Green car compromise
We have had the first real sign that the planned law aimed at making manufacturers produce greener cars is going to be watered down.
The European Parliament, meeting in Strasbourg, has for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Or should that read "tougher targets"?
It's hard to say: the parliament has voted for a target of 125g of carbon emissions for every kilometre driven. That's not as tough as the European Commission,
But the parliament's target would have to be achieved through car design alone, whereas 10g of the commission target could be reached by using biofuels and the like, so some would argue the commission target is really 130g.
The current average car emission is 160g.
Confused ? I am.
Anyway the greens aren't happy.
'Judas'
This is the proposal for a new law which I have been trying to
The parliament's vote was on what is known in the jargon as an "own initative" report. In other words, it has no legal force. On the other hand, it’s a warning shot that if the European Commission sticks to its current plans it’s likely it would be defeated when MEPs do get a full vote on the full law.
The report MEPs were voting on was written by Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies, who argues that while some people want to punish car makers, he’s interested in a workable law that benefits the environment.
During the debate, earlier in the week, this infuriated the pony-tailed Green MEP from Luxembourg, Claude Turmes, who said Mr Davies had gone from "a green liberal climate-change hero" to "a climate-change Judas".
Aat Peterse from the green pressure group said: "MEPs seem to have lost their nerve. Sadly, there is an increasing disparity between what MEPs say needs to be done about climate change, and what they are prepared to actually get on and do."
He says the commission should stick with an older target – 120g - when it comes up with actual proposals for a new law later in the year.
It’s pretty likely they won’t. There’s been a fight between Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen, who is standing up for German drivers and manufacturers, and Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas from the moment this idea was first mooted.
It’s going to get sharper as they actually knuckle down to writing a directive, as EU laws will be continued to be called in the Lisbon Treaty.
MEPs also backed plans for huge warnings about the cleanliness or otherwise of the product on car ads: they say these should take up 20% of the space, similar to the big warnings on cigarette packets.
'Weapon'
I asked Mr Davies, a long-term environmental campaigner, how it felt to be called "a climate change Judas" and whether he was handing Mr Verheugen a weapon in the coming battle.
His answer was one of rueful honesty.
"Yes. Yeah I am. But at the end of the day I am trying to get two things here. First of all, do I like being called a climate changed Judas? Not really. Not when I’ve got Chris Huhne back in the UK saying we want to stay at the front of the environmental debate, we don’t want to ever be seen to be out-sold by the Greens.
"So adopting what I regard as realistic position here doesn’t necessarily fit in with being an opposition party that likes to vote about its green credentials back in the United Kingdom.
"As for the debate with commissioner Verheugen, undoubtedly that’s going to take place, and he and his officials will seize on this report as a weapon in that internal discussion."
But he argues he’s done a deal which avoids the danger of the parliament voting for a report from the industry committee next month, which was recommending a 135g target.
Is the car industry winning this battle?
Are the MEPs right?
Should there be any law in the first place?
You tell me.
I’m Mark Mardell, the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
BMW usesvarious tech stuff on its cars such as stop and start and as a result their emissions are class leading. perhaps governments might subsidise the carindustries a little more togivethem more to work with. Anyway, if we even cut car emissions out of the equation, the Chinese and Indians will continue spiralling outputs of co2 and thus the efforts will be forgotten. to make any real headway with the problem we should talk to the developing countries instead
Why don't you investigate what cars MEPs drive?
I would like to see much more info about the environmental impact of manufacturing and disposal of vehicles - not just their short-term impact whilst in use. Thirty years ago we used to dismantle vehicles and most of the parts were suitable for reuse; now they're simply crushed and we call it recycling.
I know the EU well. The Greens in the EP are the only people I know who believe that nothing is better than half a loaf.
"Daft" doesn't even begin to describe them.
There will be a compromise.There has to be a compromise.
That's all there is to it.
The differences are minor, the Greens always want Utopia. We are stuck with the car pool we have for many years. What I would like to know is what is happening to improve truck efficiency, these are bigger emmitters than private cars. (Do more distance, much heavier, can't be replaced by rail because rail can't in many cases reach the producer or consumer.)
Let's hope that the German automotive industry stands it's ground. Hopefully by the time all this nonesense is debated, enviro-fundamentalists will be warning us once more about the dangers of a new ice age.
