Automaker Rankings 2007 The Environmental Performance of Car Companies Honda " Toyota " Hyundai-Kia " Nissan " Volkswagen " Ford " General Motors " DaimlerChrysler Automaker Rankings 2007 The Environmental Performance of Car Companies Don MacKenzie Union of Concerned Scientists April 2007 ii Union of Concerned Scientists © 2007 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved Don MacKenzie is a vehicles engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. The UCS Clean Vehicles Program develops and promotes strategies to reduce the adverse environ- mental impact of the U.S. transportation system.
More information about the Union of Concerned Scientists is available on the UCS website at www.ucsusa.org . Designed by Rob Catalano/Catalano Design Printed on recycled paper Front cover photo: Veer.com Back cover photo: courtesy of Honda Motor Co. Automaker Rankings 2007 Figures and Tables iv Boxes iv Acknowledgments v Executive Summary 1 The Automotive Industry and the Environment 5 Passenger Vehicle Pollution 5 Smog 5 Global Warming 6 Ranking Method 6 Ranking Results 8 Fleet Comparisons 8 Trends in Pollution Scores 9 Class Comparisons 10 Leaders and Losers 14 Consumer ... more. less.
Choice 15 The Role of Popular Technologies 17 Hybrids 17 Flexible-fuel vehicles 17 Conclusions 20 Individual Automaker Results 20 Lessons Learned 22 Driving Progress 23 Automakers 24 Government, Consumers, and Investors 24 References 26 Appendix A: Methodology 28 Automakers Evaluated 28 Pollutants Considered 28 Classification of Vehicles 30 Sources of Data 30 Calculation of Scores 32 Appendix B: Detailed Data Tables 34 iii Contents Union of Concerned Scientists iv Figures ES-1. Average Global Warming and Smog Scores of Model Year 2005 Vehicles 1 ES-2. Combined Environmental Scores of the Big Six Automakers (1998 32005) 3 1. Relative Environmental Performance of the Big Six Automakers (1998 32005) 9 2. Smog and Global Warming Scores of Cars (by Class) 11 3. Smog and Global Warming Scores of Pickups (by Class) 12 4. Smog and Global Warming Scores of Utilities and Minivans (by Class) 13 Tables 1. Environmental Scores (by Automaker) 8 2. Number of Classes with Best or Worst Pollution Scores (by Automaker) 14 3. Number and Sales of Class-leading Models (by Automaker) 16 4. Effect of Hybrids on Per-Mile Emissions of Global Warming Pollutants 17 5. Effect of Flexible-fuel Vehicles on Per-Mile Emissions of Global Warming Pollutants 18 6. Sales of Vehicles with Fuel Economy e 30 mpg and d 15 mpg 19 A-1. Global Warming Potentials of Selected Heat-trapping Gases Emitted by Vehicles 29 A-2. Fraction of Vehicles in Operation in Each Region (by Type) 31 A-3. Global Warming Emissions from Light-Duty Automotive Fuels 32 B-1. Average Global Warming Emissions (by Automaker and Class) 34 B-2. Average Smog-Forming Emissions (by Automaker and Class) 34 B-3. Average Combined Emission Scores (by Automaker and Class) 35 B-4. MY2005 Sales (by Automaker and Class) 36 B-5. Best MY2005 Models on Global Warming Performance 37 B-6. Best MY2005 Models on Smog Performance 39 B-7. Best MY2005 Models for Combined Environmental Performance 41 Boxes Key Results by Automaker 4 c30 mpg d Claims 19 Key Recommendations by Automaker 25 Figures and Tables Automaker Rankings 2007 Support for this work was provided by NoraLee and Jon Sedmak, Foundation M, The Energy Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Wallace Global Fund.<br><br> The author would like to thank Lindsay Vidal for her assistance with the database and David Friedman for his many insightful comments. Thanks also go to Anita Spiess for editing and Rob Catalano for layout. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the founda- tions that supported the work. The Union of Concerned Scientists is solely responsible for the contents of this report. Acknowledgments v Union of Concerned Scientists V ehicles are a significant source of pollution in the United States. The production and use of fuel in cars and light trucks are responsible for 25 percent of the country 9s global warming pollution, while tailpipe emissions from these vehicles pro- duce 20 percent of the nation 9s smog-forming pol- lutants. Despite urgent calls for action, emissions from U.S. vehicles continue to increase and exac- erbate global warming, the most serious long-term environmental threat facing this country and the world today. At the same time, more than half of Americans live in areas that continue to fall short of the Environmental Protection Agency 9s public health standards for smog. With more vehicles sitting in American drive- ways than there are people licensed to drive them, sales in the United States account for nearly one-third of the global market. Nearly all of the vehicles sold in the United States are manufac- tured by just eight companies, all of them in the top 100 of Fortune 9s Global 500. The product planning decisions of this handful of powerful companies have an immense impact on the envi- ronmental health of both America and the world. Automakers are well aware of concerns about the environmental impacts of their products. Honda, for example, advertises something it calls cenvironmentology d * to promote a green image, while General Motors (GM) has expressed con- cern over the cperceptual gap between how [its] portfolio is perceived, as opposed to reality d (Tierney 2007). This report puts the automakers 9 green marketing claims to the test by using govern- ment data to measure the environmental perfor- mance of each of the Top Eight automakers 9 prod- uct offerings in model year 2005 (MY2005) 4the Executive Summary 1 * Defined by Honda as its congoing commitment to environmentally responsible technology d (http://corporate.honda.com/environmentology/index.aspx).<br><br> Honda has also high- lighted in print and television advertisements the pollution ranking it has received from UCS. 020406080100120140 DaimlerChrysler GM Ford Volkswagen Nissan Hyundai-Kia Toyota Honda Average = 100 85 70 86 76 93 81 99 77 90 113 108 106 104 116 109 120 Global Warming Score Smog Score Figure ES-1. Average Global Warming and Smog Scores of Model Year 2005 Vehicles Automaker Rankings 2007 latest year for which final data are available. By scoring each automaker on the average emissions of global warming and smog-forming pollutants from the vehicles it actually sells, these analyses provide objective measures of each manufactur- er 9s true environmental performance. In addition to these overall scores, this report explores each automaker 9s performance within various classes, evaluates each automaker 9s commitment to offer- ing greener choices, and examines the effects of some technologies currently being marketed as cgreen. d Finally, based on the results, the report offers recommendations about how automakers can improve their environmental performance, rather than just their images.