CO2 Emissions reduction policy in Europe

[0707]

Laws forcing carmakers to limit CO2 are going to be set at pan-European level. Today, the average from vehicles is around 160 grams per kilometre. After much debate, the European Commission looks ready to ask for an overall cut in carbon dioxide emissions from new cars to 120 grams per kilometre by 2012.

While the vehicle manufacturers would be required to attain the 130-gramme mark, additional cuts of five grams per kilometre from both bio fuel use and other technology, such as better tyre design, would further contribute.

This Wednesday, EU sources say the Commission will suggest its strategy be implemented through binding legislation. The proposal is part of EU efforts to fight climate change, with European carmakers falling short of targets, which have been voluntary till now.

Ecologist expert Aat Peters argues for strict broad-ranging standards: "Every climate policy is a policy mix. So, there is technical innovation in cars, there is innovation in tyres, there is innovation in fuels, and many other aspects of policy like traffic management, etcetera. These are all elements which are important, but none of these elements should be exchanged for the other."

The European Automobile Manufacturers Association says its members reduced CO2 emissions by 13 percent to in 2004, compared to 1995 levels. Yet environmentalists say carmakers should take more responsibility for the emissions from bigger, more fuel-consuming engines.

Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee of the current EU presiding nation, Germany, which makes mostly big cars, said: "What we need is a code of good conduct which takes into account the sections of the market, so that the makers of smaller cars don't just sit back while those making the big ones bear the whole burden."

Cars on the EU's roads - their number increasing by some three million per year - create more than one-fifth of Europe's greenhouse-gas emissions.

EuroNews
7 of February 2007

 

[EOIT]

0707 - WEO = Nice idea but in all reality it would be a pipe dream.

The UN can't enforce a sanction against any country anytime for anything so what measures would the WEO be able to enforce? Stern letters, harsh language?

The world seems to be unable to come to a consensus on what to do with countries that commit genocide, approve mass murders, encourage illegal drug production, allow slavery, etc, etc. Somehow getting all the countries together on an issue that may or may not exist seems quite far fetched.

Therefore it will remain each country's decision on what to do and most "free" countries will probably listen to their population.

EOIT

 

[0707]

EOIT

The idea of WEO is not to establish a rigid consensus but to point an acceptable basis of consensus between nations.

It is a discussion that soon or later nations have to start. Environment questions are trans national and for that reason should be treated globally, I think there is no other way.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> an acceptable basis of consensus between nations
We can start by getting a basis of consensus within one nation. Pick one. Any one would be a good start.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[DrillerNic]

The EU commission doesn't actually produce any engineering standards or codes. What they do is issue directives that make sure the legal requirements for a particular product are the same across the different EU member states: the 'CE' mark. So for example, there is a directive about toy safety that your toy sold in the EU must conform to.

Separately, there are lists of standards (EuroNorms, ISOs and national standards) that confrom to the requirements of the EU commission's directives: if you make a toy in line with EN71-1 to 8 and EN62115 you can put a CE mark on it as these EuroNorms are considered to be in line with the toy safety directive.

In order to have a WEO with similar legal powers to the EU commission, we'd need some kind of world government in environmental matters, which is very, very unlikely to happen!

What we can (and do) have, are various international standards organisations (ISO, CEN, CENELEC etc) that are trying to establish standards that apply worldwide (or across all of Europe, not just the EU, in the case of the EuroNorms). These include environmental matters: for example the ISO 14000 series (developed from the BSI environmental management standards) and the various ISOs for fuels including the amount of lead in petrol (developed from a US standard) ans smokeless solid fuels and so on.

So the limit on CO2 emissions from cars may become a directive, but is unlikely to become a EuroNorm or an ISO, as you can't write a standard that says "you can only use small engines". There may be a future EuroNorm or ISO for some engineering aspect of car design (tyre rubber specification, say,) that achieves the required CO2 emmission limits, but that's a different thing.

 

[jmw]

This one is about trying to achieve a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010, which seems rather optimistic to me, and it also seems that it will be another step toward making Europe less competitive with the rest of the world.

There is a time and a place for unilateralism.

Of course, how do we achieve a 20% reduction in CO2?
Setting these targets for cars is one thing but it only makes sense if they have some expectation that they have a realistic handle on how many cars will be on the roads in 2010 and how many of them will be new cars.

On the other hand, setting a quota for cars might be another way forward. Each country should set a quota that is currently about the number of cars registered and each year reduce the quota by an amount related to how many older cars are taken off the road. It seems pointless to me to set develop a set of emissions limits on a per car basis without some pother stricture that limits the growth in vehicle numbers.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

jmw: again, this is fighting the market. All quotas on cars or licenses etc. will do is artificially drive up the price of the remaining cars, and produce a black market etc. It does nothing to quell demand. It will make cars more expensive, which will deter car purchasing- but will not deter fuel consumption. Quite the opposite- it will keep older cars on the road longer.

