Heavyweights against the ropes
Can the Germans be beaten at the European game?
Germany鈥檚 leader, Angela Merkel, has said are 鈥渘ot economically favourable鈥 and would be a burden on German industry.
The German car industry, which makes big luxury cars, is incandescent.
The carmakers don鈥檛 think the German middle classes would take, en masse, to the Smart car that I test drove the other day. For what it鈥檚 worth it doesn鈥檛 feel lightweight or flimsy. But you wouldn鈥檛 get many Christmas presents in the back.
Although European commissioners are not meant to put across the views of their country, they nearly always do when the game is big enough. And the German industry commissioner, spoke against the level of fines.
My first instinct was that if Germany opposes a move, it simply won鈥檛 happen. I haven鈥檛 really changed my mind but perhaps things aren鈥檛 quite straightforward.
Whether by accident or design, the commission has split the motor industry.
The producers of big cars, like the Germans, are on a different end of the see-saw to the French and Italian manufacturers. If others weigh in behind the Latin alliance, Germany will have to think carefully.
I鈥檓 told the German car industry itself is split and companies are quite capable of arguing against each other in private meetings with the commission.
Soon it will be "put up or shut up" time, as one insider put it. "Who stands up at meetings and says 鈥楤e more ambitious鈥? Germany and the UK. Fine, it鈥檚 time to put them to the test."
It is true that Germany is in many ways a very green country, and environmentalism is much more deeply felt and deeply rooted than in Britain. The doesn鈥檛 sit very well with this.
My bet is that Mrs Merkel is a woman who chooses her words very carefully. 鈥淣ot economically favourable鈥 is a fact rather than an opinion, and quite reasonable as a holding statement.
Some say that she is personally in favour of the plan, and the challenge for her is how to sell it.
What of the proposal itself? Environmentalists although I suspect that is a continuation of their long-term disappointment rather than the genuine shock the carmakers got.
The targets haven鈥檛 changed from the beginning of the year, and haven鈥檛 taken into account the recommendations of the European Parliament, at least as far as I can see.
The aim is to cut the average car emission to 130g of carbon per kilometre driven in five years鈥 time. They would cut another 10g by what they call 鈥渢echnical鈥 means: whether different tyres or fuel.
What is new is the level of fines, and that is what took the motor manufacturers by surprise.
The commission equation, for those of you who don鈥檛 have to take off shoes and socks to do sums, is:
The number of grams of CO2 per kilometre by which the manufacturer exceeded the target X number of cars newly registered X excess emissions penalty for that year.
The last figure, the fine, climbs from 20 euros in 2012 to 96 euros for 2015.
It鈥檚 that 95 euro fine that really riles the Germans, so it will be interesting if it emerges unscathed, and what Mrs Merkel has to say when the leaders discuss this in March.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
"What of the proposal itself? Environmentalists sound just as unhappy as the carmakers, although I suspect that is a continuation of their long-term disappointment rather than the genuine shock the carmakers got."
Do you ever ask yourself - who voted for these "environmentalists" - who do they answer to?
I suspect not - in the age of all things green - anyone can join an environmentalist organisation and then begin to tell us how to live our lives. No doubt most of them are being subsidised by the EU lobby fund anyway.
I'm not convinced the Commission got it right, politically or economically. The Commission is becoming too much a body of its own, steering its own course in world politics and disregarding community interests. It should serve the members (paticularly as a non-elected body), not bully them around. An overall view and policy on tackling climate change is still missing in the EU!
Politically the Commission divided the EU members, many of which have large automotive sectors and are prepared to defend those. There are not only factories in Germany, but also in Spain, Portugal, Czech republic, Slovakia, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Poland (and some very large independent factories like Valmet in Finland for example, that builds the Porsche boxter...). In Germany the broad coalition government has put jobs in the forefront. Any party who does not deliver on jobs will lose elections. The car industry is huge in Germany, with thousands of companies providing parts and technology for the industry. Destroying this will leave whole regions in the country in destitution. New technologies will foster new jobs, but not necessarily in Europe.
The Italians and the French have reduced CO2 emissions through the simple fact that nobody is buying their big cars. Demand for big German cars grew in the past years (also in France and Italy). French and Italian cars are still unreliable and little value for money. The french and Italians did indeed use the CO2 negotiations in Brussels for their own good, it had nothing to do with good intentions. The Commission went along (that's to say, the environment Commissioner Dimas), because it thinks the German industry needs ''a lesson'.
I think the Commission could use a lesson, very rarely has a proposal met with so much resistance openly from a member state.