<br><br> Results Honda wins the UCS Greenest Automaker award, a top accolade it has earned in all three previous Automaker Rankings reports. Honda 9s lead is due to consistently good performance in nearly every class in which it produces vehicles. But Toyota is close behind Honda, due to its superior investments in conventional and hybrid technology and phase-in of tighter smog stan- dards. These investments helped Toyota regain ground it previously lost to Nissan on smog- forming emissions. Moreover, it nearly tied Honda on global warming pollution, despite producing vehicles in classes in which Honda does not 4large cars, pickups, and large SUVs 4classes one might have expected to undermine its gains. Two new automakers have been added to these rankings: Hyundai-Kia and Volkswagen, whose combined sales totaled nearly one million vehicles in MY2005. Volkswagen 9s debut is disap- pointing, in that it beats out only the U.S. auto- makers. Hyundai-Kia comes in third, despite a more truck-heavy product mix than Volkswagen. The performance of Ford and GM continues to be lackluster. Ford 9s performance has gotten a little worse, while GM 9s is a little better, but both product lines remain among the worst on envi- ronmental performance. DaimlerChrysler is back in its traditional spot as the dirtiest of the major automakers, with the worst scores for both smog and global warming pollution. DaimlerChrysler 9s vehicles emit 70 percent more smog-forming pol- lutants and nearly 30 percent more global warm- ing pollutants per mile than Honda 9s vehicles. Overall, the smog performance of all vehicles has improved due to tighter state and federal smog regulations. But most automakers have been running in place on global warming emis- sions since 1998. They all must take larger steps if they are to do their part in avoiding the serious consequences of global warming. Lessons Learned The wide differences among the manufacturers highlight several important lessons as auto- makers continue to vie for consumers seeking cleaner vehicles: Full-line manufacturers can compete for the Greenest Automaker award.<br><br> Toyota produces vehicles in all 10 classes considered in this report, but has drawn to within one point of Honda on global warming emissions. Consistency is the key to success. Honda and Toyota, the two greenest automakers, are the only two with better-than-average performance in nearly every vehicle class. They also consis- tently put clean technology in their most popular vehicles. By contrast, seventh-place GM undermines its leadership on global warming performance in four classes with below-average performance in four others. Moreover, it fails to turn its most popular vehicles into class leaders.<br><br> Hybrids can help an automaker 9s score, but only if they are produced in large volume and make good use of the technology. Hybrids improved Toyota 9s overall global warming score by three 2 Union of Concerned Scientists points, and its midsize car global warming score by nine points. Flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs) are currently doing more harm than good. A federal loophole allows automakers to claim inflated fuel economy numbers for any FFVs they sell, on the assump- tion that the vehicles consume ethanol in place of gasoline. But the drop in fuel economy and increase in global warming emissions enabled by this bonus overwhelms any benefits from using today 9s ethanol. Even worse, these vehicles actu- ally use ethanol less than one percent of the time. Automakers must use FFVs as a complement, not a substitute, for improved fuel economy.<br><br> Diesel has the potential to cut global warming pollution, but significant reductions in smog- forming emissions are needed before it can help an automaker 9s overall environmental score. Volkswagen 9s diesels improved its global warming score by three points, but sank its smog score by 19 points. Tighter regulations are vital to driving pollution progress. More stringent state and federal smog standards have forced all automakers to reduce their impact on public health. This progress has not been repeated on global warming emissions, because automakers have not been required to meet targets, or on fuel economy, where standards have been stagnant for two decades. California recently took the lead, requiring automakers to start cutting global warming emissions in 2009. These standards must be adopted nationwide to ensure that the auto industry does its part to address global warming. Methodology Each automaker has been scored on the average per-mile emissions of global warming and smog- forming pollutants from the new vehicles it sold in MY2005. The emission average across all eight manufacturers is defined as a score of 100, and each automaker is assigned a score indexed to this average. Thus a score of 80 indicates that an automaker 9s average emissions across all the vehicles it produces is 80 percent of the industry average. Lower scores indicate lower emissions. Separate scores have been computed for global warming and smog-forming pollution, and the overall rankings weight these two scores equally. 3 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 MY1998MY2001MY2003MY2005 Honda Toyota Nissan Ford GM DaimlerChrysle r Figure ES-2.<br><br> Combined Environmental Scores of the Big Six Automakers (1998 32005) Automaker Rankings 2007 1. Honda retains the title of Greenest Automaker, with the lowest levels of global warming and smog-forming emissions. Honda is one of only two automakers that have better- than-average global warming scores in every class in which they produce vehicles.<br><br> However, Honda 9s lead on smog has slipped from a com- manding 22 points in MY2003 to just six points, while its lead on global warming emissions has dwindled to just one point. To remain the Greenest Automaker, Honda must exceed its current commitment to increasing fuel economy and go beyond existing smog standards. 