Environment should provide the perfect showcase for legislation made at European levels - smog doesn't stop at borders, and there are few industries, if any, as transnational as carmaking - so yes, I think this Law/Directive is a good idea.
Regarding levels of CO2 per km and deadlines I'm certainly not qualified to judge which limits are feasible and economically sound, but if the Commission wants 130g/km by 2012 and the MEPs 125g/km by 2015, they are proposing to give industry three more years to get even greener, lower emissions.
No need for accusations of treason and 'holier than thou' attitudes.
I don't understand the car industry's reticence. Cars that produce less than 120g of CO2 per km are available and have more than adequate performance. I think the individual car manufacturers are terrified of their engines labelled as "weedier" than their competitor's. So long as limits are imposed accross the board on all manufacturers, they should stop whingeing and get on with it.
I'm quite surprised, and pleased, that the media-savvy Chris Davies gave such a straight forward answer.
Out of interest, what's the average emission at the moment? The Commission's proposal for the target to be met inside four years seems to demand an incredibly short design cycle if it is not already very close to 130g.
Have you tried speaking to ACEA (car manufacturers association) and CLEPA (component suppliers) to hear their side of the story?
If car manufacturers get let off the hook on this issue they should have to compensate for it in some other way. For example by guaranteeing that more money is put into researching hybrid cars, electric, hydrogen or methane powered cars etc... EU regulations and it's member states national level regulations should also actively encourage consumers to prefer less polluting cars over purely fossil fueled ones for example by means of tax breaks for people who buy them. Similarly the manufacturers should also be forced by the EU to seriously market environmentally friendly non-fossil fueled cars and not just develop a few prototypes that never go into production and are mostly just used as environmental publicity stunts. I put a good deal of effort into finding an environmentally friendly car the last time I bought one but 98% of what is available are the same old gas guzzlers and yet I have been hearing for close to two decades about how car manufacturers are working on more environmentally friendly cars that don't burn fossil fuels. Where are they? Perhaps the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ should do the rounds of European car manufacturers and ask them?
Sure there always has to be a compromise but delaying the introduction of emissions limits until 2015 would be even more daft. The EU has set an emissions reduction target to be achieved by 2020. Efforts to achieve that need to start as soon as possible, particularly from one of the most polluting sectors. Delaying the limits will mean they won't take effect in time. If you believe there are ten years to act on climate change, which Chris Davies says he does, then delaying action until 2015 seems to be a lot more daft than trying to introduce meaningful limit values. There are many daft parliamentarians but I would say the Greens at least do their homework and know what they are talking about.
I fail to see why it isn't possible to force all new cars in the EU to be limited to around 100mph (160kph); this would simply and easily kill two birds with one stone. Less emissions from smaller engines, and safer roads as all of those cars zooming around at ridiculous speeds would no longer be able to. And before the inevitable noise about the need to accelerate out of difficult situations, when was the last time you drove at that speed?
I wouldn't necessarily describe myself as a "Green"... but the next car I own will either be a diesel Toyota Yaris or Citroen C4. A significant part of that decision was based on the fact that they both emit just 120g CO per km.
Should there be a law? No.
Should there be tax breaks for people that make or buy "green" cars? Yes. Then let the market decide.
Most people don't really care how fast a car goes from 0-100 or how much horsepower a car has, just that it's reliable and looks good and has a bit of space. It's obviously possible to do all that right now and there are a number of cars - Honda Civic, Mazda 3, Peugeot 307, Nissan Micra, VW Polo - that are close to the 120g number. A tiny bit of work in the efficiency or weight departments and they'd also be hitting the magic 120.
I'm tired of people saying 'well China and India will just produce more anyway so it's pointless - we need to talk to them instead.' Why are these two ideas mutually exclusive? Let's do both! It's not that radical a suggestion, surely.
In the UK band B, for Tax purposes and proposed exhemption from congestion charges is currently 120g/km CO2 or less. I note with interest Audi have launched an A3 1.9TDi that sneaks into this band, and also out performs the older model. These targets CAN be acheived, so why compromise. There should be additional concessions for band B vehicles, to encourage people and companies to buy them. CO2 emissions in India and China are on the increase, so I would propose a sharing of technology to help them minimise emissions. Imposing limits upon these nations would be a hypercritical move by the western world, give them a carrot not a stick!
