Imperial Oil sanctions Kearl Oil Sands expansion project
DOE awards nearly $7M to 4 projects to reduce costs of electric vehicle chargers by 50% over next 3 years

EEA data show most automakers must reduce emissions to meet European 2015 CO2 regulations

eea 2015
Distance to 2015 target by individual manufacturers in 2010 (only manufacturers registering > 100 000 vehicles in Europe). The size of the bubble is proportional to the number of vehicles registered in Europe. Source: EEA. Click to enlarge.

While most car manufacturers have already met their individual 2012 CO2 targets for Europe, several carmakers need to make their fleets even more carbon-efficient to meet the 2012 target, according to updated data published by the European Environment Agency (EEA). The data also show that almost all manufacturers must reduce emissions to meet 2015 targets under European legislation for new passenger cars, based on average CO2 emissions for each manufacturer.

Road transport is responsible for 17.5% of overall greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and its emissions increased by 23% between 1990 and 2009. To reduce the CO2 emissions of the road transport sector, European legislation has introduced mandatory CO2 emissions limits for new passenger cars. The average emission level of a new car registered in the European Union in 2010 was 140.3 gCO2/km. Overall, car manufacturers must achieve a CO2 emission target of 130 g CO2/km by 2015 as an average value for the fleet of new cars registered in the EU. This target will be gradually phased in from 2012.

eea 2012
Distance to 2012 target by individual manufacturers in 2010 (only manufacturers registering > 100 000 vehicles in Europe). The size of the bubble is proportional to the number of vehicles registered in Europe. Source: EEA. Click to enlarge.

Specific emission targets (expressed as an amount of CO2 emissions per vehicle kilometer) are assigned to each car manufacturer (or pools of manufacturers) depending on the average mass of the fleet. A manufacturer (or pools of manufacturers) producing on average larger new cars has a higher target.

The new data published by the EEA considers the distance to the 2012 and 2015 targets for the vehicles sold in 2010, showing which manufacturers must make further progress towards the targets. Fines (“excess emissions premiums”) for failing to meet the target will be calculated on a progressive scale for each additional gram of CO2 above the target, multiplied by the number of cars sold.

Key findings from the data include:

  • Thirty-two manufacturers, representing almost 80% of 2010 registrations in the EU, already achieve their 2012 specific emissions targets two years in advance.

  • If car manufacturers make no further improvements in carbon efficiency of new cars between 2010 and 2012, non-compliant manufacturers could face fines which in total would add up to €10 billion.

  • Toyota Motor Europe is already compliant with its 2012 target, and also less than 1g CO2/km from the more stringent 2015 target. Automobiles Peugeot and Automobiles Citroën are also both close to reaching their 2015 target already. These manufacturers need to cut their emissions by less than 5g CO2/km to meet the target, a value corresponding to the average reduction of emissions from new passenger cars between 2009 and 2010 in Europe.

  • Among the larger manufacturers, Daimler AG, Honda Motor Co, Nissan International SA, General Motors Company, Mazda Motor Corporation and Dacia will have to reduce the average emissions of their fleets by more than 14 g CO2/km over the next five years.

  • There are three manufacturers which produce only electric vehicles; their emissions are listed as zero.

  • Of the manufacturers producing some conventional-fueled cars, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd had the lowest CO2 emission level overall (104 g CO2/Km). The average mass of its fleet is the lowest among all the car manufacturers registering vehicles in Europe. Among the larger manufacturers, Fiat Group Automobiles Spa had the lowest average CO2 emissions in 2010 (125 g CO2/km).

  • At the other end of the spectrum, some carmakers will need to halve emissions in the next four years in order to comply with the legislation.

The legislation provides for incentives to car manufacturers to reduce the CO2 emissions of their vehicles. For calculating average emissions, certain types of vehicles receive additional incentives, including super credits for low emitting vehicles (<50g CO2/km) and other credits for biofuels and certain efficiency measures. Manufacturers’ progress will be monitored each year by the European Commission and the EEA in order to track the performance against individual targets.

