, de visions culturelles et d’aspects politiques. Nous allons d´emontrer que, pour les d´efenseurs de la technologie hybride, ce sont surtout les trois derniers facteurs qui sont g´en´erateurs d’int´erˆet. Pour atteindre une plus grande diffusion des voitures 143
hybrides, il faudrait donc retrouver les mˆemes attitudes chez le grand public. Il ne s’agit pas de nier le fait que l’´economique joue un rˆole dans la d´ecision en faveur ou non d’un v´ehicule alternatif. Une grande majorit´e des participants `a l’´etude est persuad´ee qu’un prix plus mod´er´e et une plus grande diversit´e de mod`eles seraient le meilleur moyen de faire augmenter les ventes des voitures hybrides (voir Tab. 6.11, pg. 98). Il ne s’agit pas non plus de nier l’importance des aspects psychologiques, comme les ´emotions. Mais d’autres facteurs, trop souvent d´elaiss´es dans l’analyse de la consommation, sont `a prendre en consid´eration (McEwen, 2004). Tout d’abord, nous examinerons l’influence du climat politique et du d´ebat publique. La pr´e´eminence d’un probl`eme sur la sc`ene politique et dans les m´edias peut pr´esenter un avantage, `a condition qu’une technologie offre une solution `a ce probl`eme. La demande r´eelle en d´epend, mais aussi le soutien apport´e aux mesures politiques favorables `a la technologie en question. La pr´epond´erance de deux th`emes est en effet ´etroitement corr´el´ee avec l’int´erˆet pour la technologie hybride: plus une personne est soucieuse des probl`emes environnementaux comme la pollution de l’air et le changement climatique, plus son int´erˆet est grand. Il en va de mˆeme pour l’inqui´etude ´ concernant la d´ependance ´energ´etique des Etats-Unis. En outre, si une personne estime que la technologie hybride constitue une solution `a ces probl`emes, l’int´erˆet pour cette derni`ere se trouve alors influenc´e de fa¸con positive. Avec une valeur de 0,383, la mesure de la corr´elation Pearson’s R est tr`es forte pour l’item ‘solution aux probl`emes environnementaux caus´es par le transport’ comme facteur ind´ependant. Pour les personnes convaincues que les voitures hybrides aident `a relever le d´efi du prix du carburant et de la d´ependance ´energ´etique, les corr´elations avec l’int´erˆet pour la technologie hybride d´epassent aussi la cote de 0,3. La pr´epond´erance politique de la d´ependance ´energ´etique et de la pollution par le transport a par ailleurs un effet indirect: le nombre de mesures politiques en faveur des voitures hybrides qui re¸coivent le soutien des par-
144
ticipants augmente parall`element `a l’inqui´etude concernant ces th`emes. Le fait qu’une personne per¸coive les voitures hybrides comme une solution `a ces probl`emes a de mˆeme une influence positive (voir Tab. 6.4, pg. 86 sur les effets de la pr´epond´erance de la pollution et Tab. 6.5, pg. 88 sur les effets de la pr´epond´erance de la d´ependance ´energ´etique). En analysant les variations de la pr´epond´erance de certains th`emes, entre ceux qui poss`edent une voiture hybride et les autres, nous sommes en mesure de d´emontrer ce qui fait la diff´erence dans la d´ecision favorable ou d´efavorable envers une telle voiture. Les propri´etaires d’une voiture hybride sont tr`es inquiets pour l’environnement et la d´ependance ´energ´etique; mais pas significativement plus que les autres. Les deux groupes diff`erent concernant une autre dimension: les personnes qui conduisent une voiture hybride attribuent `a cette technologie une plus grande capacit´e `a r´esoudre les probl`emes. L’obstacle `a la diffusion des voitures hybrides consiste moins en une sensibilisation insuffisante aux probl`emes de l’environnement qu’en une conviction insuffisante dans le fait que les voitures hybrides offrent une solution ad´equate. Dans le processus de s´election technologique, les facteurs sociaux et culturels sont moins apparents que les facteurs politiques et ´economiques. Il ne faut cependant pas sous-estimer leur importance. Les opinions d´etermin´ees culturellement agissent souvent en faveur du statu quo, car elles conditionnent les attentes et d´esirs envers une technologie. Pour ce qui est de l’influence du social, elle passe par la d´efinition sociale de la technologie. Il est plus probable qu’une personne se d´ecide pour une certaine technologie, si son utilisation conf`ere beaucoup de gratification sociale, et si elle est accept´ee par les groupes sociaux qui sont importants aux yeux de cette personne (notamment la famille et les amis). Tout d’abord, il est n´ecessaire d’analyser la gratification sociale: elle d´erive non pas du plaisir personnel, mais du sentiment d’avoir rempli un devoir social. Dans le sondage, il ´etait demand´e aux participants si conduire
145
une voiture hybride leur conf´erait un sentiment de bonheur, en raison de leur soutien `a l’environnement ou de leur contribution `a l’effort d’ind´ependance ´energ´etique nationale. Plus une personne ´etait en accord avec ces deux d´eclarations, plus l’int´erˆet qu’elle montrait g´en´eralement pour la technologie hybride ´etait important (voir Tab. 6.7, pg. 92 pour l’analyse statistique d´etaill´ee). L’autre facteur social, qui est l’opinion des groupes significatifs, poss`ede ´egalement une influence positive sur l’int´erˆet port´e aux voitures hybrides. Si la famille et les amis d’une personne affichent une opinion positive envers les voitures hybrides, cette personne sera alors int´eress´ee par les voitures hybrides avec une plus grande probabilit´e (voir Tab. 6.8, pg. 93). La corr´elation est de 0,228, et donc un peu moins prononc´ee que celle entre la gratification sociale et l’int´erˆet (0,291). La comparaison des deux groupes poss´edant ou non une voiture hybride d´emontre qu’ils diff`erent uniquement par rapport `a l’influence des groupes sociaux importants (voir Tab. 6.9, pg. 94). Les personnes conduisant elles-mˆemes un v´ehicule hybride esp`erent des r´eactions plus positives des amis et de la famille. Les habitudes culturelles sont int´eressantes, dans la mesure o` u elles conditionnent certains attributs de la voiture. Aux yeux des utilisateurs, les v´ehicules hybrides remplissent-ils ces conditions? Le sondage examine leurs attentes par rapport `a trois caract´eristiques: maniement, performance et s´ecurit´e. Les corr´elations entre ces trois facteurs et l’int´erˆet pour la technologie hybride sont toutes positives: l’accord avec la d´eclaration faite par les sond´es que les voitures hybrides offrent un niveau de s´ecurit´e comparable `a celui des v´ehicules traditionnels a la plus forte influence (R = 0,193, voir Tab. 6.10(c), pg. 96), suivi par ‘une performance semblable’ (R = 0,174, voir Tab. 6.10(b), pg. 96) et ‘un maniement ´egal’ (R = 0,168, voir Tab. 6.10(a), pg. 96). La dimension culturelle ne montre aucune variation significative entre les propri´etaires d’une voiture hybride et d’une voiture traditionnelle. On
146
peut en d´eduire que les habitudes culturelles li´ees `a l’automobile sont tr`es stables. Mˆeme les personnes qui conduisent un v´ehicule alternatif ne sont pas prˆetes `a renoncer `a certains attributs consid´er´es comme indispensables. Cela pourrait expliquer l’´echec des voitures ´electriques: non seulement leur performance est modeste, mais en plus elles contraignent les utilisateurs `a changer leurs habitudes. L’analyse des facteurs non-´economiques et non-psychologiques d´emontre que ce ne sont pas seulement les aspects les plus ´evidents qui jouent un rˆole dans la d´ecision en faveur d’une voiture ´ecologique. Le plus grand obstacle pour tous les v´ehicules alternatifs est certainement la comparaison constante avec les voitures traditionnelles et la stabilit´e des habitudes culturelles qui y sont li´ees. Les voitures hybrides ne diff`erent pas beaucoup de ces derni`eres, ce qui rend leur diffusion plus facile. Mais il faudrait convaincre de cela encore d’avantage d’acheteurs. Quant `a la dimension sociale et politique, les r´esultats de l’analyse statistique sont clairs: tout ou presque d´epend de l’image publique, c’est-`a-dire de la d´efinition sociale de la technologie. La technologie hybride r´eussira `a s’imposer, `a condition de savoir s’allier la gratification sociale, conf´erer un statut social et se d´efinir en tant que la solution aux probl`emes pr´e´eminents. Actuellement, les voitures hybrides sont sur la bonne voie. Mais il reste encore des barri`eres `a surmonter avant d’atteindre une diffusion de masse. Qu’est-ce que cela implique pour les politiques publiques?
