1% reduction. How to achieve very little with a lot of regulation. I think we need some new ideas.

hat rate of improvement is only one-third of the rate required to achieve the voluntary target the industry committed to the EU in 1998 of 140 g/km by 2008. Average emissions of new cars sold in the (then) 15 EU Member States was 186 g/km in 1995.

Note that this goal was voluntary and not mandated by regulation. Therefore, the conclusion is exactly opposite of what you suggest. More regulation is needed, not less.

Nick:
Quarter of million of Europeans die prematurely each year for this "trying"

The regulations are deffinetly not stringent other wise they would be met.

In my opinion these regulations are far from what is needed to meet a standard of environmental sustainability.

In the first place fuel efficiency is pathetic considering the available technology is roughly six times higher than is used in most recent cars.

Secondly the type of fuel we are using is and has been obscelete for a while now and it would be possible if the source of fuel was replaced by viable alternative fuels whcih are more than adaptable to exsisting vehichles with out the worry of polution, unnecessaryly elavated health risk and climate change.

Please bear in mind several caveats:

a) The 1% number refers to a single year only. On aggregate, fleet average CO2 emissions of new cars have fallen from 186 g/km to 160 g/km since 1998, a total of 14%.

b) The European carmakers' association (ACEA) agreed to the VOLUNTARY target of 140 g/km for 2008 precisely to avoid heavy-handed regulation of CO2 emissions by the EU commission, which is already talking about a limit of 120 g/km for 2012. If it decides that ACEA has not met its commitment, it may yet issue a legally binding directive.

c) Foreign manufacturers are NOT bound by the voluntary agreement.

d) The voluntary target applies only to revisions of models that were already on the market at the time the commitment was made. Also, more stringent safety regulations have forced carmakers to add weight to their models. Taking these factors into account, the actual fleet average of approx. 160 g/km arguably comes close to meeting the agreed target. The PR problem is that to Joe Average all this finessing looks like a major copout.

e) Much of the reduction achieved since 1998 has come from a shift toward diesel engines even in compact and sub-compact cars. However, new spark ignition engine technologies including affordable fully variable valvetrains, spray-guided gasoline direct injection, advanced super-/turbocharging + downsizing, mild hybridization and dual clutch transmissions are expected to deliver significant further reductions in fleet CO2 emissions. Everything produced in volume ultimately becomes fairly cheap.

---

Andrey - your number of 250.000 premature deaths due to a lower-than-hoped-for reduction in CO2 emissions is puzzling to say the least. Even if you are referring to the health effects of PM emissions from those vehicles that do not have a particulate filter (yet), the number is still highly questionable.

Now that Europe has very low sulphur diesel fuel, the risk to respiratory population health has substantially decreased and will fall further as particulate filters become more widespread in the European passenger car fleet. Due the more northerly latitudes, NOx is a problem primarily in Southern European cities such as Athens, which has banned diesel engines from entering the city center in summer. Unsurprisingly, there are few diesel cars in Greece.

As for the cancer risk due to diesel PM, recent research has demonstrated that it becomes significant only at concentrations much higher than those found in the real world and then only in rats - not in other lab animals. By now, aggregate tobacco smoke probably represents a substantially higher cancer risk for the general population that diesel exhaust fumes do.

Ruaraidh:
I am referring not to fuel efficiency versus PM/NOx emission, but more closely to diesel car loophole in Europe. See, if I reflash on-board computer on my car to ran as lean as detonation and flammability allows, fuel efficiency will improve at least 10% (such software is available for some engines on black market). If I’ll do same trick with gasoline direct injection engine, fuel efficiency will improve another 20% and will approach fuel efficiency of comparable diesel engine. NOx part of cat converter will be disabled and NOx emission will be high (about twice of diesel engine), but HC will be still low and PM almost non-existed. It is illegal and rightfully considered to be a crime. However, diesel powered car which exhaust is much more toxic is not just allowed, but even applauded as environmentally friendly.

P.S. Do not touch 4-way intersections! It is part of American heritage and identity!

Rafael:

You will not find direct scientific data on health effects of diesel cars exhaust in Europe. European scientific elite is too busy saving the planet to bother. However, comprehensive data is available from EPA and CARB papers assessing health effects (premature death from lung cancer and hart attacks, asthma, respiratory diseases, allergies, hospital visits, lost working hours, etc.) of predominantly PM emission from diesel heavy trucks, buses, agricultural and off-road machinery. Detailed estimations are carried out what effect (reduced premature death, etc.) new emission standards will have when enacted. Direct extrapolation to European population and vehicle park lead to astounding 6-zeros yearly casualties, well higher then EU Environment Agency last estimated premature death from all air pollution of 370 000 people a year. I strongly suspect that health effect for Eoropean population is cumulatively higher then for American due to higher percent of smokers. And any way death toll directly attributed to diesel cars is in hundreds of thousands a year. With modern emission control technology in ten years it will be ten times less. Enough for you? For me –not.

Particulate filters: you will have to wait ten years before park of old polluting vehicles will be replaced. People will still die meantime. And anyway the cleanest diesel engine is still ten times dirtier then modern SI engine with three-way catalyst. This is exactly the reason why diesel cars and light trucks are practically (not 100%) becoming prohibited to sale in US, Japan, and eventually Canada.

There is no safe limit for PM10 and especially PM2.5 Any inhaled amount slightly increases probabability of health implications. Multiplied by half billion Europeans, and you get the picture.

I suggest to everyone interested to go to busy intersection of any big European city and take a deep breath. Most impressive would be Roma at summer. And just think for a minute: may be we doing something wrong here?

Almost forgot: spill of diesel fuel on the ground is way more toxic to soil and ground water then gasoline.

It’s an amazingly low amount of CO2; specially considering it is being achieved voluntarily. Europe is bound to loose out on the race for low CO2 emissions on the long run though. European manufacturers are concentrating on making small diesels and there is a limit to what can be achieved this way. This has two problems, diesel technology despite having improved a lot is still arguably dirtier than gasoline technology, also this approach ignores the need for larger vehicles like 4x4s.

Countries like the USA, long term, have an advantage; they are investing much more heavily in hydrogen technology, as well as bio-fuel technology. They are already distributing E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) widely and cars that are able to run on both pure gasoline and E85 are readily available at the same prices as gasoline cars. Plus they have the land to be able to plant crops to distil ethanol.