2.<br><br> Toyota regains second place overall in these rankings and is the only automaker to make consistent improvements on its global warming score since 2001. Toyota has the best global warming performance in six out of 10 classes and better-than-average performance in the rest. If past trends continue, Toyota may over- take Honda 9s global warming score within two years.<br><br> Doing so will require continued invest- ments in hybrids and expanded leadership across more vehicle classes. 3. Hyundai-Kia debuts with a third-place combined pollution score, thanks to balanced fourth-place finishes in both the smog and global warming categories.<br><br> While Hyundai-Kia does not lead any class, it is the worst in only one class in each pollution category. 4. Nissan has slipped from the second place it held in the previous Automaker Rankings report.<br><br> Its smog scores still nearly tie Toyota 9s, but its poor performance on global warming emissions costs it third place. If, instead of exploiting the FFV loophole, Nissan actually produced vehicles as efficient as it has been given credit for, it would move into third place in the overall scores. 5.<br><br> Volkswagen finishes fifth in combined per- formance, but has the worst global warming scores in three of the five classes in which it produces vehicles, and the worst smog and combined scores in four out of five classes. Volkswagen is the only automaker that failed to offer a single model that led its class in any environmental category (global warming, smog, or combined). 6.<br><br> Ford continues to be the best of the Big Three automakers 4although it has fallen back from better than average in MY2003 to worse than average in MY2005. If Ford had cut global warming emissions in its American fleet since 1997 by the same percentage it has cut them in its European fleet over that time, it would tie for third place in the global warming scores and move into fifth place overall. 7.<br><br> GM has made significant progress on smog since the last Automaker Rankings report, which, along with a flat global warming score, is sufficient to pull it out of last place. But it undermines its class-leading global warming scores in some classes with lackluster perfor- mance elsewhere. GM touts its position as the leading manufacturer of vehicles that get more than 30 miles per gallon (highway), but a closer look reveals that it is also the top producer of vehicles that get 15 mpg or less (city).<br><br> 8. DaimlerChrysler returns to its position as dirtiest among the major automakers, with the worst scores on both global warming and smog-forming emissions. DaimlerChrysler has the worst global warming scores in five out of 10 classes, and its small pickup trucks have the worst smog score of any vehicle class evaluated.<br><br> Key Results by Automaker 4 Union of Concerned Scientists T he auto industry and its products are inex- tricably linked with Americans 9 way of life, the U.S. economy, and the environment. The automobile endures as both a practical necessity and a cultural icon in the United States, where more cars and light trucks are registered than there are licensed drivers (FHWA 2005). In fact, the U.S. market accounts for nearly one-third of global vehicle sales (Ward 9s 2006). The eight companies evaluated in this analysis 4whose combined revenues topped one trillion dollars in 2005 4are all in the top 100 of the Fortune Global 500, and four are in the top 10 (Fortune 2005). An additional four of the top 10 spots are occupied by companies that supply fuel for these vehicles, reflecting the enormous volume of petroleum that these cars and trucks demand and hinting at the magnitude of the environmental impacts that come with that consumption. The auto industry is well aware of the envi- ronmental impacts of its products, and many manufacturers have made a point of touting their progress on reducing these impacts. Toyota, for example, bought billboard space to tally the gallons of gasoline saved by people driving its hybrids. GM introduced its cLive Green, Go Yellow d campaign to draw attention to its ethanol-capable flexible-fuel vehicles. Honda has been advertising something it calls cenviron- mentology. d 1 Consumers face a barrage of some- times contradictory claims about the greenness of automakers 9 vehicles and technology offerings. In a recent interview, Mark LaNeve, head of North American sales for GM, highlighted this issue: cThere 9s definitely a perceptual gap between how our portfolio is perceived, as opposed to reality, in terms of fuel economy d (Tierney 2007). This report helps resolve that cperceptual gap d by providing consumers and industry observers with a definitive, transparent measure of the environmental performance of the Top Eight automakers in the U.S. market. It replaces marketing spin and promises with quantitative analyses of the vehicle fleets actually sold by each automaker, based on government data. The analy- ses in this report examine not only the overall environmental performance of the automakers, but also their average performance in each of 10 classes and their commitment to offering custom- ers green choices in popular models. The report culminates with suggestions about how automak- ers might improve their environmental perfor- mance, rather than just their marketing images.<br><br> Passenger Vehicle Pollution The manufacture, use, and disposal of motor vehicles have substantial environmental impacts, including water pollution, land use, urban con- gestion, noise, smog, toxics, and global warming. Of these, smog and global warming form the basis of the ranking provided here. Smog The key ingredient in smog is ground-level ozone, an irritant that impairs lung function, exacerbates asthma, and damages the lining of the lungs (EPA 2002). Repeated exposure to ozone can lead to permanent lung damage (ATS 1996). As of December 2006, 56 percent of Americans lived in areas that failed to meet public heath standards for smog (EPA 2006). The Automotive Industry and the Environment 1 Defined by Honda as its congoing commitment to environmentally responsible technology d (http://corporate.honda.com/environmentology/index.aspx).