http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2396828,00.html

fwiw, my comment:

if they don't tackle growth of car-km's, this mission is futile.

Especially in the former East Block countries there is still a lot of potental growth.

Whilst I support the overall need to reduce CO2 from road vehicles, and therefore making it cheaper to drive, whilst saving the planet, I find the argument used by Ms Kelly typical of political spin designed to confuse the masses.

Let's cut through the spin and misdirection in Ms Kelly's comments:

1) "Harmful road transport emissions continue to rise"
True, but emissions of CO2 from CARS in the UK have fallen year on year since 1997, whilst miles travelled have increased 10% (if you don't believe me see p43 in this report by the SMMT -
http://smmtlib.findlay.co.uk/articles/sharedfolder/Publications/SMMT%20Annual%20CO2%20report%202008%20revised3.pdf)
Over the same time CO2 emissions from HGV's, LDV's and buses have increased.

2) "That is why we support this move to introduce mandatory CO2 targets for new cars"
Sorry, what's the link? - CO2 emissions from trucks and vans increase, whilst cars decrease, but they support mandatory limits on cars? with car CO2 emissions comprising 12% of total UK transport emissions, using Ms Kelly's logic, they should be supporting mandatory limits on trucks and buses - Or planes, trains and ships for that matter.

The government of the UK has the power and can get the capital to reduce CO2 emissions of the county greatly. It can build nuclear power plants that produce enough power so that all buildings connected to the grid get all of their energy requirements by using electric heat-pumps and burn no gas or coal. Electric cars can be built in large quantity at low prices. Even lead acid batteries are adequate for driving costs less than petrol can provide. Plug in hybrid cars can be used for the long distance travel that is rarely needed. Electric trains can provide for most long distance travel. Containerized freight shipments and lorries on rail-cars(channel tunnel style) can take care of much long distance freight.

Not one commercial nuclear powerplant has failed in the UK. They are statistically safe enough to provide steam heat for many cities as geothermal heat is used in Iceland. Reactors that produce mostly heating can be built cheaply; Chernobyl was a high pressure steam explosion and a subsequent charcoal fire.

CO2 reduction has become an obsession without clear rules. Why not give each inhabitant an identical CO2 ration. If I buy a small efficient car, those that buy a big one and take jet flights etc. pay me for my unused ration. The CO2 value of each product purchased will be known and added up like the VAT it can be called CAT. ..HG..

Whilst life as we know it might vanish from the earth and humans as well, the earth will remain if every gram of fossil fuel were burnt into C02 and put into the atmosphere where it might even remain for a few million years. The earth would support a greater diversity of life forms if humans were not using up many resources including biomass.. ..HG..

Now even the pesky Chinese confirm we have been much warmer than today:

"During past two millennia, a warming trend in the 20th century was clearly detected, but the warming magnitude was smaller than the maximum level of the Medieval Warm Period and the Middle Holocene."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AdAtS..24.1024G

And we have yet MORE evidence that increased levels of CO2 enhance forest growth AND carbon sequestration - particularly Net Primary Production (NPP).

"...it is unlikely that ecosystem productivity will be stimulated by CO2 enrichment indefinitely...[however] CO2 enrichment has the potential to stimulate productivity (and carbon sequestration) in N-limited ecosystems more than previously expected."

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/35/14014.abstract?sid=686f2014-f563-4e71-899b-ccc3687e3566

The UK has absolutely no impact on Global Warming relative to the impact of China. In practical terms, these environmental government pronouncements are for internal political consumption only and will not impact the global warming situation at all. Sometimes, it’s hard to accept the fact that your words or actions have no impact, but after reality dawns, emphasis can be placed on the most productive issues and progress can be made. Think about China.

Kraje dawnego bloku sa zainteresowane zmniejszeniem emisji CO2 w samochodach osobowych.Tylko my w Uni dazymy do to a w US i Kanadzie jakos sie nie spiesza. US maja znakomity wynalazek w postaci FireStorm Spark Plug inventor Robert Krupa Mi.

Ten patent US morze uratowac globalne grzanie i zużycie paliwa

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Firestorm_spark_plug

Henry Gibson,

Why make it complicated, expensive and slow, when you can have it quick, inexpensive and easy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klooRS-Jjyo

Energy consumption China: 10220.93 kWh/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/CN-encc.html

Energy consumption UK: 48648.36 kWh/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/GB-encc.html

The western nations combined have almost as many people as China. What's the reason that the West is entitled to consume several times more energy than China?

Why do western nations keep on buying consumer goods from China? After all, if it is all China's fault, simply stop buying Chinese.

Simply stop buying Chinese instead of blaming them for beeing only 5 times more efficent than the UK or only 10 times more efficient than the US.
It's easy - nobody puts a gun on your head to buy Chinese consumer goods.

@Knot Afeard:

Just because one study shows forest productivity increases does not mean all forest will react similarly. And while N-limited eco-systems may react to absorb more N, this does not apply to all biomass.

And remember, forest mitigation of CO2 is only available where there are forests. Many of which are being logged, clear cut or burned to the ground by emerging nations. CO2 may not be a toxic, but without oceans and forest uptake - we'd be at 500ppm today.

The link for the consultation is:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/co2emissions/

Government policy on responses to global climate change is still being formed, so I would urge green car congress expert contributors to influence policy by making taking time to respond to this consultation.

My own observations are:
a.) It is clear that the voluntary target of 140g accepted by the motor industry for 2008 & 2009 will not be met.
b.) The government policies and regulations required to control GHG emissions are still not in place.
c.) Governments should set technology neutral targets and let companies compete in the market to provide the solutions.
d.) The single most effective measure to control GHG emissions of new car registrations would be a feebate so that the car showroom sticker prices include a rebate or fee depending on the GHG emissions of the vehicle. The rebate could be as much as -15% for BEVs, -10% for PHEVs, and -5% for HEVs. The fee for vehicles with CO2 equivalent GHG emissions just above 100g/km could be modest while the fee for the biggest gas guzzlers could be steep - say 40% or 50%; whatever is needed to achieve the target average. (Let the polluter pay principle.)
e.) The EU should negotiate internationally for common or at least agreed targets for average CO2/km emissions of new car sales in all countries. USA, Russia, China & India should be expected to set challenging targets for average CO2 emissions on their new car sales too, with policies such as feebates to achieve the targets.