9.2.2
Les implications pour les politiques publiques
Les politiques publiques sont d’une grande importance dans le succ`es permanent des voitures hybrides. Les incitations peuvent amener consommateurs et producteurs `a choisir des technologies et un comportement dans leur mobilit´e en accord avec les principes du d´eveloppement durable.
147
Promouvoir la commercialisation des voitures hybrides Les politiques publiques d´etermineront le v´eritable impact des voitures hybrides. Il faut promouvoir leur commercialisation et exploiter leur plein potentiel. A cette fin, il suffirait d’internaliser les effets externes du transport dans le domaine de l’environnement et de la consommation d’´energie. Quand la consommation ou la production d’un acteur affecte l’utilit´e d’un autre acteur, sans qu’il en r´esulte une variation des prix, on parle d’un effet ´ externe. Face `a une telle faille du march´e, l’Etat dispose de plusieurs outils pour restaurer l’efficacit´e ´economique et la justice sociale: les normes et standards, la taxation, les subventions, les quotas et l’information. Actuelle´ ment, ces outils ne sont pas utilis´es efficacement aux Etats-Unis. Que faut-il changer dans les politiques actuelles pour atteindre une plus grande diffusion des voitures hybrides? Tout d’abord, il faut examiner les avantages et inconv´enients des interventions gouvernementales qui nous semblent concevables. Les taxes dites pigouviennes appliquent le principe du pollueur-payeur. Du point de vue de l’efficacit´e ´economique, elles constituent une politique id´eale, car elles forcent les pollueurs `a internaliser les coˆ uts externes (Porter, 1999). Mais politiquement, elles sont souvent difficiles `a imposer. Ainsi, le gouvernement am´ericain tend `a favoriser les normes et les subventions. Leur coˆ ut social est certes ´elev´e, mais elles jouissent d’une plus grande popularit´e parmi l’´electorat (Howitt et Altschuler, 1999). Une mesure peu appliqu´ee jusqu’ici est celle des quotas. Seule la Californie demande aux producteurs automobiles de vendre un certain nombre de voitures `a bas taux d’´emission chaque ann´ee. L’avantage d’une telle d´emarche est qu’elle force la commercialisation d’innovations sur le point d’ˆetre introduites. Quelle est l’utilit´e des diff´erentes mesures pour aider les voitures hybrides `a atteindre une diffusion plus large? Les subventions repr´esentent l’outil ayant le moins d’efficacit´e ´economique et le moins d’impact. N´eanmoins, elles peuvent fournir des incitations `a une consommation ´ecologique. Actuelle148
ment, une somme de 2.000 $ d´eductible des impˆots est accord´ee aux acheteurs d’une voiture hybride. Mais cette mesure s’applique `a tous les v´ehicules hybrides, quels que soient leur taux d’´emission ou leur consommation de carburant r´eels. On peut mˆeme recevoir une subvention sur l’achat d’une Lexus RX400 Hybrid - une voiture de luxe qui consomme presque 8 litres d’essence pour cent kilom`etres. Une telle voiture m´erite-t-elle v´eritablement une subvention? Si subvention il y a, elle doit en fait s’´etablir en fonction de la pollution et de l’efficacit´e ´energ´etique r´eelles. La Lexus RX400 est illustrateur d’un d´eveloppement pr´eoccupant: l’hybridation est de plus en plus utilis´ee, non pas pour am´eliorer l’efficience ´energ´etique, mais pour accroˆıtre la performance (New York Times, 2005b). Cela rend l’action publique d’autant plus urgente. Sinon, la technologie hybride suivra le chemin d’autres innovations efficientes: elle sera employ´ee pour augmenter le nombre de chevaux, la consommation de carburant restant toujours ´egale. Puisque cela ne peut pas constituer un objectif, il faut pousser les producteurs `a exploiter le plein potentiel des voitures hybrides. Cela se fera principalement par le biais d’une hausse du prix du carburant. ´ Aux Etats-Unis, le taux d’imposition du p´etrole est tr`es bas. Selon Kurani et Turrantine (2004), la prise en consid´eration de la consommation de carburant dans l’achat d’une voiture est ´etroitement li´ee au prix r´eel de l’essence. Une augmentation des taxes am`enera les consommateurs `a accorder plus d’importance `a l’efficience ´energ´etique des voitures. Les producteurs emploieraient alors l’hybridation `a cette fin, au lieu de l’utiliser pour augmenter la performance. Pour internaliser les effets externes sur l’environnement, une taxe pigouvienne sur le rejet des gaz nocifs serait aussi possible. Elle pourrait prendre la forme d’une taxe sur les v´ehicules diff´erenci´ee selon la quantit´e d’´emission des voitures. Dans les deux cas, les voitures hybrides obtiendraient un avantage comp´etitif par rapport aux voitures traditionnelles. En dehors des taxes, ce sont surtout les standards qui sont utiles pour promouvoir la commercialisation des voitures hybrides. Il existe d´ej`a aux
149
Etats-Unis des standards d’´emission et de consommation de carburant, mais ils ont ´et´e critiqu´es pour trois raisons: leur non-flexibilit´e, leurs lacunes et le manque de toute incitation `a d´epasser les normes. En cons´equence, au lieu de normes fixes, il convient d’instaurer des normes diff´erenci´ees et de ne pas prescrire les moyens `a mettre en œuvre afin d’atteindre l’objectif vis´e. Pour r´eduire les possibilit´es de contourner les standards, il faut les ´etendre `a tous les v´ehicules, et renforcer les normes pour les v´ehicules tout terrain. Enfin, il est n´ecessaire d’instaurer des r´ecompenses pour les producteurs qui vont au-del`a des normes impos´ees. ´ Les quotas constituent ´egalement un outil `a disposition de l’Etat. Ils sont importants non seulement pour renforcer la diffusion de la technologie hybride, mais aussi pour atteindre une utilisation efficace de cette technologie. L’id´eal serait de forcer l’industrie automobile `a proposer l’option de rechargement au r´eseau ´electrique. Cela se traduirait par un rayon d’action du mode ´electrique ´elargi, et donc des cons´equences positives sur le rejet de gaz nocifs et la consommation de p´etrole. Les centrales ´electriques ont une efficience thermique sup´erieure `a celles des moteurs `a combustion. Ainsi, l’option de rechargement r´esulte dans l’´economie d’´energie. Quant aux effets sur l’environnement, la pollution locale s’en trouve certainement r´eduite, alors que la pollution globale d´epend des sources d’´energie utilis´ees. ´ Aux Etats-Unis, la production d’´energie est essentiellement assur´ee par le charbon, qui pollue relativement beaucoup. Mais si l’on arrivait `a employer plus d’´energie renouvelable, l’option `a rechargement deviendrait alors v´eritablement ´ecologique. Presque toute la distance parcourue quotidiennement pourrait ˆetre faite en mode ´electrique. Malheureusement, les producteurs ont œuvr´e tr`es dur pour persuader les consommateurs du contraire. Les mauvaises exp´eriences avec les voitures ´electriques les ont amen´es `a souligner dans la publicit´e le fait qu’il n’est pas n´ecessaire de brancher les voitures hybrides. Mais leurs arguments ont une faille: l’option `a rechargement reste une option. Une voiture hybride,
