THE SCIENCE BEHIND OUR
CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY
Throughout this report, we refer to Ford’s climate goals as “science-based”
because they are based on the science of climate stabilization.
Focused On An Objective Outcome
A science-based approach gives us an objective, long-term goal
focused on an environmental outcome – the stabilization of
carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.
Below, we discuss what stabilization means, how we use “glide
paths” to align our product plans with emission reductions, how
our CO2 model works and how we use it in our planning.
Committed To Doing Our Part
Our climate change strategy is based on a commitment to do
our share to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 450 parts per million
(ppm), because that is the level that many scientists, businesses
and government agencies have concluded may help to forestall
or substantially delay the most serious consequences of climate
change (see graph below). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have
already reached approximately 402 ppm.1
650PPM: 2.4 - 5.5°C
600
ss
ne
as
l
ua
To assess the “share” of reductions required of new LDVs
compared to other emissions sources, we used a simplifying
assumption of the same percentage CO2 emission reductions
across all sectors and industries.
We then calculated the emission reduction levels for LDVs over
time to develop “CO2 glide paths” for the LDV sector. The glide
paths take into account regional differences in vehicle size and
fuel consumption, government regulations and biofuel availability.
Industry-Average CO2 Glide Paths2
us
500
450PPM: 1.4 - 3.1°C
0PPM
n at 45
zatio
bili
Sta
400
300
200
1950
Our scientists then calculated the CO2 emission reductions
required of new light-duty vehicles (LDVs) up to the year 2050
for a range of CO2 stabilization levels and different regions of the
world, based on projections of vehicle sales and scrappage.
si
Bu
550PPM: 1.9 - 4.4°C
1900
Automotive Sector “Glide Paths”
2000
2050
2100
2150
Calculating “Our Share”
Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 emissions at 450 ppm will be
incredibly challenging and will require major coordinated efforts
by all sectors of the economy, industries, governments and
consumers around the world.
How did we figure out what is “our share” in this stabilization
commitment?
First, we developed a science-based model of global CO2
emissions from different industries and regions. To develop
the model, our researchers modified the Sustainable Mobility
Project model (developed by the International Energy Agency)
and combined it with global CO2 emission-reduction pathways
for varying levels of atmospheric CO2 stabilization (as described
by the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced
New Light-Duty Vehicle Gasoline-Equivalent
Tank-To-Wheels CO2 G/KM
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration (PPM)
700
Climate Change, developed by the U.S. National Center for
Atmospheric Research).
250
200
150
100
50
2010
North America
2015
2020
China
2025
Latin America
2030
OECD Europe
By following the 450 ppm CO2 glide paths, the automotive and
fuel industry would reduce global well-to-wheels absolute
CO2 emissions by about 450 million metric tons (a reduction of
14 percent)3 between 2010 and 2030. Ford’s share is estimated
to be about 1 percent of the global LDV fleet’s emissions.
For the LDV sector to meet the 450 ppm limit, all
automakers must reduce their LDV emissions by the
proportion prescribed by the CO2 glide paths. Although
the initial (current) CO2 emissions rate varies considerably
by region, to provide the significant emission reductions
needed, all regions need to move toward similar targets.
We have shared our thinking behind the development of
industry-average CO2 glide paths with interested stakeholders
and have received positive feedback, as well as external
recognition in using climate science to set our CO2 targets.
We have also published the methodology in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature.3
Translating CO2 Glide Paths into
Technology Plans and Vehicle Targets
Having developed the sector glide paths, we applied the
methodology to Ford’s new vehicles in all of our major operating
regions – and also to develop CO2 reduction targets for
our facilities. For example, our Sustainable Technology and
Alternative Fuels Plan – and the technology and product actions
it spells out – is based on options developed through this
modeling exercise.
Our CO2 model is not intended to provide “the answer,”
but rather a range of possible vehicle and fuel solutions
that contribute to a pathway to CO2 reductions and,
eventually, climate stabilization.
