So you have a virtual green car.
The gas you pump into it is most likely fossil, but is offset by bio gas.
OK,
but you have to opt in.

Now you could take it a stage further.
Suppose you have a car at 124 gms/km, and you want to get it down to 119 gms for tax reasons.

The manufacturer could opt to pump an equivalent amount of bio gas into the gas grid so as to bring the CO2 level / mile down to whatever you like.

They could either pay per km, or estimate (say 16000 kms per year and pay for that).
You could do this whether the car runs on gas or gasoline or diesel.

As long as you have enough biogas, you can do this.

It would make the CO2 pricing very clear - which is the cheapest way to reduce the CO2 emissions of a car - by making the car better, or by offsetting fossil fuel with bio fuel.

It would also make it easier to get cars to the magic 119 (or 120) or whatever gms/km levels. You design for 119, and if you miss it, you offset with biogas, rather than busting a gut to improve the engine.

In particular, you could use a "biofuel bridge" to release the car now and fix the CO2 problem in a less panicky fashion.

With renewable energy facilities in place, Germany has 25% of it's energy provided as long as there is wind or sunshine.

Germany continues adding renewable energy and doesn't fear or pay $billions a year for decades of cleaning Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster like events.

Germany will shut down its last eight "black coal" underground mines by 2018, according to a plan approved in 2007 by Angela Merkel's government. The phaseout, which does not affect Germany's "brown coal" surface mines, will be reviewed by parliament in 2012. Seven of the mines are located in Rhine-Westphalia, and one is located in the Saarland. The plan has been approved by German mining conglomerate RFG, which intends to refocus itself on real estate, power generation, and chemicals. It has also been approved by the Social Democratic party and by Germany's mining union. The agreement was favored by Germany's conservative parties, which looked forward to ending the 2.5 million-Euro subsidy received by the underground mining sector. Under the arrangement, the subsidy will continue until the mines are finally closed. The phaseout will eliminate 35,000 mining jobs; jobs in the underground mining sector had already declined from 166,000 in 1985. At its peak in 1957, the sector employed 607,000 miners.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Germany_and_coal

EuroCoal reports that lignite coal use should remain stable until 2020, but will likely disappear as an energy source by 2050. Extraction of lignite from opencast mines changes the natural landscape, so land reclamation is an integral part of any mining project.
http://www.euracoal.be/pages/layout1sp.php?idpage=72

Germany's recent uptick in coal consumption has been a temporary situation, primarily driven by high natural gas prices which made coal power cheaper. It's simply incorrect to lay that at the feet of the nuclear power phaseout or renewables.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/myth-busting-germanys-energy-transition/

Its a good job then that Germany relies on politically stable places like Russia for its natural gas, or a supply interruption could be nasty.

Germany's uptick in coal consumption is due in no small part to its use as balancing for "renewables", which were planned and specified as replacements for nuclear energy.  The Energiewende scheme as a whole is neither renewable nor sustainable.

Germany has reduced its emissions 27% since 1990

The 1990 baseline was pre-unification, when all the dirty East German industry was still running.  "Ein fur ein" made it all uneconomic, and it was shut down post haste.  In effect, Germany got carte blanche to cheat.

The increase that you're wailing about was 1.6%, "statistical noise." What they are doing is working.

Real progress would overwhelm any minor statistical noise.  Germany claims to be a leader in protecting the environment, but reducing CO2 emissions is a distant fourth in the Energiewende's list of priorities.

as of 2010, greenhouse gas emissions levels for America were 10.5% higher than 1990 and for Canada they are 19% higher.

This isn't a contest.  The USA isn't even in the game, and the immigration-driven growth in population plus the need to stay away from minority-dominated areas to avoid winding up like Kyle Jobin means fuel consumption.

Concerns from Americans or Canadians about German emissions are the height of hypocrisy.

Ad-hominem fallacy.  Does that mean Michael Mann and James Hansen have to shut up?  The identify of the speaker has ZERO bearing on whether a statement or argument is true.

What is key is actually getting CO2 emissions down by a minimum of 80%.  It doesn't matter who, and it scarcely matters how.  But ruinously expensive "transitions" which are purported to address the problem, but are actually designed for other ends and thus fail, don't merely waste money.  They discredit the entire idea.  THAT is a problem no matter who or where on earth you are.

they will have still reduced their emissions to a point lower than anyone ask of them.

What's being asked is a tiny fraction of what's required.  We need to be aiming for 90-100% cuts in carbon emissions, like electrifying ground transport with nuclear power.  Germany is locking in lignite use.  No matter how much more wrong others are, Germany is still wrong.

First off the Germans ARE NOT locking in lignite use. Every one in their government AND their coal industry is saying it will be phased out by 2050.

You believe them?  Not too long ago they were going to switch to natural gas.  That went by the boards when gas prices went too high.  High penetrations of wind + solar require massive amounts of storage, but their rigged market prices are killing the tiny amount of pumped hydro storage they've got.  What they are doing proves that what they are saying is simply not going to happen.

Second: We are not the French, we will never get 90-100% nuclear power.

The USA (who's "we"?) was once on a track to complete replacement of coal-fired power by uranium.

You're a nuclear engineer right? You're defending your turf

I'm an electrical engineer.  I've never worked on a nuclear project.  I don't have a dog in this fight, all I have is my desire to preserve the environment and the economy.  What I see is that "renewables" are sold as the be-all and end-all of all things environmental... and they manifestly cannot live up to that.  There's not one country or grid that has effectively weaned off fossil fuels using WWS, and excellent reasons to believe that diminishing returns make it impossible.  Meanwhile existing examples show we can de-carbonize entire sectors, like ground transport, using nuclear.

the problem isn't in the engineering, it is in the poetry - the hearts and minds of people reject it.

There are plenty of people who despise wind farms and fields of solar mirrors as greenie nonsense, and a majority of Americans support nuclear energy.  The only ones who need their hearts changed are those self-same greenies, and the "duck and cover" generation steeped in unreasoning fear of all things nuclear is dying off.

We will not get enough nuclear power plants built in the time frame needed.

Anyone selling wind as "the pragmatic choice" is actually selling natural gas.  The climate scientists say we need 80% cuts minimum (McKibben's 350 ppm would require negative emissions), and the power engineers say that's not going to happen with variable supplies that require combustion-based backup.  Meanwhile, nuclear has actually done the job in France and Ontario.  Physics doesn't care about hearts and minds.  There's only one choice, and "renewables" aren't it.

Ai_Vin. Well said and thank you for the relevant info.

Wind and Solar will continue to gain energy market share worldwide and at a much faster rate when energy capture and storage technologies improve.

E-P. Ontario is having a serious problem with it's nuclear power plants. More than 50% are due or overdue for major overhauls. With major overhaul cost going between $0.12/kWh and $0.15/kWh, Ontario is looking at other sources. No new NPP are planned. The long term contract to buy very low cost Hydro power from Quebec is soon coming to an end.

Well sure there are people who despise wind farms and fields of solar mirrors but you're comparing NIMBYs to NIABYs. (Not In My BackYard vs. Not In Anyone's BackYard)