150
mˆeme avec prise de contact, disposerait toujours d’un moteur `a combustion, assurant la propulsion apr`es le d´echargement des piles. L’avantage d’une telle voiture est qu’on peut la recharger au r´eseau ´electrique, sans pour autant y ˆetre oblig´e. Parmi les propri´etaires d’une voiture hybride, une large partie r´eclame cette option, et quelques-uns ont d´ej`a r´eactualis´e leurs voitures (Hakim, 2005b). Etant donn´e que la technologie est disponible, rien ´ n’empˆeche l’Etat `a forcer sa commercialisation. Un syst`eme de quota simple serait envisageable, il n’offre cependant pas d’incitation `a surpasser les quantit´es demand´ees. De ce fait, un syst`eme de compensation, une fois un certain seuil pass´e, semble plus efficace. La politique d’information constitue le dernier, mais non le moindre, des outils d’intervention politique en faveur des voitures hybrides. Les r´esultats du sondage exploit´e d´emontrent qu’elle pourrait ˆetre utile pour construire une image positive d’eux. Il faut avant tout d´efinir l’hybridation comme une solution aux probl`emes du secteur du transport. La br`eve discussion des mesures politiques concevables d´emontre que seule une combinaison des diff´erents outils sera couronn´ee de succ`es. En outre, il ne faut pas perdre de vue que les voitures hybrides n’offrent qu’une solution technologique. Pour arriver `a une mobilit´e en accord avec les crit`eres du d´eveloppement durable, elle doit s’inscrire dans une initiative sociale et politique plus large. Vers une mobilit´ e en accord avec les crit` eres du d´ eveloppement durable Les ressources disponibles sur la plan`ete sont par d´efinition limit´ees. A l’inverse, les besoins sont quasiment illimit´es. Comment concilier les deux? L’effort de synth`ese est appel´e d´eveloppement durable. Le terme a ´et´e consacr´e en 1987, dans le Rapport Brundtland (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987): “Le d´eveloppement durable est un d´eveloppement qui r´epond aux 151
besoins du pr´esent, sans compromettre la capacit´e des g´en´erations futures `a r´epondre aux leurs. Deux concepts sont inh´erents `a cette notion: le concept de ‘besoins’ [. . . ] et l’id´ee des limitations que l’´etat de nos techniques et de notre organisation sociale imposent sur la capacit´e de l’environnement `a r´epondre aux besoins actuels et futurs.” Appliqu´e au syst`eme de transport, le d´eveloppement durable tend `a cr´eer une coh´erence entre les besoins de mobilit´e et les ressources environnementales et ´energ´etiques disponibles sur le long terme. Les voitures hybrides contribuent `a un tel effort, mais elles n’y arriveront pas seules. Elles doivent s’inscrire dans une initiative plus large, qui prend en compte non seulement le technologique, mais aussi le social et le politique. Certes, la consommation de carburant et le rejet de gaz nocifs d´ependent des technologies employ´ees par les v´ehicules; des progr`es cons´equents ont ´et´e faits dans ce domaine ces derni`eres d´ecennies. Mais en mˆeme temps, le nombre total de voitures a augment´e, de mˆeme que les distances parcourues. Cela a annul´e les gains du progr`es technologique. Ce n’est donc pas seulement le type de voiture achet´e qui fait la diff´erence, mais aussi la fa¸con dont elle est utilis´ee. Les choix d’achat et d’usage de millions d’automobilistes s’accumulent ainsi pour produire un syst`eme de transport en d´esaccord avec les crit`eres du d´eveloppement durable. Si les voitures hybrides constituent un pas dans la bonne direction, une solution purement technologique restera toujours utopique. Weinberg (1993) parle de l’illusion d’une panac´ee technologique (‘technical fix’) face `a des probl`emes non-technologiques. Rendre la mobilit´e plus durable est un d´efi social, qui doit ˆetre affront´e sur le plan social. Ainsi, le d´eveloppement durable du transport passe par l’´evolution du comportement des automobilistes. Il faut changer la demande de mobilit´e `a la source, en s’attaquant aux habitudes de transport.
152
Le probl`eme est qu’il existe une r´esistance psychologique aux changements concernant l’usage de la voiture (Tertolen et al., 1998): l’automobiliste se trouve confront´e `a un dilemme social, puisque `a court terme il obtient une grande utilit´e de l’usage de la voiture, mˆeme s’il sait qu’`a long terme, il en r´esulte des d´esavantages collectifs. En outre, les routines d’usage sont parfois tellement fixes, que l’automobiliste n’est souvent mˆeme pas conscient des alternatives (par exemple les routes ou les horaires du transport public). Selon Krarup et Russel (2005), les campagnes d’information jouent un rˆole d´eterminant pour changer les habitudes de transport. En plus, des mesures doivent ˆetre prises aux niveaus local, r´egional et national pour am´eliorer le transport public. Circuler en v´elo ou `a pied doit devenir plus attractif. Si la politique de transport est fondamentale pour changer les habitudes de transport, la gestion de la mobilit´e ne rel`eve pas de sa seule responsabilit´e. L’am´enagement du territoire, la politique d’´energie et la politique macro´economique influencent ´egalement la mobilit´e (Stead and Banister, 2001). Il faut par exemple d´econnecter la demande en transport de la croissance macro-´economique. Les solutions sont ´evidentes, mais elles sont difficiles `a imposer. Aujourd’hui, le transport n’est pas durable de fa¸con certaine. Face ´a cette situation, une politique volontariste, combinant diverses mesures et technologies - dont la technologie hybride - est n´ecessaire. Dans le cas contraire, le transport deviendra victime de son propre succ`es.
