« China Developing Fastest Bullet Train | Main | eCourier Adds EVs to Fleet »
European Poll Finds 87% Support Urgent 25% Reduction in New Car Fuel Consumption
1 September 2008
 |
| 87% of respondents think a 25% reduction in fuel consumption is very or fairly urgent. Click to enlarge. |
An opinion poll in five major European countries—France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK— found a strong majority (87%) of those surveyed support an urgent reduction in new car fuel consumption of 25%—equivalent to the 120 g CO2/km target being discussed by the European Parliament. The results come ahead of decisive votes in the European Parliament on proposed new legally-binding target for new car CO2 emissions.
The poll—carried out by TNS Opinion—probed close to 5,000 people in the five countries. Almost half (46%) of respondents think that requiring manufacturers to reduce the fuel consumption of vehicles is the best approach to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, ahead of tax incentives (27%) and promoting fuel-efficient cars through better information (13%). Seven percent support restrictions on the use of cars.
 |
| Willingness to pay for 25% reduction in fuel consumption. Click to enlarge. |
Ten percent of the respondents said they would be willing to pay between 1-5% more for a new car that consumed 25% less fuel but had the same size and performance; 26% would pay 6-10% more; 21% would pay 11-20% more; and 8% said they would pay nothing more.
Seventy-two percent of respondents said that fuel prices currently were affecting the financial situation of their households. Around two thirds (64%) of citizens support the statement that such measures will be good for their national economy because people will buy less fuel and have more money to spend on other things.
Respondents listed fuel consumption (64%) as the most important consideration, apart from price, when choosing a new car. Safety was second (37%) and environmentally clean third (26%).
Resources
September 1, 2008 in Europe, Fuel Efficiency | Permalink | Comments (34) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/32965426
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference European Poll Finds 87% Support Urgent 25% Reduction in New Car Fuel Consumption:
Comments
Basically, respondents want cars that are 25% more fuel efficient, as long as they don't have to pay any extra (10% more up front is about the same as they would save in fuel).
On top of that, they don't want to compromise size or performance.
The survey question may as well have been "would you like to get something for nothing?"
Posted by: Bernard | Sep 1, 2008 8:05:22 AM
In Southern California, if people lived closer to where they work and drive 60 mph on the highway, we could save 25%. Hybrids help, but are not all that much better on the highways. EVs would be good, but people think that they need 400 mile range.
There is going to have to be some compromises with personal transportation. People may have to give up something, but are waiting for someone to give them everything without having to make any personal changes.
I would settle for a good series/parallel hybrid like the BYD with electric turbo compounding. It would preform well and get maybe 50 mpg. You could really not ask for much more..but some people probably will.
I hear lots of people saying "somebody better do something quick", as if it is up to others to solve their problems for them. Behavioral changes like reducing commuting miles, proper tire pressure, tune ups, driving 60 mph would do something right away and it is something that they can do themselves.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 1, 2008 9:20:23 AM
The consistent downsizing of engines for French and Italian vehicles and the third generation of diesel engines (multijet, HDi and dCi) are examples of how this has nothing to do with getting something for free. The cars I am referring to actually cost LESS than their more polluting alternatives. Likewise, the cars on this list cost LESS than cars with much higer emissions:
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/how-to-use-the-data-tables.asp#petrol
The only people here trying to get a free ride are the German automakers, who think they can get away with polluting more in EVERY CAR CLASS (see above list) and be thanked for it. If the situation weren'r as drastic as it is they would perhaps have had a chance of doing this.
Posted by: Karl-Uwe Strunzen | Sep 1, 2008 10:27:25 AM
The consistent downsizing of engines for French and Italian vehicles and the third generation of diesel engines (multijet, HDi and dCi) are examples of how this has nothing to do with getting something for free. The cars I am referring to actually cost LESS than their more polluting alternatives. Likewise, the cars on this list cost LESS than cars with much higer emissions:
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/how-to-use-the-data-tables.asp#petrol
The only people here trying to get a free ride are the German automakers, who think they can get away with polluting more in EVERY CAR CLASS (see above list) and be thanked for it. If the situation weren'r as drastic as it is they would perhaps have had a chance of doing this.