Rather, you need to tax FUEL, as the only proxy for fuel-combustion related emissions that we have any control over. Use less of it, pay less. Increase the tax until it has the desired result. Invest the tax revenue into alternatives priced CHEAPER than the cars people will be replacing. The market will do the rest. People WILL move closer to work and to transit hubs, and businesses will move closer to the people they serve, if it's in their economic interest to do so.

 

[tripleZ]

I'll agree that the fuel tax concept has the ability to limit fuel consumption. More of my worry though is on the economic effects it would have in across the US. Let's take some of the major cities: DC, NYC, Boston, LA, etc. Do people use public transportation? Sure they do, but often in conjunction with driving. Many of my friends in the DC area have to drive in a significant distance from the suburbs just to catch the Metro. Why? The cost of living is too damn high in town as it is. People won't move closer in many cases because they simply can't afford to. Look at the real estate ads in Georgetown and Alexandria and you'll see what I'm talking about. Encouraging more people to move in will in effect raise prices even higher.

Now, go to the opposite end of the spectrum. I work in manufacturing. Like most mfg. companies anymore, we're located in the middle of nowhere to take advantage of cheap labor. I'd love to have the plant closer to the city; but we couldn't afford the salaries. For many of us in smaller towns, you have to drive to do your grocery shopping, general shopping, etc. The excessive fuel tax then penalizes someone like me who had to move to the boonies for a job.

Let's face it, there are simple geographic differences between the US and Europe that contribute to fuel consumption. Add to that housing affordability, school quality, and the host of other issues that involve your choice of location, and I honestly don't see something like that receiving public buy in, global warming or not. Speaking of which, I was praying for global warming during last month's sub-zero temps...=)

 

[rb1957]

sorry tripleZ, I think this is just the hyprocrisy to the global warming advocates. of course the economic and political costs of doing this are enormous, but if this is what you believe then that's what you have to do. if burning petrol (gas) is the root of all evil, then stop it (and take your lumps).

personally i believe that this won't makes a gnat's difference, that global climate change is being driven by forces beyond our control. i also believe that we should be more conscious of our environment. and finally, i wish we'd pursue fusion power with the gusto that we put into some self-destructive efforts (like this global warming) as i believe that this is the only long term solution to our power needs.

 

[jmw]

The trouble is that London Congestion charge has reduced traffic flow by around 4%. That is with a daily congestion charge of £8 (approx $15).

Even "taxing" at these levels is not getting the job done.
Nor is there any sense that this has been achieved without any negative effects.

Some 15 or 20 years ago the AA produced a survey which suggested that petrol would have to be priced at around £5 a gallon to make any impact on use. What that £5 is in today's money I couldn't say but at 98p a litre, we are still only just reaching that numerical value.
There is a point here about the establishing of an elitist society where those with money will just pay it over. The poorer folk? Well, they'll do more of what they do now; skip MOTs and essential maintenance, forget about tax discs and insurance and devote their limited funds to fuel.
Some traffic is not going to be affected; lorries, business use etc. all that happens is that there is a bigger cost burden on industry.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[DrillerNic]

Another way to reduce engine emissions is to tax engine size.

And of course, it's possible that companies (or business parks) could be encouraged to run coaches form the factory to the centre of town. Several companies that I've worked at in teh past have run free coaches like this. Why not more companies?

 

[KENAT]

The trouble with any of the taxes mentioned is that they effectively hit the poor much harder than the rich.

The prices of Gas in the US have as much as doubled at various points over the last year & half compared to around 2 years ago.

This has hit some poorer families. It has also hit some middle income families who pushed their finances to buy SUVs etc, in many opinions as a status symbol. However the genuinely rich don't care that it now costs well over the $100 mark to fill up their SUVs. This doesn’t limit their lifestyles since their ‘surplus’ income happily accommodates this.

Is it fair that the poor bare the brunt of efforts to reduce CO2 emissions?

Rationing might be an option but eventually would probably hit the same issue since those with money would find a way of 'buying' gas from those without.

Perhaps an arbitrary law to lower the consumption of all vehicles isn’t actually the worst idea.

 

[moltenmetal]

KENAT: you can't deal with poverty by subsidizing consumption. And fossil fuel consumption with a ZERO cost for atmospheric emissions dumping is certainly being subsidized- by all those who are injured by the pollution, and by those who bear the risks of negative outcomes from global warming, including future generations.