153
Appendix Variable list and coding The following list shows the order and the wording of the questions. In the actual survey, a web-based survey service (www.zoomerang.com) was used whose design cannot be depicted here. Questions with rating scales and multiple choice questions with multiple answer possibility: The variable name is given in squared brackets [] after each item. Answer scales with the numerical coding in parentheses () are indicated before the list of items and, where applicable, recoding procedures are given at the end of the list. Multiple choice questions with single answer possibility: The variable name is indicated in squared brackets [] before the answer choices. The numerical value assigned to each answer is given after it in parentheses (). 1. In your opinion, which of the following aspects could increase sales of hybrid cars in this country? (Please check applicable items; multiple answers possible) Answer scale: Yes (1), No (0) • Lower price [v1a] • More tax incentives [v1b] • Other incentives (access to HOV-Lanes, free parking) [v1c] • Availability of more different models, especially hybrid SUVs [v1d]
154
• Better performance [v1e] • More room for passengers [v1f] • More room for baggage [v1g] • None of the above [v1h] • Other, please specify [v1i, open question] 2. A number of political measures to further hybrid sales is conceivable. Which of the following political measures do you support and which ones do you think would not be useful? Answer scale: I support (1), I do not support (2), Not sure (3) • Tax credits [v2a] • Other incentives (access to HOV lanes, free parking) [v2b] • Higher fuel taxes [v2c] • Tighter emission regulations [v2d] • Tighter fuel efficiency standards [v2e] P
RECODING: v2a, v2b, v2c, v2d, v2e = v2overallsupport To obtain a measure for the sum of all policies supported by a respondent, the variables from question 2 were added up. 3. For each of the following issues, please tell us whether you are more or less worried than you were 2 years ago. Answer scale: More worried (1), About the same (2), Less worried (3), Not sure (4) • Climate change [v3a] • Fuel prices [v3b] • Local air quality [v3c] • Energy dependence of the US [v3d] RECODING: 1 = 3, 2 = 2, 3 = 1, 4 = 4 155
4. In your opinion, what part does automobile traffic have in these problems? Please rate your answer on a scale from 1 ‘a very small part’ to 5 ‘a very large part’. Answer scale: A very small part (1) . . . A very large part (5), Not sure (6) • Climate change [v4a] • Energy security [v4b] • Fuel prices [v4c] • Local air pollution [v4d] 5. Briefly think about the following alternative vehicle technologies. Please rate your interest on a scale from 1 ‘not interested whatsoever’ to 5 ‘extremely interested’. Answer scale: Not interested whatsoever (1) . . . Extremely interested (5), N/A (6) • Electric vehicles [v5a] • Hybrid vehicles [v5b] • Alternative fuel vehicles [v5c] • Fuel cell vehicles [v5d] 6. Do you already drive a hybrid car or not? [v6] • Yes, I own a hybrid myself. (1) • I do not own a hybrid yet, but I could imagine buying one. (2) • No, I do not drive a hybrid & am not interested in buying one. (3) • The company/institution I work for has a fleet of hybrids and I get to drive one from time to time. (4) RECODING: 1 = 1, 2 = 0, 3 = 0, 4 = excluded 156
7. If yes, what kind of hybrid do you own? (If you do not own a hybrid, please choose not applicable.) [v7] • Toyota Prius (1) • Toyota Highlander (2) • Honda Insight (3) • Honda Accord Hybrid (4) • Honda Civic Hybrid (5) • Ford Escape Hybrid (6) • Lexus RX400 Hybrid (7) • Other (8) • N/A (9) 8. If you own a hybrid yourself, what type of car did you trade in for it? (If you do not own a hybrid, please choose not applicable.) [v8] • Subcompact (1) • Compact (2) • Midsize (3) • Luxury (4) • SUV (5) • Mini-Van (6) • Pick-Up (7) • The hybrid is my first car. (8) • N/A (9) • Not sure (10) 157
9. For each of the following statements, please tell us whether you agree or disagree. Answer scale: I agree (1) . . . I totally disagree (5), Not sure (6) • Handling a hybrid is very similar to handling a conventional car. [v9a] • My family thinks a hybrid is a good choice of vehicle. [v9b] • Driving a hybrid means being open to innovations. [v9c] • Driving a hybrid is good, because it helps the environment. [v9d] • A hybrid’s performance is as good as that of conventional vehicles. [v9e] • Driving a hybrid is a good thing, because it contributes to the national energy conservation effort. [v9f] • My friends think driving a hybrid is cool. [v9g] • A hybrid is as safe as any other vehicle on the market. [v9h] • A feature I like about hybrids is that they need to be refuelled less often. [v9i] RECODING: 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1, 6 = 6 10. Consider the attributes of a car that are indispensable for you. In other words, if a car does not have this features, you will not buy it. (Please check all attributes that are a must for you; multiple answers possible) Answer scale: Yes (1), No (0) • Enough room for baggage [v10a] • A good range (the distance a car can go on one tank filling) [v10b] • Enough seating capacity [v10c] • Good torque and good acceleration performance [v10d] 158
• Being able to use my regular repair shop for inspections and maintenance [v10e] • Never having to plug the car in overnight [v10f] • Being able to use standard gasoline and to refuel at every gas station [v10g] • A good safety record [v10h] 11. Does a hybrid provide all the features you deem necessary in a car? [v11] • Yes (1) • No (2) 12. If no, what are the features that a hybrid lacks in your opinion? [v12] Open question 13. Would you consider buying a hybrid SUV? [v13] • Yes, now I can drive a SUV that is not such a gas guzzler. (1) • Only if it would get really good mileage. (2) • No, I would never buy a SUV. (3) • Not sure (4)
159
14. Has there been an increase in media coverage of the following issues in the last 2 years? Or have these issues not been very prominent in the media? Answer scale: Increased (1), Unchanged (2), Decreased (3), Not sure (4) • Climate change [v14a] • Energy security [v14b] • Gas prices [v14c] • Air pollution [v14d] RECODING: 1 = 3, 2 = 2, 3 = 1, 4 = 4 15. If there were more hybrids, do you think they could be a solution for some of the current environmental and energy problems in the US or not? Please rate your answer on a scale from 1 ‘I strongly agree’ to 5 ‘I strongly disagree’. Answer scale: I strongly agree (1) . . . I strongly disagree (5), Not sure (6) • Hybrids will reduce US dependence on foreign oil, because they bring down overall fuel consumption. [v15a] • Hybrids will help improve local air quality, especially in cities. [v15b] • Hybrids will help to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the US. [v15c] • Because of their fuel cost savings, hybrids will ease the impact of higher oil prices. [v15d] RECODING: 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1, 6 = 6 16. Approximately, how much does a gallon of gasoline cost in your region at the moment? [v16] US $:
160
17. By how much do you think fuel prices will change annually over the next five years? The price for a gallon of regular gasoline will . . . [v17] • go down (1) • stay the same (2) • go up 1-10 cents per year (3) • go up 11-20 cents per year (4) • go up 21-30 cents per year (5) • go up 31-40 cents per year (6) • go up 41-50 cents per year (7) • go up 51 cents to one dollar per year (8) • go up more than a dollar per year (9) 18. How much more are you willing to pay for a hybrid than for a comparable car? [v18] • 0 $ (1) • 500 $ (2) • Up to 1,000 $ (3) • Up to 2,000 $ (4) • Up to 3,000 $ (5) • Not sure (6)
161