The greens are never happy.
Dominic says above: "perhaps governments might subsidise the car industries a little". Er, no! In real terms, cars are cheaper than they have ever bean. They certainly don't need any subsidy. They have got loads of room to do things on efficiency.
This is not an issue where we, the electorate, can wait for a lead from our elected representatives. Politicians will inevitably fudge and prevaricate. If the populace truly have designs on effecting change and reducing CO2 emisions then we, the hoi polloi, have to alter our consumer behaviour and examine our social responsibilities (to one and other). The major source of collective bargaining power we hold is the way we spend our disposable income. If a manufacturer exhibits a lack of regard for the future of environment - ignore them. Business will inevitably cater for alterations in consumer behaviour.
As long as global traffic grows continuousely CO2 emissions will not be reduced significantly. We don´t need new engine technologies; we need less traffic and a different mobility pretension. I save about one ton CO2 a year by cycling to my office. Additional results are less health costs, higher job performance, more money in my wallet and less stress in the after-working hours. That is really multi-functional! When the one-, two- or three liters cars will enter the market we still have most of the thirsty ATV monsters on the roads, but we need dramatic CO2 savings within a period of 15 years.
I have no doubts that the German engineers will meet any target once it is set. What we are seeing here is the usual grandstanding before big decisions.
Criticism of the Greens is ok, but when it comes from the UK it always rings hollow. The UK is still the dirty old man of the EU, lagging behind in almost every aspect.
Mark, are you in touch with your own organisation?
Yesterday, your colleague Alan Titchmarsh seriously tried to tell us that landfills add to biodiversity. If that is the quality of the British environmental debate we can certainly live without any further input from Britain.
Ultimately car makers have to be made to meet such targets. However making unrealistic goals for them isn't in anyone's real interests. Surely some form of a target, and 130g is still a very real challenge for the car manufacturers, is better than skirting around the issue by simply talking about it?
Mark, can you explain what this proposed law actually applies to. Is it the emissions of the average car actually sold? If so there is little car manufacturers can do about this - they can offer fuel efficient vehicles for sale but if customers ignore these and buy inefficient vehicles what can they do? Or does the law specify an average across the range of cars that a manufacturer supplies? But this would be a waste of time - we could have lots of models of green cars that hardly anyone buys and a few models of gas guzzlers that sell in huge numbers. This wouldn't help the environment. Is the law really this sily?
Why blame the car manufacturers here? They just try to produce the kinds of cars that we want to buy. We are the ones with the responsibility here, through our buying choices.
I'm wondering why this has not been also linked to the production of non-petroleum fuels such as Brazil are using. This would reduce the emissions and make the EU less dependent on all those blackmailing oil producing countries who cause us so many problems. The car manufacturers and buyers should be encouraged to use these friendly fuels by tax breaks and the oil companies influence neutered.
We are missing the point. Cars and aeroplanes are becoming more green in their emissions.
The real polluters are the 24/7 fossil fuel power plants and industrial plants which are spewing out vast amounts of CO2.
This real and the most major cause of CO2 production could be greatly reduced if carbon capture and clean fossil fuel technology was used worlwide.
This is what the technology the world's peoples and politicians have to demand to save the environment
What no-one ever explains - and what I suspect the EU hasn't defined - is what a 120 g/km limit means. Is it the average for all the cars sold by a manufacturer in a given year? This would be no problem for a manufacturer like Fiat or PSA that sells mostly small cars, but very hard for a manufacturer like Jaguar or Mercedes that sells mostly big cars. But in practice it would lead to company amalgamations to give the right product mix (ie Hyundai could buy Jaguar as its small car sales could 'carry' the small number of gaz-guzzling Jags; Porsche will arrange to be part of VW.
Or is 120g/km the most that will be allowed for any car? In which case it's the end for limousines and supercars.
In either case, there should be some link to carrying capacity. Is a 2-seater producing 120g/km really greener than a 7-seater at 150g/km?
