Twitter headlines« Mazda to Provide 30 RX-8 Hydrogen RE Vehicles to HyNor; Hydrogen RE Hybrid Tracking for 2008 | Main | City of Seattle and Local Agencies to Test 13 Plug-In Hybrids »
European Parliament Votes for 125g/km CO2 Limits for New Vehicles by 2015
24 October 2007
The European Parliament adopted via a non-binding vote today a report calling for legislation to cap average emissions from all new passenger cars at 125g CO2/km by 2015. Current average new vehicle CO 2 emissions are approximately 160 g/km.
About 19% of EU CO2 emissions are produced by passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles. As a result of the automotive industry's failure to reduce emissions to specified targets under a voluntary commitment, the EU has been moving steadily toward binding legislation to mandate limits. The exact targets have been under much debate.
The original target was 120 g/km by 2012. A compromise position was then suggested of a target of 130 g/km from the vehicles, with another 10 g/km to come from other measures, such as biofuels. The auto industry has said it needs more time. The industry also points to the need for contribution from other sectors—i.e., the fuel companies and the consumers.
The plan adopted by the European Parliament does provide the time extension; however it compels car makers to meet the 125 g/km target by technical means alone—i.e., without relying on other CO2 reducing measures such as biofuels, special tires, or improvements in air conditioning systems.
Emission reductions must be made a priority for car makers, but they have to be achieved at the lowest possible expense. That means giving industry specific targets and sufficient time to make the changes. These improvements may increase the price of new cars, but then reduced emissions mean improved fuel economy.
—Chris Davies, MEP
As of 2020, according to the plan, average emissions should not exceed 95g CO2/km. Long-term targets, urge MEPs, should be determined by no later than 2016: these targets “will possibly require further emissions reductions to 70g CO2/km or less by 2025.”
Recognizing, however, the difficulties that some specialist manufacturers may have in reducing average emissions across the limited range of cars they produce, Members of Parliament stressed the importance of allowing particular vehicles to exceed emission limits to avoid excessive disruptions to the car market. To that end, they also propose that each manufacturer have the right “to exclude 500 identified vehicles annually from inclusion in the data used to determine average emissions.”
Finally, the report proposes the introduction in 2011 of a Carbon Allowance Reductions System (CARS), a market mechanism through which carmakers would have to pay penalties for exceeding the emissions limits. Such penalties, notes the text, “may be offset by redeemable credits awarded to newly registered passenger cars” (of the same manufacturer) whose emissions fall below the limit values.
On the other hand, low emission cars—such as hydrogen, fuel cell, and plug-in vehicles—should benefit from a credit system, “which should allow each vehicle of this type introduced between now and the first year of implementation to be counted under the CO2 monitoring procedure as equivalent to, for example, forty conventional vehicles.”
Lastly, Members recommend introducing requirements for the display of information relating to the fuel economy (l/100 km) and CO2 emissions (g/km) of new cars on vehicles and in advertising (whether TV, radio, Internet or other), all marketing and promotional literature, as well as showrooms.
A minimum of 20% of the space devoted to such advertising, the report proposes, should provide information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions.
The adopted proposal was criticized by many environmental organizations in Europe. The European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), for example, noted that in terms of emissions reduction per year, the adopted target is 40% weaker than the existing EU target of 120g/km by 2012 and 20% weaker than the 130g/km by 2012 compromise position announced in February.
Making cars more fuel efficient is one of the most important steps Europe can take to cut emissions, reduce oil dependency and cut fuel costs, yet 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. As the report is non-binding, it's now up to the European Commission to ensure carmakers stick to the 13-year-old 120 target when they announce a legal proposal later this year.
—Dr Aat Peterse, Policy Officer, T&E
However, T&E noted, the recognition of the importance of longer term targets is a positive development, although the organization is pushing for 80 g/km by 2020, rather than the proposed 95 g/km.