19. How many years do you assume it takes on average until fuel cost savings make up for the higher purchase price of hybrids? [v19] Years: 20. Approximately how many miles do you drive per year? [v20] Miles: 21. How much do you drive compared to the average person? Do you travel more, as much as or less than the average person? [v21] • More (1) • As much as (2) • Less (3) • Not sure (4) 22. In case you already own a hybrid, has this changed how many miles you drive, or has the distance remained the same? [v22] • I drive more now. (1) • I drive the same distance. (2) • I drive less. (3) • I do not own a hybrid. (4) • Not sure (5)
162
23. Is there anything else you wish to let us know? If you have remarks about your experience driving a hybrid or comments about the survey, feel free to write them down here. [v23] Open question 24. Please indicate your gender [v24] • Male (1) • Female (2) 25. Please indicate your age in years. [v25] Years: 26. Which of the following is your area of residence? [v26] • US - Midwest (1) • US - Southwest (2) • US - Northwest (3) • US - East (4) • South (5) • Europe (6) • Japan (7) • Other (8)
163
27. What is your level of education? [v27] • Some primary/high school (1) • High school graduate or equivalent (2) • Some college (3) • College degree (4) • Some postgraduate (5) • Postgraduate degree (6) • Professional degree (7) 28. So that we can group all answers, please let us know what your total annual household income before taxes is. [v28] • Under 30,000 $ (1) • 30,0000 to 60,0000 $ (2) • 60,0000 to 90,0000 $ (3) • 90,0000 to 120,0000 $ (4) • More than 120,000 $ (5) • Not sure (6) 29. Overall, what is the political party you identify most with? [v29] • Democrats (1) • Republicans (2) • Not sure (3) • Other, please specify (4, open question) 164
Bibliography D. Abrahamson. Purchase price, operational costs and resale value - Toyota Prius vs. Toyota Camry. Spreadsheet (unpublished), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2005. P. A. Alcorn. Social Issues in Technology - A Format for Investigation. PrenticeHall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997. ASPO. Newsletter 49, Assocation for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, January 2005. http://www.peakoil.ie/downloads/newsletters/newsletter49 200501.pdf, last accessed 06/14/2005. D. Austin, N. Rosinski, A. Sauer, and C. Le Duc. Changing drivers - The impact of climate change on competitiveness and value creation in the automotive industry. Sustainable Asset Management/World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., 2003. E. Babbie. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA, 8th edition, 1998. R. Bamberger. Automobile and light truck fuel economy - the CAFE standards. Issue brief for Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2003. http://environment.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi= 1/XJ&sdn=environment&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncseonline.org%2FNLE% 2FCRSreports%2F03Jul%2FIB90122.pdf, last accessed 01/31/2005. D. Banister, D. Stead, P. Steen, J. Akerman, K. Dreborg, P. Kijkamp, and R. Schleicher-Tappeser. European transport policy and sustainable mobility. Routledge, London, 2000. J. Baudrillard. La soci´et´e de consommation, ses mythes, ses structures. Gallimard, Paris, 1986.
165
F. Baumgartner and B. Jones. Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1993. BBC. Oil prices surge to new records. BBC News - online, 04/01/2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/4399537.stm, last accessed 05/19/2005. W. E. Bijker. The social construction of bakelite: Toward a theory of invention. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, editors, The social construction of technological systems. New directions on the sociology and history of technology, pages 159–187. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987. P. Bourdieu. La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Les Editions de Minuit, Paris, 1979. A. Burke and E. Abeles. Feasible CAFE standards increases using emerging diesel and hybrid-electric technologies for light-duty vehicles in the United States. ITS-Davis Papers, University of California, Davis/Institute of Transportation Studies, 2004. http://repositories.cdlib.org/itsdavis/, last accessed 02/17/2005. G. W. Bush. Letter to members of the Senate on the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 03/13/2001. http: //www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/text/kyoto.txt, last accessed 05/26/2005. K. Button. Environmental externalities and transport policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 6(2):61–75, 1990. W. Canzler. Zur Adoption freigegeben: Verkehrstelematik und die Zukunft des Autoverkehrs. In Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin f¨ ur Sozialforschung, editor, Bewegende Moderne: Fahrzeugverkehr als soziale Praxis, pages 73–104. Edition Sigma, Berlin, 1999. W. Canzler and A. Knie. Das Ende des Automobils: Fakten und Trends zum Umbau der Autogesellschaft. M¨ ullerverlag, Heidelberg, 1994. R. Copock. Research on technological innovation in the United States. In M. Dierkes and U. Hoffman, editors, New technology at the outset - social forces in the shaping of technological innovations, pages 147–157. Campus/Westview, Frankfurt a. M., 1992. T. Dant. Consumption caught in the ‘cash nexus’. Sociology, 34(4):655–670, 2000.
166
J. Dargay and D. Gately. Income’s effect on car and vehicle ownership, worldwide: 1960 - 2015. Transportation Research Part A, 33(2):101–138, 1999. A. Dauensteiner. Der Weg zum Ein-Liter-Auto: Minimierung aller Fahrwiderst¨ ande mit neuen Konzepten. Springer Verlag, Bonn, 2001. J. A. Dell. Lexus hopes gasoline + electricity = glitz - guilt. Los Angeles Times, pages 1, Business section, 02/05/2005. ¨ Der Spiegel. Rekordhoch - Olpreis steigt auf u ¨ber 60 Dollar. Der Spiegel Online, 04/04/2005a. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,349594,00. html, last accessed 05/19/2005. Der Spiegel. Rating-Agentur zweifelt an Produktstrategie von GM und Ford. Der Spiegel Online, 05/06/2005b. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518, 354878,00.html, last accessed 05/07/2005. M. Dierkes. Organisationskultur und Leitbilder als Einflussfaktoren der Technikgenese - Thesen zur Strukturierung eines Forschungsfeldes. In M. Dierkes, editor, Technisierung und ihre Folgen - Zur Biographie eines Forschungsfelds., pages 263–276. Edition Sigma, Berlin, 1994. M. Dierkes, U. Hoffmann, and L. Martz. Visions of technology: Social and institutional factors of shaping the development of new technologies. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a. M., 1996. DOE/EIA. Meeting US transportation fuel demand. Presentation, Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration, August 2004a. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil gas/petroleum/presentations/2004/ ustrans/ustrans files/frame.html, last accessed 05/23/2005. DOE/EIA. World petroleum market changes and impact on the US. Presentation, Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration, October 2004b. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil gas/petroleum/presentations/ 2004/ustrans/ustrans files/frame.html, last accessed 05/23/2005. DOE/EIA. Real petroleum prices. Short term energy outlook, Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration, May 2005a. http://www.eia. doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/fsheets/PetroleumPrices files/frame.html, last accessed 05/23/2005. DOE/EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with projections to 2025. Report, Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration, January 2005b. http://eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/, last accessed 05/25/2005.