Posted by: Karl-Uwe Strunzen | Sep 1, 2008 10:28:10 AM
Karl-Uwe,
Nice try, but you forgot to read the article.
The article says that the vast majority of people who answer such surveys would like to drive a car that consumes 25% less fuel, as long as their net cost is €0.00. They are willing to pay slightly more for the car itself, but only about as much as they would be saving in fuel costs.
One would assume that a large number of respondents already drive cars that use "3rd generation diesel engines," if they were a representative sample of the European population.
So what we learn from this is that people are not against the idea of making the world a better place, just as long as they are not asked to contribute any effort at all...
Posted by: Bernard | Sep 1, 2008 10:55:33 AM
sjc:
I like your common sense approach but the majority of us lost much of our common sense years ago and most want to barrel down the streets and highways with 3 to 4-tonne 4 x 4 with at least 7 seats and 20-in wheels. To get 50+ mpg with such vehicles would required an engineering miracle.
However, it would be possible to build 1-tonne, 4 passenger cars capable of 50+ mpg. Many European and Asian car builders are doing it or will do it very soon.
I doubt that it will cost more to build such vehicles. In fact it sould cost less.
Posted by: HarveyD | Sep 1, 2008 1:20:44 PM
Maybe we just have to go through this process to get there, but I hope that we do get there soon. It is one of those issues that hangs over people's lives that they do not really want to face. Will we have abundant affordable energy for the rest of our lives? The answer is probably yes, but a few simple changes will have to be made.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 1, 2008 1:51:42 PM
Most of the Ford Focus class diesels in europe can get > 64mpg (UK) which would be 50 mpg US.
The smaller cars are slightly better.
These are ideal for long commutes and big enough for most families. They weigh 1.3 - 1.4 tons.
The problem is that most cars are ridiculously over-specced in terms of max speed, acceleration and load carrying capacity.
if people bought what they need for 98% of their driving instead of 99.8% and rented larger vehicles when they really needed to tow stuff, we could drop the carbon footprint quite a bit without any new technology.
But, if people keep using cars as wealth display vehicles, we are doomed.
Posted by: mahonj | Sep 1, 2008 2:21:17 PM
I'm a big dude and I prefer big vehicles - I would definitely have a full size truck or sports car with a big V-8 if gas was cheap enough.....and I wouldn't have any guilt for my carbon footprint like so many weirdos out there. Instead of engineering for small vehicles that accelerate 0-60 in 60 seconds, are deathtraps in crashes and have 25 HP engines, I hope that some company will still make big vehicles in the future with big horsepower, but uses cheap & clean fuel.
Posted by: ejj | Sep 1, 2008 4:40:29 PM
"But, if people keep using cars as wealth display vehicles, we are doomed"
We are doomed then .... Get the sandbags out!
Posted by: Andrew | Sep 1, 2008 6:34:05 PM
"One would assume that a large number of respondents already drive cars that use "3rd generation diesel engines," if they were a representative sample of the European population."
this is obviously a wrong assumption, otherwise we wouldn't have the high CO2 levels in the first place. There certainly are plenty of such cars around, but still they represent a proportion of the European car fleet which still isn't high enough. The same is true for the latest petrol engines and the comprehensive list of both types is to be found here -
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/how-to-use-the-data-tables.asp#petrol
Just which part of "the above list of most efficient European cars is also the list of the LEAST expensive" don't you understand?
"I'm a big dude and I prefer big vehicles". We've got big dudes over in Europe too (unless you mean spherical), but we still prefer compact cars because these are recognised as win-win vehicles - good for the pocket, efficient in getting around town and good for the environment. People here have stopped believeing in the 700hp marketing bit....
The difference between the US and Europe is that given the damage done by tractors, politicians here have actually done their jobs and have put in force measures (with the exception of Germany) which promote the use of more efficient vehicles.
http://www.transportenvironment.org/Publications/prep_hand_out/lid:513
Compare (page 13) the performance of countries like Italy and France (second and third position) with Germany (15th position) which has enacted no such measures. e.g. in Germany last year 25% more vehicles were sold compared with Italy, but Germany had disproportionately 44% more average emissions.....