I think the answer is simply an EU-wide green tax on all new cars of, say, €25 per gram of CO2 over 120g/km. So the purchase tax on a 130g/km car would be just €50 but on a 250g/km car it would be €3250. You could even make it a negative tax on cars under 120g/km. If that's not enough, raise taxes on fuel (on an EU-wide basis to stop wasteful border-hopping in search of cheaper fuel) as that directly taxes CO2 output and will modify driver behaviour (ie encourage at least some people to drive more efficiently, buy more economical cars or cut car use).
Zimmer forgets that EU car manufacturers also export to the US where spurs into motorways are often very short so acceleration is needed to easily merge into the traffic flow.
One way to reduce car emissions is what we have in Brussels and other Belgian cities: people over 65 can travel for free on public transport. Since seniors cause more traffic accidents, the cost to society is lower and their CO2 emissions are also reduced.
Interestingly, the UK is spared that debate since there are no more British car manufacturers...
To John Somer: I grew up in the US and spent 27 years living there. I think I remember what it's like to merge onto a freeway and no, the on-ramps are not that short.
The Citroen C4 and Toyota Yaris do 0-100 kph in 11.2 and 11.8 seconds respectively and both are under 120g/km. The Honda Civic 2.2 CTDi will do it in 8.8 seconds at 135g/km.
It's not that car manufacturers can't make good, efficient, low-CO2 emitting cars. They can and do. Of course, if you want an SUV in the city (why?) or to drive a BMW 6-series... I think that's your right and you should go for it. But I don't think it ought to be taxed the same way as the Yaris.
Just as cigarettes and alcohol are taxed under the theory that those taxes go to pay for hospitals... why not tax very un-green cars? Plant some trees or crops for biofuel or something.
Calling somebody "a climate-change Judas" would indicate that we're dealing here not with ecoterrorists but with religious zealots.
That point is also being reinforced by a fact that those zealots come up, more often than not, with arguments which are hardly scientifically falsifiable.
As Thomas [the theologian] famously wrote:
CREDO QUIA ABSURDUM
Incidentally, the Greens are the same folks who have been vehemently opposed to nuclear power plants, and in case of Germany, have actually forced Chancellor Merkel's government to start closing even existing ones, thus making the country even more vulnerable to putinesque Russia's oil/gas blackmail.
Re #26. There may be no more British car manufacturers, but there's quite a lot of car manufacturing in Britain. And that's not necessarily a bad thing (jobs).
Ever since companies like Ryanair and Easyjet started to "care about the environment", not to mention all the media fuss about carbon replacement, which is now apparently part of every and any thing you do or buy, what seemed like a good idea, namely protecting the environment, suddenly seems like another corporate ruse, a meaningless fad to which governments can turn our attention to.
And as far as the Greens are concerned, I don't think they should ever be forgiven for tarnishing nuclear power, the only really plausible replacement for fossil fuels.
Seeing as how there are cars with less than 100 now (lowest I found is Smart with 88), I think the limit should be set to 120 (using car design only) for 2010, and 5 less every following year, this would get us to 95 in 2015 when we can review the climate change situation and decide if we need to up the 5 or not.
I seem to remember from history books that much important legislation in Britain (such as the end of slavery, the introduction of income support or factory acts, etc..) was pushed through parliament by governments that were fundamentally opposed but felt forced to do something in order to prevent worse.
Presumably, such things have a mediating effect on society =preventing radical change from happening quickly.
Maybe this is unfortunate when society needs to act quickly -such as with environmental and human degradation -but is perhaps good when resisting less desirable change -such as rising racism and intollerance.
However, I'm still not sure why our governments are apparently more worried by "terrorism" than by car pollution (or accidents). Don't more people die on the roads (or in the hospitals) because of the car industry than die as a result of terrorist action?
I'm still not sure why our governments are apparently more worried by "terrorism" than by car pollution (or accidents). Don't more people die on the roads (or in the hospitals) because of the car industry than die as a result of terrorist action? [#31]
True - so far. But one could also argue that more and more people die in car/bus accidents caused by terrorist actions, and, unfortunately, you don't have to move from London or Glasgow to Beirut or Baghdad to establish that the car bomb becomes an increasingly popular optional equipment.
I drive a Grand Voyager and I’m proud of it (170g emissions.) Although there are only the 4 of us at weekends when we do most of our journeys we take out our friends or parents and only use one car instead of 2.