<br><br> 5 Automaker Rankings 2007 Ground-level ozone is formed by the reaction of two pollutants 4volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO x ) 4in the presence of sunlight. Regulations in the United States have greatly reduced the permissible emis- sions of NO x and VOCs from automobiles, but tailpipe emissions from cars and light trucks still account for approximately 20 percent of smog- forming pollution nationwide. A key reason for this is that since 1970, when tailpipe emissions were first regulated, the number of vehicles on American roads has more than doubled and the total miles those vehicles travel each year has nearly tripled. These changes have eroded the benefits of new emission control technologies designed in response to tighter tailpipe standards. Global Warming Climate change, the result of global warming, is a serious threat to both the environment and the economy. The overwhelming international consensus is cunequivocal d that climate change is real and already occurring. The Fourth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that climate change has already caused an increase in the length, severity, and area of droughts since the 1970s and that, in the future, it is very likely to cause increases in the peak wind speeds and heavier precipitation of hurricanes and typhoons, among many other effects (IPCC 2007). In addition, a recent review commissioned by the British gov- ernment concluded that a failure to stem climate change could end up costing as much as 20 per- cent of global GDP (Stern 2006). The production and use of gasoline by cars and light trucks in the United States is respon- sible for more emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal global warming pollutant, than all but two countries 2 emit from all sources combined. This need not be so. Emissions of global warm- ing pollutants from vehicles can be reduced through greater fuel economy, the use of less carbon-intensive fuels, and improvements in air conditioning and emission control systems.<br><br> Ranking Method This report is the Union of Concerned Scientists 9 fourth evaluation of the environmental perfor- mance of the major automakers in the United States. As in the previous reports (Morey, Hwang, Kliesch, and DeCicco 2000; Mark 2002; Friedman and MacKenzie 2004), it is based on the relative environmental performance of the leading automakers, using the most recent data available about their product lines. Selling a few clean models is not good enough to win the title of Greenest Automaker: the best scores go to those that show strong environmental perfor- mance across their product lines. These rankings focus on the average emissions of global warming and smog-forming pollutants from the operation of all an automaker 9s products. Average per-mile global warming emissions for each automaker are calculated based on the fuel economy, fuel type, and sales of each vehicle type sold by the automaker in model year 2005 (MY2005). The global warming pollutants considered include both tailpipe emissions and upstream emissions from fuel production and distribution, which together account for more than 85 percent of the global warming pollu- tion a vehicle produces across its entire lifecycle (Burnham, Wang, and Moon 2006; Weiss et al. 2000). A sales-weighted average emission level is calculated for each manufacturer and for all eight together. The industry-average emission rate is given a score of 100; then each automaker is assigned a score based on its average emission rate indexed to the industry-average emission 2 Only China and Russia release more CO 2 from fossil fuel combustion (EIA 2006a). 6 Union of Concerned Scientists rate. Thus a score of 80 indicates an emission level equal to 80 percent of the industry average. A score of less than 100 indicates better than average performance, and a score of more than 100 indicates worse than average performance.<br><br> Average tailpipe smog-forming emissions are calculated based on the sum of the emission certification levels for NO x and non-methane organic gases (NMOG, a measure of VOC emissions) and on the sales of each type of vehicle sold by each manufacturer. The industry average is again assigned a score of 100, and each automaker 9s individual results are indexed to this average score. The overall rankings are determined by averaging each manufacturer 9s global warming score with its smog score to create a combined score that weights global warming emissions 50 percent and smog-forming emissions 50 per- cent. Additional details on the methodology appear in Appendix A. 7 Automaker Rankings 2007 8 Ranking Results T his report assesses the environmental per- formance of the Top Eight automakers using a variety of analyses to determine not only which automaker is the greenest, but why it is the greenest. These analyses also help illuminate the differences between vehicle classes, the mar- ketability of green models, and the impacts of certain emerging technologies on environmental performance. The key criteria in the overall rank- ings are each automaker 9s emissions of global warming and smog-forming pollutants, averaged across all of the vehicles that company sold in MY2005. Average performance within various vehicle classes and other analyses serve to put the overall scores in context. Fleet Comparisons In MY2005, Honda holds on to its position as the greenest of the major automakers, with the lowest emissions overall in both the global warm- ing and smog categories. Table 1 shows the glob- al warming and smog scores for each of the Top Eight automakers. The scores are proportional to the per-mile emission level of each automaker 9s average vehicle, with 100 defined as the average emission level across all eight manufacturers in MY2005; the lower the score, the cleaner the car.