It's amazing that the German automotive industry - a triumph of design, technology, craftsmanship that provides quality cars that are popular with motorists worldwide - can be tied down and possibly ruined by hoards of unproductive pygmies.
If I were a German industrialist, I'd consider making Panzers again.
The best way around this for the car manufacturers is to build the fine into the cost of the car and call it a 'green tax' - which is what it is. The Commission gets what it wants, more control of industry and more money, car makers get to build their cars, and the myths regarding man-made climate change continue to go unchallenged by Politicians on the make and the now government frightened leftwing 91热爆.
"Can the Germans be beaten at the European game?"
This sentence doesn't make much sense, Mark.
As a German I can tell you that there is a large majority in the population in favour of more efficient cars (and in favour of a speed limit on motorways). Also, everybody believes that German car engineers will reach any target you give them - these guys are really good as we all know. Therefore, there is a problem with some reactionary managers in the German automotive industry, not with the Germans. (By the way: the EU is not the power game that you imply with France and Germany always getting their way. This is a UK tabloid myth. These things are subject to good old qualified majority voting.)
More importantly, you forgot to mention that the European car industry commited itself in 1998 to 140 g CO2 / km by 2008. The French and Italian producers took the commitment seriously and started building more efficient cars. The German industry decided to go for maximum profits by selling gas-guzzling luxury cars. One could say that they cheated on the rest of the European automotive industry.
Consequently, the German car industry cannot argue with any moral authority. Merkel is making a huge mistake by buying into their flawed arguments. And she will be left in the cold as the German producers will now quickly come up with more efficient cars. I think we are seeing the limits of Merkel's political skills.
Mark's right about Commissioners towing the national line whenever possible, at least when it comes to cars. The German Industry Commissioner Gunter Verheugen was horrified when journalists suggested to him that he might adopt the green credentials of his colleague Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas and opt for an environmentally-friendly Toyota Prius. Gunter made noises about how such a car was not suitable for the long trips he must endure as a Commissioner and that he needed his big BMW, which, he pointed out, was a diesel.
Since then Gunter has been given a new "hydrogen" Beemer by BMW(with the word HYDROGEN emblazoned along its flanks), doubtless to counter the publicity coup of Stavros plonking a Japanese machine on the "European" Commission's forecourt. The problem is that hydrogen fuel stations are as rare as hen's teeth, so the Guntermobile is unlikely to have the hydrogen fuel switch in operation as it cruises around the EU.
Meanwhile, the dainty but environmentally-smug Prius stands its ground alongside the hefty German machinery in front of EU Commission HQ -that's it pictured above, alongside Mark's blog.
Gunter's people ask how a German Commissioner could possibly potter about in a Japanese car? It's all right for Stavros, they say: as a Greek he's free of national brand loyal when it comes to limousines.
But even Stavros has his pride about his wheels, just like most blokes - his silver-grey Prius has been fitted with dark-tinted rear windows in the back, to give it a bit more street-cred.
Meanwhile, Mark, you can get more than you'd think in the back of a Smart. I'm on my second, and even if it's race-tuned it comes in at way below the Commission's new CO2 targets and is a very slow drinker. It has to meet the same EU safety standards as Gunter's Beemer and can be parked in the boot of it if you want, hydrogen tank permitting.
The big plus of the Smart, though, is that you can't get any Commissioners in the back......
Hmmm.. This will become very interesting. This is where the 'war' between national interest and the needs of the planet as a whole will inevitably collide.
A couple of points.
* I am in favour of environmental targets. The problem is that it is easy for the EU to castigate the US approach - the Americans can't dictate to the US carmakers in the way the EU thinks it can.
* The targets will be 'gamed' in any instance. For example, high performance cars, such as Porsches, could be brought into an average with other 'VW' cars such as Audis.
* It seems rather pointless to impose targets from on high without winning the hearts and minds of the car companies - otherwise they will just outsource production to China, in a similar way to the old 'MG Rover' models.
* Surely persuasion is key to winning the arguments with the Germans ??
Daimler - Benz have just lost billions of dollars on the sale of Chrysler, which simply hadn't adapted to the move away from sales of SUVs in America, leading to huge stocks of unsold 'Jeeps'.
Therefore the German car companies would surely know that they will have to change to meet the challenge of higher oil prices, whether the EU is imposing new legislation or not ??
MM wrote:
"It鈥檚 that 95 euro fine that really riles the Germans."
I wonder why? After all Germans are great at improving XX century's technology.
[XXIst's is a horse of another colour]
BTW. Daimler and BMW have already moved most of its luxury models' production to... US. :-)))
Ah, Ronald is a German. I really shouldn't say this I guess but that does kind of explain why he loves the idea of transferring legislative powers from directly elected parliaments to unelected EU-crats and appointed government ministers.