Posted by: Karl-Uwe Strunzen | Sep 1, 2008 7:22:16 PM
A debate has started this week in Bruxelles to decide which measures to take against car manufacturers which continue to produce vehicles that have absurdly high emissions. On the one hand these measures are very urgent, and on the other you have a very powerful German mafia group which has already had its way several times in Bruxelles.
No matter which way the tide turns, individual European countries (11 to be exact) except Germany are doing the right thing anyway to curb tractors and unnecessary pollution from their streets. The comprehensive list of measures by country can be found here:
http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20080302_CO%202%20tax%20overview.pdf
Posted by: Karl-Uwe Strrunzen | Sep 1, 2008 7:30:46 PM
A 25% fuel consumption reduction has already been achieved by A segment vehicles in Europe, compared with their predecessors, and at a net cost of zero, by introducing engines such as the 1.3 multijet (Fiat, Opel, Suzuki, Tata, Saab with the TST, Ford), and by introducing weight, aerodynamics, tyre and gear ratio changes. The same thing is happening again with the new 900cc engine and the new generation of HDi and dCi engines. Cars such as the Toyota IQ are also going to achieve such targets, without being 2-seaters......
Posted by: Karl-Uwe Strunzen | Sep 1, 2008 7:44:56 PM
The revealing part of the story is that a majority would pay more to cut fuel consumption by 25% if they did not sacrifice performance and size.
Good for them. They will be offered that chance.
The rest of the story is a tangled mess and not useful.
Those polled had to choose between measures that might cost them and measures that were certain to cost them. And between measures certain to work and those less likely.
Surprise! People prefer measures that will work and might cost. They reject those that might work and are certain to cost.
"The poll...probed ... 5,000 people in the five countries. 46% of respondents think that requiring manufacturers to reduce the fuel consumption of vehicles is the best approach... ahead of tax incentives (27%) and promoting fuel-efficient cars through better information (13%). Seven percent support restrictions on the use of cars."
Posted by: K | Sep 1, 2008 11:17:08 PM
sjc wrote:
> Hybrids help, but are not all that much better on the
> highways. EVs would be good, but people think that they
> need 400 mile range.
I don't know, my Prius (running on 5 year old hybrid tech now) is the best highway car on the market. I routinely get 45mpg+ without trying, and 50mpg+ is easily achievable if I keep speeds below 65mph or lower. The next two best selling hybrids, the Camry and Civic are also significantly better on the highway and even better off the highway than their non-hybrid counterparts.
HarveyD wrote:
> However, it would be possible to build 1-tonne, 4
> passenger cars capable of 50+ mpg. Many European and
> Asian car builders are doing it or will do it very soon.
Rumors have a number of 4+ passenger hybrids getting 50+ mpg showing up on the market in 2009. We'll see if the new hybrid from Honda and the redesigned 2010 Prius both due to hit the market next year hit those numbers or not.
Posted by: Dave | Sep 1, 2008 11:22:43 PM
"...consumed 25% less fuel but had the same size and performance; 26% would pay 6-10% more; 21% would pay 11-20%..."
This says to me that 47% would pay about 10% more for a car that got the same performance with the same size and got 25% better fuel economy.
So a car that got 20 mpg and sells for $20,000 could sell for $22,000 if it got 22 mpg. Maybe GM and the BAS is on the right track.
Posted by: | Sep 1, 2008 11:33:09 PM
Fuel efficient car are enviournment friendly.
Posted by: Jennifer | Sep 2, 2008 2:34:43 AM
Man this is rich. Is anyone actually surprised that most people don't trust the car companies. The car companies have been in bed with 'big oil' for 75+ years. The car companies, and I talking about all of them, have spent 100s of millions to fight Cafe standards. The car companies have played games and dragged their feet on proven technology for years.
Why should I have to pay more for the Car Companies to do what the should have done a DECADE ago!!!!
Posted by: Joseph | Sep 2, 2008 7:44:45 AM
Ah... it's all talk.
When you get inside the car showroom, with the strobe lights flashing and music blaring. You'll all fall in love with the spangly, sparkly, 6 litre, luxury interior, 25 airbag, i-phone connected, steel safety cage, 9 seater with spare dog kennel.