<br><br> Honda 9s lead has eroded somewhat since the UCS ranking of MY2003 vehicles. Honda has slipped a couple of points on global warming, while Toyota has improved, closing the gap to just one point. Honda continues to be the clear leader in reducing smog-forming emissions, though here too its lead has diminished consider- ably. Hyundai-Kia debuts in third place, trailing Toyota in both smog and global warming perfor- mance. Nissan is comfortably in the fourth spot, with only average global warming performance but a smog score that nearly matches Toyota 9s. Volkswagen is in fifth place overall, behind Hyundai-Kia and Nissan. Volkswagen has a solid third place on global warming, thanks in large part to its diesels, which accounted for 11 percent of its sales in MY2005 and produced 22 percent less global warming pollution per mile than Honda 9s average vehicle. However, its diesels also produced more than double the smog- forming pollution of last-place DaimlerChrysler, and this poor smog performance hurt Volkswagen 9s overall ranking considerably. By including diesels in its product line, Volkswagen gains three points on global warming, but loses 19 on smog. Ford, in sixth place, holds on to its title as the cleanest of the Big Three automakers due to its continued lead in reducing smog- forming emissions. However, that lead is slipping because it is making slower progress on smog than GM and DaimlerChrysler and no progress at all on global warming. Ford 9s position shows that it has the capability and willingness to apply technology to reduce smog-forming pollution. Moreover, Ford is one of only a handful of com- panies recently judged to be nearly on track to Automaker Global Warming SmogCombined Honda 857078 Toyota 867681 Hyundai-Kia 938187 Nissan 997788 Volkswagen 90113101 Ford 108106107 GM 104116110 DaimlerChrysler 109120115 Average 100100100 Table 1: Environmental Scores (by Automaker) Union of Concerned Scientists comply with Europe 9s voluntary global warming standards for automobiles (T&E 2006). 3 If Ford had reduced global warming emissions from its American fleet since 1997 the same way it has cut emissions from its European fleet, it would tie Volkswagen for third place on global warm- ing, instead of finishing seventh as shown here. And with its cleaner smog score, it would move ahead of Volkswagen into fifth place in the overall rankings. In this context, Ford 9s continued lack of progress on global warming emissions from its American vehicle fleet is especially dismaying. GM, in seventh place overall, has the best global warming score of the Big Three, though there is little to choose between them in this regard. The three are clustered, closer to each other than to any of their competitors. DaimlerChrysler is dead last on both smog and global warming emissions, cementing its position as the dirtiest of the Top Eight manufacturers. Trends in Pollution Scores This report is the fourth UCS analysis of the pollution performance of the major automakers, stretching back to MY1998. Figure 1 shows the trends in relative pollution scores from the Big Six automakers over these four reports. (Since Volkswagen and Hyundai-Kia were not evalu- ated in past reports, they do not appear in this figure.) The scores graphed in Figure 1 illustrate each automaker 9s pollution performance relative to the average for each year. All of the automak- ers improved their smog-forming emissions between MY2003 and MY2005, but only Toyota and GM improved by more than the average. Thus their lines turn down, indicating greater progress toward lower emissions. The other auto- makers improved more slowly than the average, and so their scores were worse in MY2005 than in MY2003, even though their actual emissions were better. The automakers are essentially being graded on a curve: each one 9s score depends not only on how well it does, but also on how well its competitors do.<br><br> Overall, progress in reducing global warming emissions has been minimal since the first UCS ranking, as the average global warming emissions of the Big Six automakers have improved by less 9 3 Between 1997 and 2005, Ford cut the average tailpipe CO 2 emissions of its European new vehicle fleet from 180 g/km to 151 g/km, which was 95 percent of the reduction needed to be on track for the 2008 target of 140 g/km. Global Warming 70 80 90 100 110 120 MY1998MY2001MY2003MY2005 Smog 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 MY1998MY2001MY2003MY2005 Global Warming Score (100=Average) Smog Score (100=Average) Honda Toyota Nissan Ford GM DaimlerChrysler Honda Toyota Nissan Ford GM DaimlerChrysler Figure 1. Relative Environmental Performance of the Big Six Automakers (1998 32005) Automaker Rankings 2007 10 than two percent between MY1998 and MY2005.<br><br> Most companies 9 global warming scores wors- ened over this period; only Toyota consistently improved its relative performance between MY2001 and MY2005. Honda 9s lead on global warming, which was 11 points in MY2001, dwindles to just one point by MY2005. Honda has committed to reducing the average global warming emissions of its vehicles by five percent between 2005 and 2010 (Honda 2006). But Toyota decreased its global warming emissions by eight percent between MY2001 and MY2005. If those reductions continue, Toyota could overtake Honda 9s five percent reduction pathway by the time UCS ranks MY2007 vehicles. Other automakers are falling behind. Between MY2003 and MY2005, Nissan lost most of the progress it had made on global warming since the previous ranking. This slip in performance coincides with the introduction of the full-size Titan pickup and Armada SUV. DaimlerChrysler, after moving ahead of Ford to tie with GM on global warming in MY2003, dropped back to the same position it occupied in the first two UCS rankings: last place among the Big Six, with global warming emissions nine points worse than the average. On smog, the field tightened up in MY2005 compared with MY2003. This demonstrates the success of the Environmental Protection Agency 9s (EPA) Tier 2 program and California 9s LEV II program, which require all manufactur- ers to clean up their acts, thereby reducing the differences between them. In MY2003, Ford, Honda, and Nissan made gains on their smog scores, as they began implementing Tier 2 emis- sion standards ahead of schedule. The gap closed between MY2003 and MY2005, as Toyota and GM rolled out more Tier 2 vehicles. The spread between the best and worst performers nar- rows from 80 points in MY2003 to 50 points in MY2005, and the gap between first and second place narrows from 22 to just six points. When fully implemented, Tier 2 standards will elimi- nate differences in smog standards for different classes of cars and light trucks, and all manufac- turers will be expected to meet the same average standard. Honda, or any company that wants to show leadership on smog, will therefore need to go beyond the requirements of Tier 2 to differen- tiate itself from the pack.