167
DOE/EIA. Light duty vehicle sales by technology type (USA 2005). Table 45. Supplemental tables to the annual energy outlook 2005 with projections to 2025, Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration, January 2005c. http://eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/supref.html, last accessed 05/25/2005. DOE/EPA. Fuel economy. 06/03/2005, 2005.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov, last accessed
K. Donaghy, Rudinger G., and St. Poppelreuter. Societal trends, mobility behavior and sustainable transport in Europe and North America. Transport Reviews, 24 (6):679–690, 2004. G. Dosi. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories - A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11:147–162, 1982. G. Dosi. Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26:1120–1171, 1988. G. Dosi and L. Orsenigo. Coordination and transformation: An overview of structures, behaviors and change in evolutionary environments. In G. Dosi, editor, Technical Change and Economic Theory, pages 13–37. Pinter Publishers Ltd., London, 1988. DOT/NHA. Summary of travel trends - 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Technical report, US Department of Transportation/National Highway Administration, 2004. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/html files/download directory.shtml, last accessed 05/05/2005. DOT/NHTSA. Automotive fuel economy program. Annual update, calendar year 2001, US Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/ fuelecon/index.html#TOC, last accessed 06/01/2005. DOT/NHTSA. Light truck average fuel economy standard, model year 2004. Final rule, US Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2004a. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/ Cafe/LightTruck/NPRM-final.htm, last accessed 06/25/2005. DOT/NHTSA. Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Reference guide, US Department of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety
168
Administration, March 2004b. http://nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/ FMVSS-Regs/index.htm, last accessed 08/03/2005. J. Ellul. La technique ou l’enjeu du si`ecle. Armand Colin, Paris, 1954. J. Ellul. Le syst`eme technicien. Calmann-L´evy, Paris, 1977. J. Ellul. Le bluff technologique. Hachette, Paris, 1988. U. Engel and M. P¨otschke. Willingness to pay for the environment: social structure, value orientations and environmental behaviour in a multilevel perspective. Innovation, 11(3):315, 1998. EPA. Clean Air Act. Legal act, Environmental Protection Agency, 2002a. http: //www.epa.gov/air/oaq caa.html/, last accessed 01/30/2005. EPA. National Emission Standards Act. Legal act, Environmental Protection Agency, 2002b. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title2.html, last accessed 01/30/2005. EPA. Federal and California exhaust and evaporative emission standards for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. Technical report, Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stds-ld.htm, last accessed 01/30/2005. European Commission. Passenger transport. First annual thematic research summary, EU Transport Research Knowledge Center, 2005. http:// europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/web/themes analysis.cfm, last accessed 04/05/2005. FHWA. Transportation indicators for selected countries. Compilation of transport data, Federal Highway Administration, October 2003. http//:www.fhwa.dot. gov/policy/ohim/hs02/pdf/in3.pdf, last accessed 06/27/2005. G. Fleischmann. Stabilit¨at und Wandel von Technologien - Paradigma, Leitbild, Standard. In J. Esser, G. Fleischmann, and T. Heimer, editors, Soziale Schließung im Prozess der Technikentwicklung - Leitbild, Paradigma, Standard, pages 10–35. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a. M., 1998. D. Friedman. A new road - the technology and potential of hybrid vehicles. Report, Union of Concerned Scientists, January 2004. http://www.ucsusa.org/ documents/Hybrid2003 final.pdf, last accessed 02/27/2005.
169
FTA. Motor fuel excise tax rates. State tax list, Federation of Tax Administrators, Washington, D.C., January 2005. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ motor fl.html, last accessed 09/14/2005. L. Fulton. Reducing oil consumption in transport: Combining three approaches. IEA/EET Working Paper 2004/01, International Energy Agency, Paris, January 2004. T. Givens and A. L¨ udtke. The politics of European Union immigration policy: Institutions, salience and harmonization. The Policy Studies Journal, 32(1): 145–165, 2004. P. Gott, J. R. Linna, and J. P. Mello, editors. The evolution of powertrain technology 2008 and beyond: Engines, hybrids, battery electric, fuel cells, emissions. Proceedings of the Total Vehicle Technology 2002 Conference, University of Sussex, UK, 2002. University of Sussex, UK. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ automotive/tvt2002/1 gott.pdf, last accessed 02/14/2005. D. L. Greene, K. G. Duleep, and W. McManus. Future potential of hybrid and diesel powertrains in the US light-duty vehicle market. Report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2004. http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpio/0410003. html, last accessed 01/27/2005. P. de Haan and A. Peters. Charakteristika und Beweggr¨ unde von K¨aufern des Toyota Prius 2. Forschungsbericht, ETH Z¨ urich, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, January 2005. http://www.uns.ethz.ch/res/emdm/tramob/hybcars/ ETH ToyotaPrius Bericht 050123.pdf, last accessed 06/07/2005. D. Hakim. Fuel economy plan bypasses California to help out Detroit. The New York Times - Online, 08/25/2005a. Online article obtained from research service (no fixed URL). D. Hakim. Hybrid-car tinkerers scoff at no-plug-in rule. The New York Times - Online, 04/02/2005b. Online article obtained from research service (no fixed URL). D. Hakim and J. M. Broder. Emissions regulations could stall energy bill. The New York Times - Online, 08/24/2005. Online article obtained from research service (no fixed URL). J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Tovakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt,
170
and N. Tauusnev. Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 05/28/2005. Published online, doi:10.1126/science.1110252. R. M. Heavenrich. Light-duty automotive technology and fuel economy trends: 1975 through 2005. Report EPA420-R-05-001, Environmental Protection Agency, July 2005. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/ 420r05001.pdf, last accessed 09/18/2005. V. Himanen, M. Lee-Gosselin, and A. Perrels. Impacts of transport on sustainability: Towards an integrated transatlantic evidence base. Transport Reviews, 24(6):691–705, November 2004. A. M. Howitt and A. Altshuler. The politics of controlling auto air pollution. In J. A. Gom`ez-Ibanez, W. B. Tye, and C. Winston, editors, Essays in transportation economics and policy, pages 223–255. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1999. M. H˚ ard and A. Knie. The cultural dimension of technology management: Lessons from the history of the automobile. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 13(1):91–103, 2001. J. Huber. Environmental policy shift through technological innovation. In K. Jacob, M. Binder, and A. Wieczorek, editors, Governance for industrial transformation. Proceedings of the 2003 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, pages 438–447. Environmental Policy Research Centre, Berlin, 2004. C. Hulse. Emissions regulations could stall energy bill. The New York Times - Online, 06/05/2005. Online article obtained from research service (no fixed URL). I. Husain. Electric and hybrid vehicles: Design fundamentals. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2003. HybridCars.com. Who’s buying hybrids? http://www.hybridcars.com/ hybrid-driver-profile.html, last accessed 09/28/2005, 2005. K. Inoue. Toyota expects Prius sales in Europe to surge 83 %. Bloomberg.com, September 2004. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid= aXV.6EAyj.vk&refer=japan, last accessed 03/06/2005. IPCC. Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report - Summary for policymakers. Assessment Report 3, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. http://
171
www.grida.no/climate/ipcc tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf, last accessed 05/30/2005. J. D. Power and Associates. Will higher gas prices put more hybrids on the road? The Power Report, May 2004a. http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/ automotive/publications/, last accessed 02/22/2005. J. D. Power and Associates. Measuring electric hybrids - is something happening with hybrids? The Power Report, June 2004b. http://www.jdpa.com/ businessservices/automotive/publications/, last accessed 02/22/2005. J. D. Power and Associates. High consumer interest in hybrid electric vehicles. The Power Report, November 2004c. http://www.jdpa.com/businessservices/ automotive/publications/, last accessed 02/22/2005. J. D. Power and Associates. Hybrid vehicle market share expected to peak at 3 percent - thirty-eight hybrid vehicle models to be available by 2011. Press release, February 2005. http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease. asp?ID=2005013, last accessed 06/12/2005. C. M. Jefferson and R. H. Barnard. Southampton/Boston, MA, 2002.