Posted by: Ford Prefect | Sep 2, 2008 8:21:55 AM
Everyone wants to jump on this tiny car bandwagon. I am all for free markets, and people should have the right to buy tiny cars. Just remember that Europeans have 30-50-80+ car pile-ups with mass numbers of fatalities on their highways much more frequently than in the U.S. - and do you think that the survival rate in a tiny car is going to be higher than in a big car? Instead of engineering for small vehicles that accelerate 0-60 in 60 seconds, are deathtraps in crashes and have 25 HP engines, I hope that some company will still make big vehicles in the future with big horsepower, but uses CHEAP and CLEAN fuel. The U.S. government has usually favored projects that produce cheap and clean energy - look at the Tennessee Valley Authority projects, or the big Bureau of Reclamation projects in the western states. I am all for clean air, but I will jump on the tiny car bandwagon only as a last resort - and it won't be based on junk climate science or enviro-guilt.
Posted by: ejj | Sep 2, 2008 8:24:31 AM
My comment on hybrid highway mileage is compared to a standard model. While the Prius is not the Echo, you can still see that the fuel savings are greater in city driving with the hybrid.
Until they have a method like turbo compounding and/or heat recovery to get better highway mileage, the hybrids will do better in the city. Some hybrids even have numbers better in the city than on the highway.
We pretty much all know why this is. Start/Stop, regenerative braking and power take off all help in stop and go driving. I suppose that if the highway had many hills and valleys, you would recover some energy, but that is not common highway driving.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 2, 2008 10:01:33 AM
Small cars aren't death traps at all. The fuel-efficient compacts listed above have, in most cases, the FULL FIVE euroncap stars (www.euroncap.com). Euroncap currently has more stringent standards than in the US, so much so that the US standards are soon to be toughened. At the same time, given so many cars in Europe now (including small cars) with the full rating, the EURONCAP standards will also be toughened:
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2008/08/euro-ncap-to-overhaul-car-safety-ratings--155063.jsp
In some cases small cars have very large frontal crumpling areas as well as SEVEN airbags, all at a very affordable price.
They can, admittedly, be death traps if we all start to drive around in tractors - but these will soon face extinction in Europe. More than anything I'd say this is a mentality issue -
Posted by: Karl-Uwe Strunzen | Sep 2, 2008 11:31:51 AM
@ Karl Uwe:
Again, Europe routinely has accidents involving 30-50-80+ cars, with many fatalities. This occurs much more often there than in the U.S. (fog+busy Autobahn=trouble). If I am in a collision with a semi-truck or full-size truck, chances are much higher that I will walk away if I'm in a full size truck or S.U.V. versus a small car with airbags up the wazoo. While I am not calling for a ban on small cars, I am obviously for making big cars and trucks better. If governments create the right incentives & fund the right research, we can have cheap & clean fuel for big, safe cars and trucks. This makes a lot more sense than trying to create a tiny-car world without banning big vehicles outright. If we could create/mandate/legislate a 100% tiny car world, I might be for it - but realistically it will never happen. We need semi-trucks & other special duty trucks to haul our goods & materials, put out our fires, etc. As long as there are going to be big trucks on the road, and I have no choice (again, realistically no choice) but to use the same roads, then I would want myself & family to be in a big car/truck/suv also (that I can afford to drive, that uses cheap & clean fuel).
Posted by: ejj | Sep 2, 2008 2:00:12 PM
More hype from the defeated AGW set. Garbage.
Posted by: | Sep 2, 2008 6:28:15 PM
@ejj
First of all what you call "full-size" is, on this planet (not sure what happens elsewhere) full-size ONLY in the US of A. It doesn't matter whether you are in Europe, Asia, Africa or Sotuh America, the US "full-size" is a tractor elsewhere (a bit like metre and feet and ISO, non-ISO if you like).
Secondly please note how I have provided various links above to the claims I made (acea website, transport and environment website, etc.). "Again, Europe routinely has accidents involving 30-50-80+ cars, with many fatalities. This occurs much more often there than in the U.S...." Would you care to provide a link (even to some non-reputable source) to substantiate your claims? Despite having lived so far in no less than FIVE european countries, not only have I never witnessed such an accident, but I've never even heard of an accident involving 30 cars (let alone 50, 80...)