I’m not worried about the next ice age due to emissions it’s more likely going to be Yellowstone erupting or Putin pressing the red button! The car industry should be focusing on other fuels as I do want my children to have the pleasure of driving cars and oil will run out in their lifetime if not in mine.
Instead of wasting money on debating this issue how about making sure that the streets and schools are safer so our children might survive to see the next ice age. Walking to school would be great and stop congestion and obesity – just make the streets safer!
Stop wasting money debating the end of the world, look out for the next meteorite and think about keeping the next generation safe!
BTW my husband drives a Smart as we only see the need for one big car in the family!
Sarah Livingstone [#32] wrote:
I’m not worried about the next ice age due to emissions it’s more likely going to be Yellowstone erupting or Putin pressing the red button!
Sarah, I don't want to scare you, but what you've writtten is highly politically incorrect and certain Nobel Peace Prize laureat (and the biggest individual energy consumer in the great state of Tennessee) may punish you severly if he ever becomes US president.
arah Livingston, Thanks - you're a voice of sanity and great role model.
All we need do now is persuade the public that enviro-fundamentalists spread bovine tuberculosis we'll be able to rid ourselves of these troublesome pseudo-priests and put a stop to this nonsense.
Trevor Batten (32):
"Don't more people die on the roads (or in the hospitals) because of the car industry than die as a result of terrorist action?"
No. More people do NOT die on the roads 'because of the car industry'. They die because they are careless, the drivers are careless, or there is what we used, in the old days, to call 'an accident' and what is nowadays seen as an opportunity for litigation or a chance to have speed cameras and speed humps fitted to a street.
Over the last 20 years, despite a substantial growth in road traffic, deaths and injuries on the roads have fallen every year.
I cannot bear the road safety brigade who persistently ignore the fact that speed is NOT the primary cause of the majority of accidents. It is a secondary cause but the primary causes are booze, drugs or stupidity.
Having read some of the previous posts it is shockign the amount of misguided prejudice that is out there. the guy that wanted to ban senior citizens to reduce accidents is deluded - it's young male drivers that accelerate hard that cuase the most emissions and that cause most accidenst - hecne their sky high insurance premiums.
The previous post is also appaling pro-car propaganda that is nor supported by the facts.
Deaths on UK roads continue to total around 3,500 every year and despite numerous initiatives and safety improvmnets in cars this figure steadfastly refuses to come down.
Why?
cars are increasingly dangerouly comfortable.
Manudfacturesr make cars to make a profit not to be safe. the two are mutually exclusive.
Manufacturers are largely to blame for making the driver so detached from the realities of driving that cars make you oblivious to your actions. They are so quiet, so comfortable and reduce the sensation of speed so much. safety belts, air bags, crumple zones, anti lock brakes all make drivers 'feel' sfae and give the illusion of safety but actually encourage reckless driving.
people also completly miss the point of why this CO2 legislation is being enacted : Under the Kyotot protocol we are legally obliged to reduce our co2 emissions by 20% by 2020.
Cars are the fastets rising sector of Co2 emissions due to increasing car ownership, increasing mileage and grwoing congestion slowing people down.
As has previously been claimed it is not the power geneartion sector that is 'belching out'emissions This sector has redcued emissions - the car industry is the worst emitter that is undermining efforts in other asectors to meet kyoto.
But this is not just about CO2. Even if global warming is disproved(extrremly unlikely given the overwhelming weight of evidence and eminent scientists putting there name behind it) there is the issue of energy security. We are overly dependent on imported oil. Studies have also shown that reducign demand by 10% would result in a 10% redcution in oil prices - good news for all drivers.
The current euroopean fleet average emissions are 160g CO2/km and it there is evidence that manufactures are withholding technology until they are forced to use them. for example why aren't all manufactures fitting there cars with low rolling resistant tyres - a 3% improvement overnight without qny lead times or investment needed by the car manufacturers.
the car manufacturers can reach the taregts reasonably easily with simply redesign of their vehicles - the only real question is can they then sell them to the public and convince them about higher intial car costs being counterbalanced by lower total cost of ownership(TCO) by lower fuel consumption.