<br><br> Class Comparisons Figure 2 (p.11) shows the combined pollution scores for various car classes, and the relative contributions of the smog and global warm- ing scores. These scores are the average results for all of a manufacturer 9s vehicles in the class. For example, Honda 9s midsize cars in MY2005 included the Accord, Accord Hybrid, Acura RL, and Acura TL. Honda 9s midsize car score was therefore calculated as a sales-weighted average of the scores for each of these models. Ford 9s small cars are the cleanest overall in their class. Despite a relatively poor global warm- ing score, its industry-leading performance on smog pulls it in front. Honda 9s small cars, on the other hand, lead the class in global warm- ing performance but score dead last on smog. This poor performance on smog ties Honda with DaimlerChrysler for last place overall in the class 4an anomaly for the Greenest Automaker. This is probably the result of the Civic 9s outdated design as it approached the end of its product cycle. (Its MY2006 redesign cut smog-forming emissions by approximately 60 percent.) Toyota comes out on top in the key mid- size car class, thanks to a global warming score that is 10 points better than its nearest rival in this class 4the biggest lead in any of the classes evaluated 4and a smog score that nearly matches Honda 9s. Toyota 9s lead on global warming per- formance in the midsize car class is due in large part to the Prius. If hybrids are omitted from Union of Concerned Scientists the analysis, Toyota edges out Honda by only two points on global warming, instead of 10. Volkswagen is the clear loser in the midsize car class, with the worst score on both global warm- ing and smog. In the large car class, GM scores the best on both global warming and smog, though the field is smaller since Honda and Nissan sell no vehi- cles in this class. Volkswagen and Hyundai-Kia essentially tie for dirtiest-in-class on both smog and global warming. In fact, the average large car from Volkswagen and Hyundai-Kia produced more than twice the smog-forming pollution per mile as the average large car from GM or Ford.<br><br> In general, as Figure 2 shows, those automak- ers that are cleaner in the overall fleet ranking 11 Small Cars Large CarsStation Wagons Midsize Cars Figure 2. Smog and Global Warming Scores of Cars (by Class) Automaker Rankings 2007 12 (further to the left in the graphs) tend to have better emission scores within individual classes. This is particularly evident for the small and midsize car classes, which together account for 80 percent of car sales. Thus poor environmental performance cannot be blamed simply on prod- uct mix, since the cleanest automakers overall are also the ones producing cars that lead within their classes. Figure 3 shows the pollution scores of the average small and large pickup trucks from each manufacturer. Toyota and GM essentially tie as the leaders on global warming performance from both small pickups and large pickups. (GM 9s global warming scores are actually about 1/20 of a point less than Toyota 9s for the small pickup class, and 1/6 of a point less for large pickups.) But Toyota beats GM decisively when smog- forming emissions are considered. In the small pickup class, Nissan edges Toyota slightly on smog, and its overall score is only slightly worse than Toyota 9s. DaimlerChrysler 9s small pickups are the worst in their class on both global warming and smog, producing more than double the smog- forming pollution per mile of their nearest com- petitors and five times more per mile than class- leader Nissan 9s small pickups. They also have the ignominious distinction of being the dirtiest group of vehicles in any class from any of the manufacturers evaluated for this analysis.<br><br> In the large pickup class, Toyota is the overall winner by a large margin, as Nissan fails to show the same leadership it does in the small pickup class. In fact, Nissan 9s large pickups are the dirti- est overall in their class. Figure 4 (p. 13) shows the average pollu- tion scores for various classes of sport utility and crossover utility vehicles (SUVs and CUVs) and minivans. In the small utility class, Honda has the 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Small PickupsLarge Pickups Figure 3. Smog and Global Warming Scores of Pickups (by Class) Union of Concerned Scientists Figure 4.<br><br> Smog and Global Warming Scores of Utilities and Minivans (by Class) 13 best smog performance and the best combined emission score. Nissan also has class-leading smog performance, but its global warming score is nearly 30 points higher than Honda 9s, keeping it out of the winner 9s circle. Toyota has the lowest average global warming emissions, but its worst- in-class smog score puts it in last place overall. Honda and Nissan tie for top spot in the popular midsize utility class, with similar scores on both global warming and smog. Toyota nar- rowly wins on global warming performance, but is slightly dirtier on smog, pushing it into Automaker Rankings 2007 third place overall. The Big Three 9s midsize utili- ties are considerably dirtier than Toyota 9s, but Volkswagen once again takes last place on both smog and global warming. Nissan 9s large SUVs have the best scores overall in their class, though the spread between best and worst in the large SUV class is less pro- nounced than in other classes. In short, all of the automakers 9 large SUVs have very poor pollution performance. GM has the best global warming score in the class, narrowly beating out Toyota, but GM 9s poor smog performance puts it square- ly in last place overall.