Hybrid vehicle propulsion.
WIT Press,
W. S. Jevons. The coal question: An inquiry concerning the progress of the nation, and the probable exhaustion of our coal-mines. Macmillan and Co., London, 1866. Full text available at http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/ Jevons/jvnCQ.html, last accessed 10/28/2005. W. D. Jones. Take this car and plug it in. IEEE Spectrum, pages 10–13, July 2005. G. de Jong, J. Fox, M. Pieters, L. Vonk, and A. Daly. Audit of car ownership models. Report 01192, RAND Europe, January 2002. R. Kemp, J. Schot, and R. Hoogma. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10(2):175–195, 1998. D. A. Kirsch. The electric vehicle and the burden of history. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ / London, 2000. P. Klemmer, U. Lehr, and K. L¨obbe. Environmental innovation - Incentives and barriers. Analytica, Berlin, 1999.
172
R. Kline and T. Pinch. Users as agents of technical change. the social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture, 37(4): 763–795, 1996. A. Knie. ‘Generierung’ und ‘H¨artung’ technischen Wissens: Die Entstehung der mechanischen Schreibmaschine. Technikgeschichte, 58(2):101–126, 1991. A. Knie. Wankelmut in der Autoindustrie: Anfang und Ende einer Antriebsalternative. Edition Sigma, Berlin, 1994. A. Knie. Die Interpretation des Autos als Rennreiselimousine: Genese, Bedeutungspr¨agung, Fixierungen und verkehrspolitische Konsequenzen. In H.L. Dienel and H. Trischler, editors, Geschichte der Zukunft des Verkehrs: Verkehrskonzepte von der fr¨ uhen Neuzeit bis zum 21. Jahrhundert, pages 243– 259. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a. M., 1997. B. I. Koerner. Go hybrid! How Toyota is driving the new auto age. Wired, pages 96–102, April 2005. S. Krarup and C. S. Russell. Environment, information and consumer behavior. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Cheltenham, 2005. F. Kreith, D. S. Potestio, and C. Kimbell. Ground transportation for the 21st century. National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, D.C., 1999. Th. S. Kuhn. The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 3rd edition, 1996. G. C. Kunkle. Technology in the seamless web: ‘Success’ and ‘Failure’ in the history of the electron microscope. Technology and Culture, 36(1):80–103, January 1995. K. S. Kurani and T. S. Turrentine. Automobile buyer decisions about fuel economy and fuel efficiency. Final report to United States Department of Energy and Energy Foundation, University of California, Davis/Institute of Transportation Studies, September 2004. Ch. Lave and L. Lave. Fuel economy and auto safety regulation: Is the cure worse than the disease? In J. A. Gom`ez-Ibanez, W. B. Tye, and C. Winston, editors, Essays in transportation economics and policy, pages 257–289. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
173
K.-H. Lenz and W. Legat. Verkehr im n¨achsten Jahrtausend - Systeme der Zukunft. In P. Kemper, editor, Am Anfang war das Rad - Eine kleine Geschichte der menschlichen Fortbewegung, pages 301–312. Insel Verlag, Frankfurt a. M., 1997. T. E. Lipmann and M. A. Delucchi. Hybrid electric vehicle design, retail and lifecycle cost analysis. Report UCD-ITS-RR-03-01, UC Davis/Institute of Transportation Studies, April 2003. Prepared for The Energy Foundation. L. V. Lombardo. SUVs and safety. Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network, 09/06/2001. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-50/ciren/ 2001/0901nhtsa.pdf, last accessed 01/31/2005. B. Longhurst and M. Savage. Social class, consumption and the influence of Bourdieu: some critical issues. In S. Edgell, K. Hetherington, and A. Wade, editors, Consumption matters, pages 274–301. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA, 1996. P. K. Lunt and S. M. Livingstone. Mass consumption and personal identity: Everyday economic experience. Open University Press, Buckingham/Bristol, 1992. W. J. McEwen. Why car buyers buy - Yet another study of auto buyers ignores the enormous impact of consumer emotions. Gallup Brain, October 2004. Online article obtained from research service (no fixed URL). H. Moorhouse. American automobiles and workers’ dreams. The sociological review, 31:403–426, 1983. Munich Re. Insuring catastrophes. UNEP magazine - Our planet, 1, 2001. http: //www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/113/berz.html, last accessed 05/31/2005. N. Myers and J. Kent. The new consumers - The influence of affluence on the environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2004. R. Nelson and S. Winter. In search of a useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6:36–71, 1977. New York Times. Standard & Poor’s cuts Ford and G.M. debt rating to junk status. New York Times Online, 05/05/2005a. New York Times. Hybrid cars burning gas in the drive for power. New York Times Online, 07/17/2005b. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/automobiles/ 17hybrid.html, last accessed 07/19/2005.