Actually, with reference to # 31, and #37 I really would like to see a serious factually based comparason of the risk of death or injury by terrorist action compared with other forms of (health) risk -such as domestic crime, home or work related accidents and various "environmental" health problems including obesity, heart disease and lung problems. Plus, of course some indication of government spending around the world -both paliative and preventative, separately costed for comparason.
It is true that car accidents have been reduced as car safety has improved -but then so has protection for soldiers. I understand that fatalities were reduced in Northern Ireland not because of more aggressive actions by soldiers but because of "defensive" measures such as Kevlon jackets, etc...
But this should not become just a simplistic bickering over accounting: Car accidents are not the only cause of death caused by the motor industry. There are respiratory problems caused by pollution and obesity caused by lack of exercize, industrial accidents in car related production plants and even accidents involving fuel transport (both by ship as by road). We might also add economic costs caused by congestion which could be solved by better public transport. Plus of course the hidden costs (both financial and in time and energy) to those who, for whatever reason, are dependant on a poor public transport system because of high levels of car ownership (perhaps due to poor public tansport). Then there is the effect of "Energy Security" which is clearly also an important part of the picture -which is easilly ignored if one concentrates on road accidents.
Maybe the negative effects of car ownership are fairly well hidden from the rich Europeans -but in other countries they may be more obvious -and, for several reasons, the population is often less able to take their own destiny into their own hands. When standards improve in the rich countries then manufactures (of all kinds) often dump their inferior products in the third world. The rich are vocifereously happy but the poor often have to suffer in silence.
On the other hand, as both Putin and Bush well know -to have a virtually invincible army (in relation to ones opponent) gives one total freedom. Increasing car safety (and increasing speed limits) may only intensify the shock (and damage) done when an accident does occur -as they surely will bcause people are not perfect machines. In a similar way, raising the level of insulation against dissent (both peaceful and violent) might only serve to increase resentment and cause even greater explosions in reaction.
Many governments still seem to prefer protecting themselves to protecting the people who employ them. Finding technological solutions to human problems also dehumanises people-and effectively reduces their personal choice.
In any case -please let's have reliable figures as a basis for discussion -and then we can see what the human cost of the various policies are. I understand that the US kept careful tally of US personel killed in Iraq -but didn't bother with collecting equivalent figures for civilians killed by American actions. In such cases, propaganda will always triumph over reason: When the focus is on the (violent) reaction but not on the causes of that reaction -then the problem can never be solved except by the total extermination of one side by the other. If that's what you want -then keep driving and keep killing and don't worry about the consequences.
Unless I am entirely stupid (which I'm not), 125 g/km in 2015 still sounds pretty tough. If the industry is at 161 or 162 now, they have 12 years to get rid of 40 g/km and that sounds like a lot to me. Yes, they are late with hybrids, but they only work well in urban traffic. They have done a lot with diesel, that was a real help. And people are still buying SUV's. So to get real results FAST, I guess taxing cars that emit a lot of co2 helps immediatly, just aqs encouraging fuel efficient cars (and that doesn't mean necessarily smaller cars) would help a lot!! And if the Greens want to change the world, they better get more voters to vote for them. Even the European Parliament is democraticly elected, reflecting voters preferences. That'sa reality.
Of course I can only agree with daniel billinton (# 38).
However, perhaps the really important (and perhaps worrying) question is:
In the "information age" -with so many efficient and effective communication systems, so much focus on eduction and communication -so much trust and belief in the democratic voice of the educated and informed citizen -how on earth is it possible that so many people can apparently be so biased, misinformed and irreponsible?
Could it be that the "information" we are flooded with daily does not inform and educate -but is mere propaganda that conditions and numbs the brain?
Can we really look at other societies and claim (as we so often appear to do) that they are brain-washed fools -and that we are trully intelligent and free?
One nice feature of this version is that it puts the focus squarely on improving design, rather than being able to offload the green savings to other fuels, which as far as I can remember are already covered by a speperate ruling. This, if it works, will give our car makers an advantage when (if) more univeral carbon trading comes in, because they will be used to working to an extra set of design considerations. Many are doing this already, now everyone will have to.
Its not just the cars that are a problem. Its the fuel they use to power them.