<br><br> Minivans from Honda, Toyota, and Nissan all have identical smog scores, and Hyundai-Kia is only slightly worse. However, Honda edges out Toyota and Nissan on global warming to claim the best combined score in the minivan class. As with cars, performance in the truck classes indicates that, with a few exceptions, the auto- makers that score well in the overall rankings are the same ones that have better-than-average per- formance within each individual class. Leaders and Losers Further insights into each automaker 9s perfor- mance are gained by considering which consis- tently earn top marks across multiple classes and which consistently rank last. Table 2 summarizes the number of classes in which each manufac- turer has either the best or the worst average performance. In cases where two automakers are separated by less than one point, they are deemed to be tied. This avoids giving undue credit for minimal differences. When considering these numbers, remember that only four companies 4 Toyota, Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrysler 4are cfull-line d manufacturers, producing vehicles in all 10 classes. Nissan produces vehicles in eight classes, but does not produce a large car or a station wagon. Honda, Hyundai-Kia, and Volkswagen each produce vehicles in five classes. Toyota is the clear leader on in-class global warming performance, with the best average global warming scores in six out of 10 classes. GM and Honda each lead on global warming emissions in 40 percent of the classes in which they produced vehicles 4GM in four out of 10 and Honda in two out of five. Toyota, GM, and Honda are the only automakers to occupy class-leading positions in average global warming performance. Volkswagen and DaimlerChrysler are the biggest losers on in-class global warming 14 Automaker Global WarmingSmogCombined Classes Competing BestWorstBestWorstBestWorst Honda 2041315 Toyota 60213110 Hyundai-Kia 0101015 Nissan 0141318 Volkswagen 0304045 Ford 02211110 GM 40112110 DaimlerChrysler 05010210 Note: Column totals exceed 10 where ties occur. Table 2: Number of Classes with Best or Worst Pollution Scores (by Automaker) Union of Concerned Scientists performance. Volkswagen has the worst average global warming scores in three out of five classes (60 percent), while DaimlerChrysler is the worst in five out of 10 classes (50 percent).<br><br> Honda 9s leadership in reducing smog- forming pollution is clearly demonstrated by its best-in-class smog scores in four out of five classes. However, all the automakers have at least one mark of shame in the form of a class in which they have the worst smog performance. Volkswagen stands out as the in-class loser on smog, with the worst average smog scores in four out of five 480 percent 4of the classes in which it produced vehicles in MY2005. Honda 9s leadership on smog earns it the top spot in combined pollution scores in four out of five classes. Volkswagen stands out as the dirtiest automaker in four out of the five classes in which it produced vehicles. Only in the small car class do Volkswagen products not have the dirtiest com- bined environmental performance, on average. One of the most compelling conclusions from this analysis is that a full-line manufacturer can compete for the title of Greenest Automaker, if it puts technology to work on its vehicles. Although all of the automakers could be doing much better at lowering global warming emis- sions, Toyota 9s in-class leadership allows it to nearly match Honda 9s overall global warming score, despite the fact that Toyota produces vehi- cles in a number of classes where Honda does not, including large cars, large SUVs, and small and large pickups. Critically, Toyota outperforms Honda by 10 points on global warming in the midsize car class and by eight points in the mid- size utility class. These two key classes accounted for 42 percent of Toyota 9s sales and 49 percent of Honda 9s sales in MY2005. This strong perfor- mance helps make up for Toyota 9s sales of dirtier vehicles in other classes, allowing it to nearly tie Honda 9s overall global warming score. If Toyota applies the same effort to reducing its smog-forming emissions, it could tie with Honda for the overall Greenest Automaker. Other auto- makers should follow Toyota 9s lead in putting technology to work across all vehicle classes. The case of GM illustrates an additional important lesson: it is not enough for an auto- maker to lead only in certain classes; to improve its overall pollution performance, an automaker must perform well in all classes and lead some by a substantial margin. While GM has the best average global warming scores in four classes, its performance is worse than average in four others. Even in the classes where it leads, its scores are only three to six points better than the class aver- ages. In contrast, Honda and Toyota have bet- ter-than-average global warming performance in every class, even in those where they are not the very best. In classes where they do lead, Honda 9s and Toyota 9s vehicles are 6 to 17 points better than the class averages. Consistent, strong per- formance across all vehicle classes is therefore a characteristic of the greenest automakers.<br><br> Consumer Choice Another measure of an automaker 9s environmen- tal commitment is the environmental choices it offers consumers. In contrast to the preceding section, which compared the automaker 9s average performance in each class, this section compares the best of the best, pitting each automaker 9s cleanest individual models against one another. Which automakers offered their customers models that were the greenest in their classes (according to global warming, smog, or combined pollution performance)? And which automakers combined environmental excellence with other desirable characteristics, to produce vehicles that were not only green, but also appealing to customers? Table 3 lists the number of classes in which each manufacturer offered least-polluting models 15 Automaker Rankings 2007 and the total sales of class-leading vehicles. A class-by-class breakdown of the leading models appears in Appendix B. Toyota is the clear leader in offering its cus- tomers the best environmental choices. Toyota offered the model with the best global warming score in four out of 10 classes, and the model with the best smog score in six out of 10 classes. It also had the model with the best combination of smog and global warming performance in five out of 10 classes. Toyota 9s greener vehicle choices were popular sellers as well, accounting for more than one million vehicles 4nearly half of Toyota 9s total sales 4in MY2005. Indeed, Toyota sold more class-leading vehicles than the other seven automakers combined. Toyota 9s leadership on smog-forming emis- sions is interesting, because despite offering lead- ing models in six classes, Toyota 9s average smog performance was best in only two classes. This indicates that these