As I already mentioned above, the only evidence there is that European cars are safer, given the www.euroncap.com has stricter standards. Do compacts in the US come standard with 7 airbags?) Related links:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/12/think-suvs-keep-you-safe-us-insurance-institute-for-highway-saf/
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/new_research_su.html
Posted by: Karl-Uwe Strunzen | Sep 2, 2008 8:52:08 PM
ejj,
I can confirm what Karl-Uwe Strunzen says in his comments.
I live in Spain and have lived in Ireland and the UK. I don't remember ever hearing about pile ups involving "30-50-80+ cars" never mind them being routine, as you claim.
In fact 7 of the 10 largest pile-ups in the world happened in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pile-up) while only 2 of the 10 were in Europe.
Small cars can be considerably safer than large vehicles. Safety is in the design, not the size.
Posted by: Tom Raftery | Sep 3, 2008 4:48:40 AM
Typepad is preventing me from inserting links, so google "autobahn""pile-up" and/or "europe""pile-up" and you'll find plenty of accidents. You can also google "highway""pile-up" and get plenty of accidents in the US, but overall, it looks like they happen more frequently in Europe - which is makes sense because of a higher concentration of people & highways in a smaller area than in the US.
Ultimately, you guys can have your tiny cars. I will be going back to an SUV or full-size truck when gas prices come back down. In the future, I'll be voting for the pols that support big vehicles - not granolas or kooks that want to tell me what to drive, where or how often.
Posted by: ejj | Sep 3, 2008 7:07:53 AM
Unfortunately this poll has little to do with reality. The hypothetical choices presented to the respondents are far from realistic. When the time comes, and these people actually do buy cars, they usually chose to actually pay more for cars that have worse fuel economy. In practice, most people could have actually paid less for a car that has better fuel economy, but have chosen not to. Then they blame the car manufacturers for not building fuel efficient cars. There are already fuel efficient cars on the market, but most people just do not buy them in spite of what they tell the pollsters. I'm sure these people think they are being honest, but when the time comes to actually put their money where their mouth is, they suddenly have much different choices and priorities.
Posted by: | Sep 3, 2008 7:20:14 AM
ejj
I often hear statements similar to yours.
"not granolas or kooks that want to tell me what to drive, where or how often"
Do you actually do the opposite if someone telling you what to do is wearing a tweed jacket?
Just curious, because if some ignorant redneck tells me what to do. I'll listen to him first. If he's right I'd do it. If he's wrong I won't.
Posted by: Granola Betty | Sep 3, 2008 8:34:43 AM
I have had conservatives mention people imposing their will on everyone else when discussing a nation speed limit to save fuel. Apparently some believe that any law they don't like should be repealed. This many show a dislike for laws in general, they restrict personal freedoms. Well if the exercise of personal freedoms harms others, then that is where you draw the line.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 3, 2008 9:55:40 AM
A pile-up is one thing, and routine pile-ups with many fatalities another. We most certainly do have pile-ups in Europe, but these are most certainly not routine and do not involve many fatalities.
The "routine" accidents in Europe involve either 2 cars or 1 car and a statioary object and the fatalites rarely go beyond the occupants of 1-2 cars.
In any case this is digressing from the topic of fuel-efficient vehicles.
Posted by: Karl-Uwe Strunzen | Sep 3, 2008 11:06:42 AM
@sjc
then again there are laws like the body of civil liberty law, civil rights law, anti-discrimination law, First Amendment law etc. which are the foundation of open societies. Rarely does opinion, choice of workplace, equal opportunity etc. harm another person. Years ago southern rednecks (and gentlefolk) claimed harm when a Negro sat at their lunch counter. That kind of exaggeration is no longer tolerated.
Posted by: Sulleny | Sep 3, 2008 4:48:06 PM
We are talking about real not perceived harm. We ALL decide what real harm is, that is the nature of a democratic society.
Posted by: sjc | Sep 3, 2008 7:18:17 PM
ejj:
Please check the stats.
USA, with the exception of Portugal, Greece and Luxembourg, has the highest road fatality risk of all the industrial nations.
Is it due to the large number of oversized vehicles on USA's roads?
It seems that countries with smaller vehicles, like Japan, have a much lower road fatality risk factor.
It would be easy to conclude that driving smaller vhicles is much safer than driving dinosaurs.
Bigger is not safer....
Posted by: HarveyD | Sep 6, 2008 8:47:38 AM