I'm not crying any tears for people who bought SUVs as status symbols, regardless what their income levels were. They knew these vehicles were fuel-inefficient when they bought them, and bought them anyway.

Who is taking public transit? In North America, it's generally the poor. Money from fuel taxes used to subsidize public transit, improving service and reducing fares, will actually be yet another means of transferring wealth from the rich, who will continue to drive (or be driven) regardless of the cost, to benefit those who have no choice in the matter.

Which homes are the least energy efficient? It may not be true in all jurisdictions, but in mine it's definitely the social housing units occupied by the poor. They're almost 100% heated by electricity- pure energetic idiocy. Local governments don't spend money retrofitting these because it's not as politically sexy as spending money on schools and hospitals (i.e expenditures which benefit the people who vote). But if you had a dedicated fuel tax to spend on energy efficiency projects, there's at least a possibility that these needed expenditures would actually happen. And the middle and upper classes, who have the capital to make the investments necessary to improve the energy efficiency of their own homes, would finally see some economic payback from doing so.

Again, I don't care how you choose to spend your money, as long as you're paying the full cost of all you consume. That's far from being true for fossil fuels consumption right now. I don't want your individual choices in regard to where you live relative to where you work, how big your house is, what sort of light bulbs you use, or what kind of vehicle you drive, to be any of my business whatsoever. But until fuel is priced properly, I become party to these transactions and your choices ARE my business.

 

[epoisses]

"Again, I don't care how you choose to spend your money, as long as you're paying the full cost of all you consume. That's far from being true for fossil fuels consumption right now."

Is that really true? No, honestly! Can you back that up with data? European gasoline and diesel are taxed so heavily, how does that compare against estimate cost of global warming?

 

[moltenmetal]

epoisses: read my previous posts: the fact that European fuels taxes are higher than North American fuels taxes goes a long way to explaining the significant difference in fuel efficiencies between the two fleets of vehicles.

Surveys of vehicle purchasers here in North America continue to show that people are concerned about other factors far more than they are about fuel economy, even though gas prices at the pumps have risen steeply in the past few years. That proves that fuels pricing is still nowhere nearly high enough here to have a true effect on purchasing decisions.

As to the potential costs of global warming, they have been estimated to be truly enormous, but that presupposes you buy a connection between manmade greenhouse emissions and global warming. These costs can be dropped to zero if you simply deny that there's sufficient evidence to justify a connection, which explains why this approach is so popular at present. Pay for more studies and don't change your behaviour- it's a very easy political and economic sell.

When you also consider the costs of all the other known harmful effects on people's health and the greater environment resulting from fossil fuels exploration, efforts to "secure" continued cheap supplies, refinement, distribution and combustion of these fuels, these fuels are really a bargain at current pricing. The other costs are borne by health care budgets, military budgets etc., and show up in effects on people's lives that are very difficult to quantify in simple dollar and cents terms.

Fix the market and its valuation of this commodity and people's behaviours WILL change. There's significant elasticity in fuel consumption with respect to price, but that elasticity is not infinite. Fail to address the market valuation and this commodity will continue to be over-consumed for people's wants rather than for their true needs.

 

[epoisses]

"When you also consider the costs of all the other known harmful effects on people's health and the greater environment .... these fuels are really a bargain at current pricing."

No sorry I don't buy that, in God we trust, all others bring data! I am quite sure the cost of global warming consequences if we experience them in, say, 2050, is enormous, but the accumulated taxes paid by car drivers from Karl Benz until 2050 is enormous as well. It's really not obvious which of the two is greater.

The other thing that I think is questionable is that if you make fuel expensive enough, people will stop driving. That assumes that driving a car is a, what's that beautiful word again, "discretionary" activity that can be stopped at any point in time. That is just not true. People may just cut down on luxury, they may give up smoking, they may even economisze on clothes and food, just to be able to go to work and visit their friends and family, which is a very fundamental human need.

 

[davefitz]

epoisses:
it may be true that people need to get to work, but it becomes negotiable whether they need to do it in a 9 mpg SUV, all by their lonesome, traveling from a bedroom community 5o miles away from work. Once the cost of fuel starts to dig into other lifestyle options, the rational consumer compares the relative cost vs benefits of retaining a 1965 commuting style or biting the bullet and recognizing things are changing. As always, denial is the first response.

 

[dcasto]

Now that our uncle AL has teamed up with Mr. Branson see:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020900693.html

We should all relax. Uncle AL now buys all his energy for his mansions from hydropower (did he lay his own copper wire to the nearest dam?) as we all should. There hasn't been a new dam in ages here in the US and the 15% premium he pays for his power (its kinda like dropping a dollar in the plate on Sunday) couldn't by the paper to mount an effort to get the environmentalist to budge on building a new one today.