I guess we can call the constitutional treaty mark II, the 'Erm盲chtigungsgesetz' for the EU.
As for these 'environmental' rules, they are a bunch of nonsense as they are, climate change is and always has been a natural phenomenon. Let's not let extremist 'greens' (ie the new name for many former communist parties) scaremonger us into submission with their propaganda.
Then you have to bear in mind that the German government is itself probably split - between the Bundeskanzleramt (equivalent of the UK's Cabinet office), Ausw盲rtiges Amt (Foreign Office) and the Bundesministeriam der Finanzen (Finance Ministry).
Plus Germany gets outvoted under qualified majority voting at least twice as often as the UK does (mainly due to lousy policy coordination in the German administration)... So an alliance against Germany and its carmakers could well work.
While I am for this in principle, some people (e.g. those with larger families) require larger cars and will be penalised although they are in fact transporting more people per litre of fuel used (and emissions created). It would make more sense to have an emission limit "per KG", or even better "per cubic metre of passenger space". This would mean that manufacturers would in effect be encouraged to build cars that are efficient for their class i.e. they would still need to make them lightweight for whatever size they are and produce more efficient engines.
Also, there is no justification for building cars that can go faster than say 160 KM/h (100 MPH). Manufacturers should use more appropriate engine sizes/gear ratios in their cars which limit the speed and at the same time improve efficiency.
I also agree with the previous poster, saying "the Germans want this" oversimplifies the matter and only takes account of what German manufacturers, not consumers want.
How come you forgot to ask the British motor industry (i.e. Morgan cars....) about their reaction to the proposed EU legislation ?
Ronald Gr眉nebaum says nearly all there is to be said. Were the senior managers of these huge, multi-national German car-makers playing a game of "dare" with the EU, or are they just rotten strategists? They knew the score, yet they continued.
Peugeot-Citroen, here in France, are whingeing, too (Peugeot's cars are affected more than Citroen's). But if they think that "green Sarkozy" is going to bow to their unjust whims, they'd better take note of just what's happening on their home front.
We're likely to get not only this penalty but a home-grown addition. Buyers of high-carbon rated cars will pay an on-cost to their purchase, which is promised to convert into an annual tax. Lower-rated vehicle buyers will get a refund (doubt it will be annual!). Bit like the UK system but more punitive!
So the worm turns and not even a full week after Bali. Now refresh my memory since it was so long ago but didn't the Europeans argue insistently that there should be mandatory CO2 reduction targets which of course presumes a penalty for not meeting them while the Americans objected? So this is also a matter of foreign policy too. And refresh my memory but wasn't it also just about a week ago that the Europeans said in Lisbon they would work for a common foreign policy to strengthen their political clout against larger nations like the US, China, Russia, India, and Japan but here they are in what appears to be internal discord. If a house were built from the words of Europeans, it would fall in of its own weight of half truths and outright lies.
Ronald Grunebaum #1
Ronald Gr眉nebaum wrote:
"(By the way: the EU is not the power game that you imply with France and Germany always getting their way. This is a UK tabloid myth. These things are subject to good old qualified majority voting.)"
OH REALLY!!! Then how do you explain Germany and France shoving the Growth and Stability pact in Maastrict down everyone's throat? And how do you explain that France and Germany were able to evade paying even one Euro in fines of the billions they owed when they were the only ones to violate it? ...and violate it they did year after year.
Dear Mr. Mardell,
Since you promised to cover this issue in detail and since some of us do have to take our shoes and socks off to do sums...
Please give us an idea how big a fine this 96 Euros per this per that comes out to for, say, Mercedes or BMW.
I have no idea how many cars they produce, so I have no idea what kind of impact this would have.
Interesting points Ronald (made me rethink my ideas at least). I suspect that the car industry doesn't really care, this is but an annoyance. Those that can afford the true luxury brands will absorb any tax through pricing, so I guess any impact will be the pseudo luxury market like the BMW 3 series that is in a far more cut throat sector. This is of course an opportunity for bargaining and the way of politics is that the affected group must squeal as load as possible about their plight before pushing for some benefits to correct the implied impact. There must be something that can be offered to reduce these costs that won't upset the tree huggers and will allow the EU car firms to chase down improvements that the market is starting to demand anyway. I wonder if the other countries will complain about what could easily become seen as illegal development aid.
Ronald,
1.I hardly believe that a majority of Germans would welcome a speed-limit. I am German too and i'm definitely not in favour. And to tell you the truth i don't know someone who is. You're probably sitting in an ivory-tower in Brussels either for the green or leftist party, are you?