Resources
Text as adopted by the EP on 24 October will shortly be available here
October 24, 2007 in Climate Change, Europe, Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: Gio | October 24, 2007 at 11:03 AM
This translates into going from 34 to 44 mpg for gasoline and 39 to 50 mpg for diesel. Pretty aggressive.
I wonder how they'll account for PHEVs in the near future. Tailpipe emissions only?
Posted by: jack | October 24, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Once again the Euro Greens talk a good show and never really do anything.
Posturing, Posturing and more Posturing.
By the time these standards actually get around to biting, the colossal fraud of CO2 concerns will have long been discredited. The IPCC will have properly buried this, as it is already in the process of doing, along with other pseudo-science nonsense like Acid rain, Population bombs, Ozone holes, and Area 51 UFOs.
The US will once again have done the heavy lifting and its electrified auto fleet, will have exceeded these senseless figures anyways. Its residual ICE engined LDVs will be close to satsifying these standards as well, as HCCI and genuinely clean Diesels predominate.
Posted by: | October 24, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Dr.Aat Peterse
Programme Manager, Low Carbon Cars
Bad new spark plug that saves 70% of fuel
EU i US strategy reduction CO2 ,reduce fuel-The Revolutionary Fire Storm
Spark Plug inventor Robert Krupa patent US.
For years now, I have wondered where and when the next Edison with a
bright idea will appear and invent a "lean, green, driving machine". I
have finally found such a man. He lives in Farmington Hills, Michigan,
and
his name is Robert Krupa.
We have all heard the saying, "If something sounds too good to be true,
it
usually is". The amazing new spark plug designed by Mr Krupa, which he
named "FireStorm", is the exception to this rule.
I know that when it comes to buying spark plugs, they are all basically
the same except for the price. So, why make a big deal about another new
spark plug?
Fire Storm Capabilities
First, let look at what Krupa FireStorm spark plugs give an
internal
combustion engine:
More horsepower;
44%50% increase in mpg;
Dramatic decrease in emissions.
Second, let see what FireStorm plugs eliminate:
Smog pump;
Catalytic converter;
Radio frequency interference (RFI) and the use of resistors in the
centre
electrode;
Gap growth;
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems;
Misfire/hesitation/detonation/stutter and stumble.
How, you may ask, is all this achieved? In a word, plasma. The
revolutionary design of FireStorm spark plugs creates an electric plasma
that fills the entire combustion chamber like a firestorm. It allows you
to take an internal combustion engine from the standard 14.7:1
air-to-fuel
ratio to an incredibly lean 24:1. At this ratio, all the air/fuel mixture
is burned much more efficiently without increasing heat, thus giving an
engine more power and fuel economy while creating much less pollution.
That the good news
The bad news is that you can buy a set of FireStorm spark plugs
anywhere
right now. No spark plug company wants to make them ?
Full Text
Nexusmagazine:http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Firestorm.html
,http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=87928>Disp=0
,http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=200213
,http://www.firestormperformanceproducts.com/#
Henryk Mongiało Poland
Posted by: henryk | October 24, 2007 at 01:24 PM
Posted by: | Oct 24, 2007 12:45:41 PM
Hi, Stan!
Posted by: jack | October 24, 2007 at 01:47 PM
"Hi, Stan!" .. doubt it. Much too short of a post. How many Stan posts have you seen that were less than a full screen?
Posted by: Neil | October 24, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Postponing the deadline to 2015 is something of a cop-out because ACEA, JAMA and KAMA have known for many years that mandatory regulation would happen if they failed to meet their self-imposed voluntary targets for MY2008.
Unfortunately, fiddling with the numerical target (120 or 130 or 125) is skirting the fundamental issue: how are the averages calculated?
That is actually a two-part question: first, which drive cycle is used to determine the CO2 emissions of individual vehicle models? The overly lenient NEDC really ought to be replaced by the more representative CADC in this context, even if it means allowing a higher number for the fleet average and, switching to robots to operate pedals and manual transmissions during the test. Air conditioning load should be included in any update to the drive cycle, because it is quite significant at low vehicle speeds.
