September 2015

This is part two of a three-part series exploring the environmental lifecycle analysis completed by Divergent. It will get into some technical detail, but is intended for anyone who has an interest in total system environmental and health damages for manufacturing.

Before reading this section, please read our lifecycle analysis overview and Part 1 of this series.

Introduction to AP2

In Part 1, we introduced the Argonne National Lab’s GREET model. Developed over the last 20 years, it is a complicated and deep model that outputs greenhouse gas and particulate emissions.

AP2, formerly called APEEP, is a model developed by Nicholas Muller, Associate Professor of Economics at Middlebury College and Visiting Associate Professor at Carnegie Mellon University. AP2 takes the outputs from GREET and translates them into a dollar figure – the environmental and human health cost of those emissions.

From the AP2 website: “The Air Pollution Emission Experiments and Policy analysis (APEEP) model is an integrated assessment model that links emissions of air pollution to exposures, physical effects, and monetary damages in the contiguous United States. The model has been used in many peer-reviewed publications,” including a paper in Science in August 2014.

For example, in our recent analysis of various vehicle types, AP2 received a total CO2 count from GREET for the manufacture and operation of a vehicle. AP2 translated this CO2 count to an environmental and health system damage cost for the lifetime of the vehicle. To standardize this number, we then divided the cost across the total miles that car will be driven in its lifetime (estimated to be 160,000 miles per vehicle). The output from AP2 is then a cents (US dollars) per vehicle mile traveled (VMT).

History of GREET + AP2

The 2009 National Academy of Sciences report “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use” used this same dual-model approach, connecting GREET and APEEP to show the combined damages. This report was one of the first to show the full lifecycle emissions of various types of vehicles and their environmental and health system cost. It revealed costs that were previously hidden, bringing into question some of the policies and trends in vehicle manufacturing.

This report was one of the founding inspirations for Divergent. Seeing this report, we believed we could and should do better: build a more environmentally sustainable car.

Connections between the GREET and AP2

GREET and AP2 have a fairly simple point of connection. We analyzed six vehicle types:

  1. Gasoline (25 mpg)
  2. Hybrid gasoline (40 mpg)
  3. Plug-in electric car (85 kWh)
  4. Plug-in electric SUV (85 kWh)
  5. Divergent compressed natural gas
  6. Divergent gasoline

For each of these vehicles, we used GREET to calculate greenhouse gas and particulate emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle, both for manufacture and operation. The chart below shows the conceptual connections between the models.

GREET and AP2 connections

We then used the outputs from GREET as inputs to AP2. The table below shows the most important outputs from GREET.

table of outputs from GREET

Using AP2, costs for each of the various pollutants were calculated and then tabulated. We also include the cost of the greenhouse gases directly, estimated by the US government at $39 per ton of CO2 equivalent.

table of outputs from AP2

The Vehicle production, Fuel production, and Operation lines under the Health Damages (per VMT) are the numbers that are used in the graph below.

cents per vmt graph

What’s next in this series?

In the next (and last) posting in this series, we’ll discuss the input variables to GREET, as well as our philosophy of changing as few of those variables as possible.

Although 97% of scientists agree that climate change is a real and present danger, the U.S. government has not been treating it as an emergency. Quite the opposite; our political bodies seem strangely reticent to act. Moreover, despite being a matter of facts, figures, and rising tides, there is a strong partisan divide. The canned answer is that humans are simply too short-sighted, selfish, and greedy. Yet people have mobilized before (with both citizens and companies rationing during WWII, for instance), and further, we are currently facing austerity measures in the form of cuts to many public programs, including schooling. We are already making sacrifices.

So why are we failing to act on climate change?

While Divergent is by no means a political group, understanding the world of politics surrounding climate change is important to our mission. We aim to improve the planet by making incredible products. Our technology will be implemented by those people best equipped to make positive changes.

this_changes_everything

In Naomi Klein’s book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, she unpacks some of the thornier realities underlying the environmental movement. The underlying thesis: in order to effectively battle global warming, we have to majorly restructure our current societal set-up. This would involve confronting big corporations and big money individuals, empowering disenfranchised countries and peoples, and letting the needs of the environment and local economies trump free market capitalism. In other words, when conservatives argue that the green movement’s hidden agenda is wealth distribution, they are only half wrong. According to Klein successful programs would require the privileged few to relinquish some of their power.

For those who won’t acknowledge the failures of our current laissez-fare system, there are many reasons to deny climate change. Some deniers accept that it may be getting warmer, but denigrate rash action and insist that our small emissions problem may be curbed by gradual, system-sanctioned means. Emissions restriction policies are too often rendered immediately moot by the doctrine of continual GDP growth and by the fact that corporations can easily buy their way out, game the market, or otherwise avoid penalties. Serious change is needed, Klein maintains.

Even green groups have fallen into the trap of inadvertently working to uphold the interests of corporations. While the 60s and 70s saw everything from the Clean Air Act (1963) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976), Ronald Reagan’s presidency ushered in an ideological shift. Accustomed to being political insiders, activists scrambled to continue as such. As a result, coal and oil companies now sponsor the most important summits of many groups, which in turn invest their own wealth in these same players. In one particularly egregious conflict of interest, the Texas City Prairie Preserve ended up drilling for oil on its own property despite the decline and eventual die off of the bird it was trying to protect.

Siphoning off responsibility to benevolent billionaires and scientists developing high tech fixes is also no good. Just as no corporation wants to limit its business, no billionaire wants to lose money. Meanwhile, high tech fixes are extremely high risk. For instance, an initiative to block out the sun by simulating the activity of a volcano would interrupt the Asian and African summer monsoons. The resulting draughts would effect billions of people. The winner? Wealthy westerners who could buy their way out of any problems.

Luckily not all hope is lost. While top-down environmentalism is floundering, grassroots movements are gaining traction. “Blockadias” or areas involved in direct resistance are cropping up everywhere from Greece to Inner Mongolia. Typically, response from governments and corporations in such cases is brutal. For instance, the Nigerian government reacted to protests by torturing residents and razing villages; in one instance soldiers conducted lethal raids using a helicopter taken from a Chevron operation. However, the number and effectiveness of protests is growing as citizens gain knowledge and corporations are forced to expand their reach to include places with more political power.

While many local protestors may not have much political experience, the feel connected to their land and often view it as essential to their way of life. Meanwhile, a coalfield worker Klein interviewed said he trained himself to think of the Powder River Basin as “another planet” that he could raid without consequence. Coalitions of rights-rich-but-cash-poor people are teaming up with (relatively) cash-rich-but-rights-poor people to effect change. Aboriginals are finding help from the green movement; treaties against land contamination are now being upheld more regularly. Despite minimal government assistance, local people are winning victories.

Klein presents her arguments in a compelling way, peppering hard facts with personal anecdotes. Her descriptions of the plight of ordinary people faced with climate change are at turns heartbreaking and inspiring. Divergent believes that its technology can contribute to this local, personal green movement, leading to a more even playing field for anyone concerned about their land and their way of life.