The notion of parameter-based fuel economy/CO2 emissions bands is not new, both Japan and China will be introducing similar schemes. The idea is to acknowledge that larger vehicles will consume more fuel and, that there are certain legitimate applications for heavier vehicles - e.g. if you have a large family or need to haul goods for your business.

Since weight is detrimental to acceleration and auto makers tend to compensate by increasing engine power, it is a poor choice of parameter.

More sensible is footprint, i.e. the area covered by the vehicle outline when projected vertically onto the road. This optimizes road and parking capacity. Also, equipment options on a vehicle invariably add weight but rarely footprint to the base model, reducing red tape. Better still would be footprint times vehicle height or else the height of the center of gravity. This would favor low-profile wagons over SUVs with inferior aerodynamics and more serious crash compatibility issues.

In any case, the most important feature of any parameter-based approach would have to be a fleet average value trending downward over time. The baseline should be chosen for e.g. MY2006, so manufacturers no longer have any opportunity to manipulate it. Without any mechanism to curb abuse, manufacturers will needlessly add weight and/or size to their models just to lift them into vehicle bands for which higher CO2 emissions are permitted.

All of these averages should be computed across all LDVs sold in the EU by members of the umbrella organizations ACEA, JAMA and KAMA. For that to work, they will have to present the EU Commission with an agreed formula on how any applicable collective sanctions will be attributed to the individual corporations. Otherwise, there will be bitter legal battles and politicians may be tempted to step in and protect their national champions.

As a quid pro quo for averaging this way and, for introducing parameter-based vehicle bands, the EU should insist on an additional per-vehicle ceiling of e.g. 2x the average. It's not that premium vehicles make a big direct contribution to aggregate CO2 emissions - unit volumes are too low for that - but that they represent the types of vehicles brand managers want customers in the volume segments to aspire to. Halo cars are the innovation carriers, and a per-vehicle limit will force manufacturers to market fuel efficiency as a premium feature, with trickle-down effects to the rest of their product line.

Another useful idea in this context would be to plan a switch from the NEDC to the more realistic CADC (Common Artemis Drive Cycle) in the MY2015 time frame. After all, what matters is real-world aggregate CO2 emissions, so the measurement technique used should be a reasonable reflection of that. Seven years is sufficient lead time for the industry to prepare. Changing drive cycles would be roughly analogous to the new EPA stickers, except that in Europe, it would affect fleet average CO2 emissions. To compensate for the more rigorous test procedure, the numerical CO2 limits should be held at the same level from MY2012 through MY2018.

The above discussion underlines how difficult it is to implement legislation while respecting the existing market positions of the various manufacturers. A simpler and ultimately more effective approach would be to embark on a long-term program of harmonizing fuel tax rates upward, such that by e.g. 2020 they would be (nearly) uniform across the EU and based on the energy content of the various fuels on offer. The additional revenue should be used to reduce general value added tax rates.

Btw: Off-road-capable vehicles are best treated as an entirely separate category exempted from CO2 emissions requirements, but electronically governed to a low top speed (e.g. 100kph in Europe) and restricted to the slow lane on public roads. This should keep them sufficiently useful to legitimate users but quite unattractive as daily drivers for city slickers. Sadly, SUVs (usually with monocoque chassis in Europe) are currently the fastest growing premium vehicle segment.

Why not just increase taxes on fuel ? If you wase a lot of fuel, you pay a lot of taxes. Every CO2 molecule is equal. if you drive an ugly SUV for 5km of a kei for 15km, you produce the same amount of CO2.

I also think we focus too much on cars. Again, every CO2 molecule is equal. Most households produce much more CO2 by burning heating fuel or natural gas than by driving their car.
It is much cheaper and efficient to convert your home to 'full electric' heating (using a heat pump) than to convert your car. Also, for a few thousand euro's you can get most of the heating out of solar power (using cheap solar collectors).

Although I support the new legislation concerning fuel efficiency of cars, I would like the commission would do something equal for homes. The CO2-gain there is much easier, much faster, much cheaper and can be done with existing technologies.

Well said, Harvey D. Fuel tax increases would be simpler and (probably) more effective. But voters, at least in the US, hate the idea of high fuel taxes more than just about anything. So that leaves only two choices as far as I can see -- complicated formulas as you describe, and nothing.

@Alain - good point, but it illustrates the real reason behind the push for lower CO2 from cars: most European homes can be heated with Russian gas, but virtually all cars need to drive on OPEC oil. In other words, there is a significant national energy security factor hidden in the equation. Europe's politicians don't mention it because they don't want to rock the diplomatic boat.

Heat pumps are a very good idea, but only practical if you have enough space for one. That usually doesn't apply for those living in Europe's cities.

@ Daniel -

trending toward EUR 3/kg of hydrocarbon fuel by e.g. 2020 would not be impossible, or even a bad idea, IFF other taxes (e.g. VAT) are cut to compensate. Relative to disposable income, fuel in Europe is cheaper today than it was 15-20 years ago. That's why SUVs are the fastest growing segment of the market.

Apply the same standards for all vehicles, period.

Scott - FTW

Scott,

"Needs" are not a constant. Nobody needs an S-Class Mercedes, but people who can afford them buy them. Likewise SUVs. Fewer people would feel the need if gas cost $4/gal instead of $3/gal. I'd rather use the extra dollar to pay for universal healthcare without increased income taxes, rather than give it to some terrorist group or despotic dictator.

Hi, Nice Day
Please send me your cars catalog, to my address:
ATIF M ALI
CENTRAL POST OFFICE
P.O.BOX 11191
KHARTOUM 11111
SUDAN
Phone: 00249121013259