So what do all use poor working stiffs do? I think I found the solution. Uncle AL buys "Carbon Credits", so I'll sell him credits. I have a standing offer to anyone out ther including uncle Al, I'll stop burning carbon for oh $1000/ton. For you SUV'rs that about $8K/year and on $3K for small cars. Heck, uncle Al pays $10 to a Carbon Credit club and he can fly 6000 miles on a jet and know that he didn't add to global warming (on paper that is). The club will take about 75% of the fee in keeping people employed (and burning more fuel) and take the rest and plant a tree with a little tag that says "paid in full by uncle Al" on it.

You want to stop CO2, tax the crap out of carbon. Darryl Hanna stated that ethanol and biofuels don't create global warming, and they shouldn't be taxed, duh, oh those silly little blonde hairs must be in overdrive. She also the earth recieves so much solar energy everyday that we must trap it. I agree, lets build solar collectors over her and uncle Al's houses and land so much so that not a drop of sunlight hits her fair skin or uncle Al's farm and it turns to a dust bowl like the insides of the Astrodome, then he can install astro turf knowing that the petroleum based carbons are losked up forever in a non-CO2 state......

Sorry, a real run on sentance...

 

[epoisses]

@davefitz
Sure, I agree, and I think the EU proposal to force car makers to reduce CO2 emissions is probably a good way forward, although they fail to show a quantitave decision basis.
But it's so "gratuit" to accuse car drivers of not paying enough for the damage they are said to cause. Heck I pay through my nose for fuel and the government does all kinds of beautiful things with it except address CO2 emissions and then people accuse me...

I'm at work now and can't spend time on comparing the one multi billion $ number with the other one, but I'm pretty convinced that the statement is not true.

If you look at the Asia tsunami, I have difficulty to determine the actual cost (even

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake

does not mention it) but worldwide donations amounted to 7 billion US$. Compare this with:
Assume 100 million cars on 300 million Europeans.
Assume 1000 km/month which is roughly 100 liter gasoline per month per car.
Assume 1$/liter fuel tax (I know this is incorrect but it must be the right order of magnitude).
This makes 10 billion US$/month.

Think about it what you want.

You will now tell me that the Asian tsunami is nothing compared to what we will see after the temperature increase... and I guess I will not know what to respond.

 

[moltenmetal]

epoisses: dude- fuel doesn't even COST $1/litre at the pump here in North America, so there's nowhere near $1/L in tax in the price! Heck, it's just now scraping $1 CANADIAN per litre in my region, and that's because we had a major refinery fire combined with a rail strike that drove up the local market price by $0.10/litre overnight.

Once you net out the cost of the road construction and maintenance, regulation of the petroleum production and distribution industry etc. that is ALSO paid for by that fuel tax, it leaves precious little to pay for anything else indirectly related to fuel, like say the US "investment" of a military nature in Iraq...Is that still running at ~$10 billion per month I wonder? Gotta be close to that...

How do you assess a mere dollars-and-cents cost to the irreparable alteration of the earth's climate? Are you trying to do a simpleminded cost-benefit analysis like those famous Ford guys with their exploding Pintos? How many people burned alive, how much the lawsuits would cost etc.?

Yes, people are adaptable. They'll find a way to make do regardless how badly we wreck this place. Life WILL go on. But chances are they'll need even MORE fossil fuel consumption to maintain the life they've become accustomed to under the worsened circumstances. More air conditioning. More concrete for storm-resistant structures. More fertilizer to compensate for the reduced crop yields. More desalination. A retreat from costal areas etc. etc.

Yeah, yeah, you pay through the nose for your fuel already, and governments "waste" that money on schools and hospitals instead of doing something about greenhouse gas emissions. Great- it shows through in the performance of the European fleet versus the North American fleet of vehicles in fuel efficiency terms. You just proved that pricing things properly has the correct effect- it reduces wasteful consumption, while of course increasing annoying whining from people who feel they're paying too much. Do you have something better to suggest?!

 

[GregLocock]

"Are you trying to do a simpleminded cost-benefit analysis like those famous Ford guys with their exploding Pintos? How many people burned alive, how much the lawsuits would cost etc.?
"

That is very funny, since cost benefit analysis is now standard practice in the transportation industries for assessing safety improvements. The exact sums that got them into trouble are now performed by people all over the world when deciding on whetehr to put 3 point seatbelts into a/c or buses, or looking at road safety enhancements.





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.