174
OECD/IEA. Global Energy Outlook 2002. IEA Publications, Paris, 2002a. http://www.iea.org/Textbase/nppdf/free/2000/weo2002.pdf, last accessed 05/06/2005. OECD/IEA. Energy policies of IEA countries - the United States 2002 Review. Report, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/International Energy Agency, 2002b. http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2000/ usa2002.pdf, last accessed 25/05/2005. OECD/IEA. Transport technologies and policies for energy security and CO2 reductions. Energy technology policy and collaboration papers, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/International Energy Agency, March 2003. OECD/IEA. Global Energy Outlook 2004. IEA Publications, Paris, 2004a. OECD/IEA. Oil crises and climate change - 30 years of energy use in IEA countries. IEA Publications, Paris, 2004b. OECD/WEP. Conclusions and recommendations, 32 countries (1993-2000). Environmental performance reviews (1st cycle), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Working Party for Environmental Performance, Paris, November 2000. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/56/2432829.pdf, last accessed 05/31/2005. Th. H. Ortmeyer and P. Pillay. Trends in transport sector technology energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. In Proceedings of the IEEE, volume 89, pages 1837–1847, December 2001. P. Otnes. The sociology of consumption: Liberate our daily lives. In id., editor, The sociology of consumption, pages 157–178. Humanities Press International, Atlantic Highlands, 1988. T. Pinch and W. E. Bijker. The social construction of facts and artefacts - Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, editors, The social construction of technological systems. New directions on the sociology and history of technology, pages 17–50. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987. S. J. Polzin, X. Chu, and L. Toole-Holt. The case for moderate growth in vehicle miles of travel: A critical juncture in US travel behavior trends. Technical report, US Department of Transportation/National Highway Administration,
175
2003. Available on the National Household Travel Survey website: http:// nhts.ornl.gov/2001/reports.shtml, last accessed 05/05/2005. R. Pool. Beyond engineering - How society shapes technology. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, 1997. R. Porter. Economics at the wheel - The costs of cars and drivers. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1999. W. Rammert. Research on generation and development of technology: The state of the art in Germany. In M. Dierkes and U. Hoffman, editors, New technology at the outset - social forces in the shaping of technological innovations, pages 62–89. Campus/Westview, Frankfurt a. M., 1992. A. Reed II, D. B. Wooten, and L. E. Bolton. The temporary construction of consumer attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(4):375–388, 2002. A. Rip, T. J. Misa, and Schot J. Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. Pinter Publishers, London/New York, 1995. G. Ritzer. Explorations in the sociology of consumption - Fast food, credit cards and casinos. SAGE Publications, London, 2001. R. A. Rogers. Visions dancing in engineers heads: AT&T’s quest to fulfill the ‘Leitbild’ of a universal telephone service. IZB Discussion Papers, FS II, pages 90–102, 1990. J. Rubin. Not just a spike. Occasional Report 53, CIBC World Markets, 04/13/2005. http://odac-info.org.hosting.domaindirect.com/bulletin/ documents/NotJustASpike.pdf, last accessed 05/20/2005. M. R. Saltzman and S. A. Young. Long-lived glaciation in the Late Ordovician? Isotopic and sequence-stratigraphic evidence from Western Laurentia. Geology, 33(2):109–112, 2005. P. A Samuelson and W. D. Nordhaus. d’Organisation, Paris, 14e edition, 1995.
Micro-´economie.
Les Editions
D. J. Santini, P. D. Patterson, and A. D. Vyas. The importance of vehicle costs, fuel prices, and fuel efficiency to HEV market success. In Proceedings of the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 01/09/2000–01/13/2000. Argonne National Laboratory, IL, Au-
176
gust 1999. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp? osti id=750495,lastaccessed08/15/2005. A. Schafer. The global demand for motorized mobility. Transportation Research Part A, 32(6):455–477, 1998. A. Schafer and D. G. Victor. The future mobility of the world population. Transportation Research Part A, 34(3):171–205, 2000. J.W. Schot. Constructive technology assessment and technology dynamics: The case of clean technologies. Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(1):36–56, 1992. Shell. Proved reserve recategorisation following internal review: No material effect on financial statements. Press release, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, 01/09/2004. J. M. Staudenmaier. Technology’s storytellers: Reweaving the human fabric. Society for the History of Technology and the MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985. D. Stead and D. Banister. Influencing mobility outside transport policy. Innovation, 14(4):315–330, 2001. O. Svid´en. Clean fuel/engine systems for twenty-first-century road vehicles. In G. Giannopoulos and A. Gillespie, editors, Transport and communications innovation in Europe, pages 122–148. Belhaven Press, London, 1993. SZ. T¨odliche Gefahr durch Feinstaub - Fahrverbot und Maut in Großst¨adten. S¨ uddeutsche Zeitung Online, 02/08/2005. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/ deutschland/artikel/88/48040/, last accessed 02/24/2005. G. Tertolen, D. van Kreveld, and B. Verstraten. Psychological resistance against attempts to reduce private car use. Transportation Research Part A, 32(3): 171–181, 1998. J. B. Treece. Martens: Ford is high on hybrids. Automotive News, 79(6161):35, 08/15/2005. T. L. Tuten, D. J. Urban, and M. Bosnjak. Internet surveys and data quality: A review. In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reis, and M. Bosnjak, editors, Online social science, pages 7–26. Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, Wash., 2002. UNEP. Global Environmental Outlook 2004/2005 - An overlook of our changing environment. Yearbook, United Nations Environmental Programme, 2005a. http://www.unep.org/GEO/pdfs/GEO%20YEARBOOK%202004%20(ENG) .pdf, last accessed 05/30/2005.
177
UNEP. Greener driving. Website, United Nations Environmental Programme, Energy Unit, 2005b. http://www.greener-driving.net, last accessed 05/30/2005. UNFCCC. Greenhouse gas inventory data, 2005. default.htf, last accessed 05/31/2005.
http://ghg.unfccc.int/
UNFCCC/UNEP. Climate change information kit. Information sheets, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/United Nations Environmental Programme, 2002. http://unfccc.int/essential background/background publications htmlpdf/items/2625.php, last accessed 05/30/2005. United States House of Representatives. House passes bipartisan energy bill 275-156. Press release, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 2005. http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07282005 1613.htm, last accessed 08/03/2005. United States Senate. Energy Tax Policy Act of 2003. Technical report, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 2003. http://energy.senate.gov/ legislation/energybill2004/full text.pdf, last accessed 01/30/2005. USGS. US Geological Survey world petroleum assessment. Technical report, Department of the Interior/US Geological Survey, 2000. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ dds/dds-060/, last accessed 05/22/2005. D. Vaughan. The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1996. Th. Veblen. Theory of the leisure class. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1992. Originally published by Macmillan, New York, 1899. J. Vidal. The end of oil is closer than you think: Oil production could peak next year. The Guardian, 04/21/2005. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/ feature/story/0,13026,1464050,00.html, last accessed 05/20/2005. P. Wagner. Sociological reflections: The technology question during the first crisis of modernity. In M. H˚ ard and A. Jamison, editors, The cultural appropriation of technology: Discourses on modernity, pages 225–252. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998. D. Wallace. Environmental policy and industrial innovation - strategies in Europe, the USA and Japan. Earthscan Publications, London, 1995.
178
A. Warde. The future of the sociology of consumption (Afterword). In St. Edgell, K. Hetherington, and A. Warde, editors, Consumption Matters - The production and experience of consumption, pages 302–312. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1996. K. M. Weber. Transforming large socio-technical systems towards sustainability: On the role of users and future visions for the uptake of city logistics and combined heat and power generation. Innovation, 16(2):155–174, 2003. A. Weinberg. Can technology replace social engineering? In A. H. Teich, editor, Technology and the future, pages 30–39. St. Martins Press, New York, NY, 1993. M. A. Weiss, J. B. Heywood, E. M. Drake, A. Schafer, and F. AuYeung. On the road in 2020: A life-cycle analysis of new automobile technologies. Report MIT EL 00-003, MIT Energy Lab, October 2000. WHO. Air quality guidelines for Europe. WHO Regional Publications, European Series 91, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, 2000. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, 1987. Sh. Zukin and J. Smith Maguire. Consumers and consumption. Annual Review of Sociology, 30:173–197, 2004.
179