In the absence of certainty about future regulations, the glide
paths provide a guide for long-term product development
planning. However, they serve as an approximate guide rather
than a precise limitation, and they are roughly consistent with
the overall trajectory of existing and proposed fuel economy and
vehicle CO2 regulations in a number of markets4.
Delivering Long-Term Reductions
We caution that while our product development plans are based
upon delivering long-term reductions in CO2 emissions from new
vehicles that are similar to those shown for the industry-average
glide paths, we anticipate that the year-over-year reductions will
vary somewhat from the glide paths.
In some years the reductions will be greater than those shown in
the glide paths, and in other years they will be less. That is because
delivering on these targets will be dependent to a large degree on
market forces that we do not fully control (e.g., changes in energy
prices and changes in the mix of vehicles demanded by the
consumers in the markets in which we operate). Furthermore, our
product strategy is based on multiple inputs, including regulatory
requirements, competitive actions and technology plans.
Reviewing and Refining Our Model
We review our alignment with the stabilization glide path
annually. Because of the long-term view of the model, we only
update the assumptions and input data in the CO2 model glide
paths on a five-year basis.
In 2012 we completed the first update since the glide paths
were implemented. As part of this review, we assessed our glide
path analysis methodology and incorporated new forecasts for
vehicle sales and the latest data on the CO2 intensity of fuels. The
adjustments to glide paths based on these changes were minor.
In 2017 we will be finalizing our second update, evaluating and
incorporating the state-of-the-science, findings from IPCC
assessments, and the recent COP21 Paris agreement.
Between major updates, we conduct sensitivity studies to
understand the effect of global changes, such as economic
conditions, biofuel availability, or regulations, on the glide paths.
In other CO2 modeling efforts, we have explored which
combinations of vehicle and fuel technologies might be most
cost-effective in the long-term stabilization of atmospheric CO2
concentrations. Specifically, we developed a detailed description
of light-duty vehicles in a model of global energy use for 2010 to
2100. Several technology cost cases were considered. We found
that variation in vehicle technology costs over reasonable ranges
led to large differences in the vehicle technologies utilized to
meet future CO2 stabilization targets. We concluded that, given
the large uncertainties in our current knowledge of future vehicle
technology costs, it is too early to express any firm opinions
about the future cost-effectiveness or optimality of different
future fuel and vehicle powertrain technology combinations.5
This conclusion is reflected in the portfolio of fuel and vehicle
technologies that are included in our sustainability strategy. We
believe the model will provide valuable insights into cost-effective
mobility choices in a future carbon-constrained world.
As climate science, alternative fuels and technologies advance,
we are considering a number of ways to refine and adjust our
science-based CO2 targets in future updates of the model.
We are considering how best to modify the model to include
emissions other than CO2 and to recognize the fact that costeffective actions across different economic sectors are needed to
address climate change.
1. E. Dlugokencky and P. Tans, NOAA/ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) accessed May 2016.
2. The E.U. and China glide paths were developed based on the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC), and the North America and Latin America glide paths were developed based on
the Federal Test Procedures (FTP), which are the testing requirements used by governments in these regions to assess the emission levels of car engines and/or fuel economy in
light-duty vehicles.
3. S.L. Winkler, T.J. Wallington, H. Maas and H. Hass, “Light-Duty Vehicle CO2 Targets Consistent with 450 ppm CO2 Stabilization,” Environ. Sci. Technol. (2014).
4.We note that, while the glide paths can provide a framework for assessing regulatory proposals at a high level, our ability to comply with specific GHG regulations hinges on the
details of the regulatory program in the context of the relevant market.
5.M. Grahn, E. Klampfl, M. Whalen and T.J. Wallington, “Sustainable Mobility: Using a Global Energy Model to Inform Vehicle Technology Choices in a Decarbonised Economy,”
Sustainability, 5, 1845–1862 (2013).