Resources

Comments

mahonj

I wonder where the American car manufacturers would lie on these charts.

HarveyD

Toyota deserves a medal or two.

SJC

Better mileage, less fuel, less pollution.

Alain

Although I welcome every improvement in fuel economy, I still stunning how firm the politicians are towards car industry, while electricity and heating can emit many times more CO2 at a ridiculously low price.
Heating natural gas or fuel has no "polution tax" whatsoever, while for powerplants and big industry, the price for a ton of CO2 now is 6€. In the most 'optimistic' scenario, this would go to 50€.
A car emitting 150g/km will emit 30 tons/200000 km, which would be 180€. The difference between a Daimler and a Fiat (160-125) = 35g/km = 7 tons/200000 km or a tax of 42€
In the most 'optimistic' scenario of 50€/ton, it would be 350€.

Ecological gains can be made much cheaper by improved electricity production, heating and isolation than by improving cars (although the latter certainly has its merits)
The same kind of obligations forced upon the car industry would be much more efficient (in tons/€)if forced upon powerplants and heating fuels.

Alain

What I meant in my last remark is that if cars would be taxed for their emissions at the same (low) level as other emittors, the total amount of tax (over the lifespan of a car) would be extremely low, compared with the actual extra cost that results from cleaner cars.
This is only to illustratie how extremely low the emission taxes are for other human activities are compared to what we are accepting readily for cars.

HarveyD

Per capita GHG is approaching 25/tonnes/year in USA, Canada and Australia and almost 40% of it comes directly or indirectly from our ICEV growing fleet.

Per ICE vehicle GHG is going down but the total number of vehicles is increasing at a faster rate and is more than offsetting the individual vehicle GHG reduction.

Canada's very high per capita GHG is due, to a great extend, to the increasing Alberta Tar Sands activities, increasing SG activities, oil and NG heating and the increased sales of over sized gas guzzlers in many western provinces.

Taxing heating oil and NG would not be politically acceptable and would be vigorously opposed by the oil & NG industry.

ai_vin

@Alain

While you are right that the emission taxes for other human activities are low compared to what we are accepting readily for cars it has to be noted taxes aren't the only forces at work: Energy independance, feed-in tariffs and green pricing (like Germandy's Scheer's law), etc. And these other forces are causing CO2 emissions to be reduced in these other human activities in Europe.

Take the grid for example: Over the whole European Union 14.65% of electricity generated comes from renewable sources.

CO2 has to be taxed higher for cars because these other forces don't work as well on them as they do for other industries.

D

US and Canadian CO2 emissions are irrelevant and of academic interest only. If all you check is emmisions that does not provide a true picture. Bio Sequestration is more than 100% effective and North America absorbs every gram of CO2 that Nauture or Mankind emits here. North America sequesters a large large portion of CO2 emissions from Eurasia as well, and over three times what the mature Amazon Rainforest is able to absorb. It would be well if other continents do the same, but their inhabitants are not that conscientious.

Alain

@ D,
If you articulate such bold and extremely controversial statements, could you add a reliable reference ?
I bet there isn't any.
In that case, who invented it, and why ?

SJC

Lies told with enough conviction can seem like they have some truth, when they actually do not.

ai_vin

@D

Science magazine published an article in 1998 with data that suggests the North American continent is a carbon sink.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/282/5388/442.abstract
However, that study was pretty conclusively rebutted by Schmiel et al (2000); http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5460/2004.abstract and is no longer considered to be valid. The modeled sink varies by about 100% from year to year as a result of climate variability and N. Am. only became a carbon sink in the first place because of "re-forestation." In other words we were only undoing the damage we did in the previous centuries and unless you're planning to rip up all our cities, highways, farms, etc. and replace them with trees - no conceivable amount of reforestation is going to be able to soak up all our industrial emissions.

The comments to this entry are closed.