Cars running on ethanol, which is distilled from agricultural crops and biomass are governed by the same laws of physics as those using petrol in that both fuels emit CO2 as a consequence of combustion, however the crucial difference is that burning ethanol recycles CO2 because it has already been removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis during the natural growth of agricultural crops.
Not only changing fuel will help reduce CO2 output it will create alot of new jobs in industries such as argriculture, engineering, manufacturing and more. There would be less need to import fuel which not only contributes to CO2 output but also adds the risk of oil spills.
There are plenty of crops that have alot more potential for ethonal than just the crops that seem to get promoted alot.
Also about China and India. They produce alot of biofuel from hemp that absorbs CO2 during plant growth. This doesnt seem to get reducted from their CO2 output.
Why are we so focused on merely CO2?
Does the public know that there are other greenhouse gases that have an effect?
Also, has anyone considered how much CO2 has gone into making all these "eco-friendly" new cars in the first place?...Thought not.
Everyone is being conned and even the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ is playing along. I'm sick and tired of the talking heads and politicians gaining Nobel "Peace" prizes for promoting green policies and producing documentaries which a UK judge recently quite rightly pointed out was full of "un-truths".
Andrew Hall- Yes you're quite correct, sugar cane would be a far better crop to use for alcohol production than corn for example...
To the previous poster i have to respond as you misunderstand the reason for CO2 being targetted.
The European signed a legally binding Kyoto commitment to reduce CO2 by 20% by 2020 (from 1990 levels)
Yes there are other green house gasses such as methane, nitrous oxide and water vapour, but CO2 is by far the major emission from cars. and cars are the fastest rising sector of CO2 emissions having risen 26% since 1994 whilst power geneartion and manufacturing have actually reduced emissions.
It is quite right then that CO2 is targeted.
Your assertion that 'eco-friendly' cars is also a nonsense as these types of cars tend to be smaller and use less material.
Furthermore, a typical car(figures from ACEA) consumes 10% of its lifetime energy use in manufacture, 85% in use and 5% in recycling.
Therefore focussing on the 85% in use phase and reducing fuel consumption is entirely right if you want to reduce overall emissions
You're missing the biggest problem. It's not the debate between 120 and 125 g/km emissions difference. That is trivial. The real issue is getting the world's biggest energy wasters (USA, China) to significantly reduce their overall consumption of fossil fuels. A 1% improvement in US average automobile mileage would dwarf the 5 g/km difference you're arguing about. I live in Houston, Texas, and let me tell you I see waste every day. Almost everyone drives to work (avg 30-40 miles each way) by themselves. Virtually no one carpools. Fully 1/2 the vehicles are trucks or SUV's that get about 15 miles/gallon. Of course, fuel is still cheap at US$2.90/gallon. Everyone complains, but that's because they haven't lived in reality their entire lives. We need an energy policy that penalizes the wasteful use of energy. Do you know that virtually every vehicle made by the Big-3 (GM, Ford, Chrysler) in Detroit comes with a V-8 engine? There is no mass transit. It's a real mess, and we don't have the leadership in this country that has the political courage to tell Americans the truth - that is, it's high time we tighten our belts and get serious about energy efficiency. Raising the price of a gallon of gas to $5.00 (and keeping it there long-term by means of additional taxes if necessary) will force consumers to change, and will give businesses the long-term energy price forecasts that they need to make long-term investments in more efficienct machinery and factories. CO2 emissions will point us in the right direction and I support it for that reason, but MUCH MORE is required!!
well you have hugely overstated the difference between Europe and America.
European cars produce around 1.55 of global CO2
American cars produce around 2.5% of global CO2
thereofre they are comparable - and European car ownership and mileage is growing much faster than American car oownership so those two figures will soon become equal.
Your're also wrong about a $5 gallon forcing consumers to change - In Europe and the UK fuel averages around $7 to $8 per US gallon - and despite this draconian fiscal measure car use is still growing and cars are actually getting larger, more powerful and heavier as consumers get wealthier they want more prestigious SUV's etc.
the only way therefore to shape consumer demand is to legislate the manufacturers to make available attractive low emissions cars which consumers want to buy - that is really the challenge - and all the indicators are that it can be done relatively easily without having to resort to expensive hybridisation