Either way, a standardized way to express total environmental damage by FCVs, BEVs and PHEVs is urgently required. These technologies simply break the current model.
Second, across which vehicles are the fleet averages computed? Doing this per vehicle or even per brand would cause massive disruption. This bill apparently calls for an averaging mechanism applied to each manufacturer, which would hurt German and Swedish car makers far more than their French and Italian rivals. Excepting 500 vehicles per year isn't going to appease Daimler AG or BMW AG. Porsche AG may not be affected if they buy a controlling stake in VW AG (which includes Audi, Bentley and Bugatti) and this is factored into the overall computation.
Equally daft is the complicated emissions trading scheme, with politicians picking favorite technologies such as FCVs and PHEVs and, mandating that 20% of advertising space/time be allocate to fuel economy/CO2 emissions. This would be a huge market distortion comparable only to California's ZEV mandate. Industry resistance to such meddling would be equally fierce.
Instead, European governments need to step up to the plate and agree unanimously to raise minimum fuel tax rates substantially further between now and 2020. Predictably high fuel cost is the only proven way to generate consumer demand for high fuel economy.
In addition, EU governments need to deregulate their energy markets permit more cross-border trading and reduce prices. This is anyhow high on the Commission's to-do list but national governments are still fiercely protecting their "national champions" which in some cases are still partially or wholly in state ownership. CNG/ANG, BEV and PHEV cars in particular would benefit, but the benefits would extend far beyond the automotive sector.
@ Gio -
while it is true that the European parliament cannot enact laws by itself, ìt is not true that it has no power. All directives proposed by the EU Commission have to be approved by both the Council (i.e. the governments of member states) and the parliament.
However, only the Commission can formally present draft directives, so this particular bill is merely intended to influence its deliberations.
Note that Chris Davies is technically a UK Liberal Democrat, not a member of the UK Green party. However, the policies are similar.
@ Henryk, Michael Weng -
pls don't abuse this blog for commercial advertising, especially if it is totally unrelated to the article. It's just really bad manners. Thank you for your co-operation.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | October 25, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Rafael ,mnie nie chodzi o reklame tylko o global warming i o moj portfel w zwiazku z cena gasoliny.
Zalezy mi aby samochod spalał jak najmniej gasoliny ,a wskazuje koncernom mozliwosc zmniejszenia CO2 i reduce fuel wbrew temu co one twierdza, ze nie mozna nic ulepszyc w silnikach. Dosyc tych swiec zapłonowych ,ktorych konstrukcja nie zmieniła sie od 100 lat.Przyszłosc dla nas to Plasma Fire Storm Spark Plug. I nie Chodzi tu o żadna reklame!
Posted by: henryk | October 25, 2007 at 02:26 PM
The German mafia is having its way again! We successfully postponed the EU decision back in January 2007. Now the limits will be diluted to wherever we see fit - don't people understand that Germany decides what goes on in EU? France and Italy may have the most envornmentally friendly cars, but this does not matter, as Germany will decide if the limits are enforced (so the answer is no, of course)
Posted by: Sigried Kutzenfimbenkugen | October 27, 2007 at 09:54 PM
Sigreid!
Soon had answer for the German motor industry for Lord Verhougena with PE The Revolutionary FireStorm Spark Plug
Posted by: henryk | October 28, 2007 at 12:05 AM
I didn't really bother reading about the spark plugs, nor did I understand much of what Henryk had to say. It's just that it's nice to see the German's can do as they please (first with a delay in Jan, now with a second delay and easier limits), even though the environmental impact will be tremendous!
Danke, Frau Dr. Prof. Angela Merkel (plus lobbyists) !
Posted by: Sigfried Kutzenfimbenkugen | October 29, 2007 at 06:08 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e54f11dc198834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference European Parliament Votes for 125g/km CO2 Limits for New Vehicles by 2015:
Nice, but sadly the European Parliament has no power. The Commission and the Council do. As long as they don't push this, nothing will happen. Given that the Council defends national interests, Germany, with its auto industry, will probably not back this.