class leaders were offset by models with poorer performance. Toyota clearly has the ability to produce low-smog vehicles; if it puts this technology to work on more of its vehicles, it could earn the best average scores in more classes. Combined with continued progress on global warming emissions, such a move could put Toyota into first place overall in future rankings. Honda was also successful at marketing its greener choices, with more than one in four of Honda 9s vehicles having best-in-class perfor- mance on smog, global warming, or combined pollution scores. Although Honda did not have the greenest models in many classes, its consisten- cy in applying clean technologies to nearly all its vehicles allows it to capture the top spot in average performance in many classes (see Table 2, p. 14). This consistency helps land Honda in the top spot in these rankings and makes Honda a rela- tively safe bet for someone who wants to buy a green vehicle but has little time for research.<br><br> GM and Ford each had a number of class- leading models, but they failed to put green tech- nologies to work on their most popular models. Although five models from Ford led their classes on one or more environmental criteria, these vehicles accounted for just four percent of Ford 9s 16 Automaker Number of classes in which each manufacturer offers the class leader Classes Competing Sales of Class Leaders Share of Manufacturer 9s Total Sales Global Warming Leaders Smog Leaders Combined Leaders Honda 1215364,738 26% Toyota 465101,075,341 47% Hyundai-Kia 0115132,495 18% Nissan 021843,303 4% Volkswagen 0005-0% Ford 23310120,010 4% GM 20210138,140 3% DaimlerChrysler 1101016,989 1% Note: Column totals exceed 10 where ties occur. Table 3: Number and Sales of Class-leading Models (by Automaker) Union of Concerned Scientists total sales. To improve their overall environmental performance, Ford and GM need to offer green technologies on their most popular models. Volkswagen did not have a single class- leading model in MY2005. This failure to produce even a few clean vehicles cements Volkswagen 9s position as the worst in average performance in many classes, revealing a lack of commitment to providing American custom- ers with top-notch environmental choices.<br><br> The Role of Popular Technologies Several technologies are currently garnering attention from the public, the media, and policy makers for their perceived ability to reduce petroleum demand and global warm- ing pollution. These technologies are affecting automakers 9 global warming scores, though not necessarily in the expected manner. This section examines two hot technologies 4hybrid electric drivetrains and flexible-fuel capability 4to evaluate their effects on automakers 9 scores. Hybrids Toyota 9s progress on global warming was helped in MY2005 by strong sales of the Prius hybrid. If hybrids are excluded from the analysis, Toyota 9s overall global warming score is three points worse than when they are included, and its score for midsize cars is nine points worse. Table 4 shows the average per-mile global warming emissions for each manufacturer, calculated both with and without hybrids. These results show that hybrids can make a real difference in a company 9s average global warming emissions, but only if a manufac- turer applies hybrid technology well and on a large number of vehicles. Prius sales in MY2005 were approximately 120,000, while Honda 9s hybrid sales were just under 50,000. The Ford Escape Hybrid is a full hybrid that can cut global warming pollution substantially on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis, but Ford sold fewer than 11,000 Escape Hybrids in MY2005, thus limit- ing their benefit for Ford 9s overall global warm- ing score. GM, which sold fewer than 1,200 of its chollow d hybrids (vehicles that claim the hybrid name but fail to deliver the technology), saw no noticeable reduction to its global warm- ing emission score due to these vehicles. Flexible-fuel Vehicles In contrast to hybrids, which even in small numbers are already reducing global warming emissions, flexible-fuel vehicle (FFV) sales are currently increasing global warming emissions. A loophole in the fuel economy law allows auto- makers to produce FFVs as a way of earning credit toward meeting Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. An automaker may produce a fleet of vehicles that gets less than the prescribed miles-per-gallon standard, if it produces a sufficient number of FFVs. In MY2005, all of the FFVs sold were vehicles that could run on either gasoline or E85 (a fuel containing 85 percent denatured ethanol and 15 percent gasoline). The government assumes that FFVs operate on alternative fuels 50 percent 17 Automaker Global Warming Emissions g CO 2 -equivalent / mile* Improvement in Global Warming Score Without HybridsWith Hybrids Honda 3903851.1 Toyota 4013892.7 Hyundai-Kia 4224220.0 Nissan 4454450.0 Volkswagen 4074070.0 Ford 4884870.2 GM 4704700.0 DaimlerChrysler 4934930.0 * Per-mile emission values are based on CAFE test fuel economy, which is approxi- mately 25% greater than real-world results, on average. Actual per-mile emissions will be higher than the above values for most drivers.<br><br> Table 4: Effect of Hybrids on Per-Mile Emissions of Global Warming Pollutants Automaker Rankings 2007 18 of the time, but FFVs actually use E85 less than one percent of the time (MacKenzie, Bedsworth, and Friedman 2005; EIA 2006b). Table 5 shows the effect of flexible-fuel vehicle sales on each manufacturer 9s global warm- ing emission average. Global warming emission averages were calculated for various levels of E85 usage: two percent (somewhat higher than actual usage 4 ), 50 percent (the level assumed by the government in the assignment of CAFE credits), and 100 percent (the maximum possible). The tiny reduction in global warming pollu- tion that is realized from vehicles using E85 does not come close to making up for the increase in global warming pollution due to the FFV loop- hole. The E85 currently available provides only a 16 percent reduction in global warming emis- sions compared with the gasoline it replaces, but automakers receive a 65 percent bonus on the credited fuel economy of FFVs. As a result, even if FFVs used E85 100 percent of the time, this would still not compensate for the fuel economy lo