2. It is true that German car-makers are lagging a bit in the field of hybrid-motors. However, not because managers 'cheat' on CO2-reduction in favour of maximizing profits but because hybrids are considered rather inefficient. Researchers actually concentrate on other engine types.
3. It is right that Merkel stands up for the German industry (and Germany) like this. I would like to see her doing this more often instead of her usual cheque-book diplomatics. We are the EU's biggest contributor with approx. 23 bn and get almost nothing in return. The British have at least their Brit-rabate - we have effectively no benefits but more bureaucracy and in future (thanks to widened Schengen borders aka 'open borders') increasing influx of criminals which is going to be another burden for us taxpayers.
i bet those idiots at the EU hq have big polluting cars start there with their policy.next there will be a eu car tax. free britain.down with the eu
MM wrote:
"It鈥檚 that 95 euro fine that really riles the Germans."
I wonder why? After all Germans are great at improving XIX century's technology.
And besides they've already moved a large portion of their luxury cars production (Mercedes 600, BMW SUV, etc.) to certain former British colony where exploited masses in Kentucky and West Virginia churn them up for much less than their
unionized German comrades.
I think this story is rather Ironic!
BMW has been forced to take a step backward in producing a Hybrid car! They Actually produced "Clean" Hydrogen car that they are ready to mass produce. Unfortunately until the petrol companies start adding Liquid Hydrogen to the pumps its a question of chicken and egg.
Given the fact that Germany already is at the forefront of green measures and technology the german carmakers should see this as an extra incentive.
Imagine them being able to sell a "fast, big car that is ecologically friendly". Many people like big cars and would want to purchase one, being able to tell them it's now green too might add another argument in favour.
But that'll need some changes in mentality within the carindustry I fear.
Can the Germans be beaten at the European game?
Quote Ronald Gr眉nebaum"(By the way: the EU is not the power game that you imply with France and Germany always getting their way. This is a UK tabloid myth. These things are subject to good old qualified majority voting.)"
Here Here good comment!!! and Im sorry to say it but from the Sun to the bbc the British public are pumped full of this undercover nationalistic tripe, and then you wonder why the UK is so removed from Europe, it might be nice to make a good one liner but your job is information not jokes.
As a Brit who lived for 28 years in Germany, I can confirm that only the French and Germans consider the EU Power Game to be a "UK Tabloid Myth". They obviously have never heard of Budget Deficits.
Corporations, specially auto and oil corporations, are only interested in maximizing profits with the least amount of effort possible, damn the environment, damn society. Voluntary targets or toothless regulation don't work. German auto managers are just being lazy and are showing little faith towards their superb engineers. This is a good plan that will force car makers to improve their technology within a good time line. Also the good philosophy "you pollute, you pay" will come into full force, not only towards the auto makers, but also to all those inconsiderate enough to purchase gas guzzlers (I鈥檓 sure auto makers will pass the fine costs towards buyers).
In the long run, European auto makers will be better positioned to compete when these standards start taking effect world wide. In the long term it will pay off big time (but of course, corporations being myopic, are only interested in short term profits).
Also as an aside, this is a good example of how the EU is able to implement good policies continent wide. If Germany was doing this on its own, its auto makers would be able to water things down or maybe even able to stop it from happening. Their influence at the EU level is far less, hence a good policy will probably go through. Merkel knows this. She can tell German auto makers she's trying to water things down, but when she "fails" doing so, she'll just say "Ah well, I tried. Blame the EU.鈥 Politicians do this all the time. Implement good, yet unpopular policies at the EU level and then direct the backlash at the national level towards the EU. The EU is unpopular and accused of being undemocratic, but so what? It works.
Thomas Patricio
Toronto, Canada
Everybody knows the Germans make the best cars in the world, and it would be an own goal for Europe to destroy this industry voluntarily. I think the best approach here is simply to increase taxes on petrol and let the consumers decide - this has worked in the past and will work in the future. Use the money raised to reduce income tax.
I'm all for strict, tough emissions standards.
Engineers are obviously capable of coming up with decent cars that have good emissions by today's standards, not 2012's. The diesel offerings from Citroen (C4 - 120g) or Mazda (3 - 128g) are meeting or exceeding the standards right now. There are lots of cars that could beat the standards with improved tyres and fuels: Citroen C5, Honda Civic, VW Polo, Toyota Auris and the list goes on.
Tax the hell out of the bad ones and don't tax (or offer tax breaks!) on cars that meet or exceed the standards. Nothing speaks to the average person more than money. If the average person is polluting less then why shouldn't they be rewarded with lower vehicle taxes/fees?
Mark,
I am a bit perplexed by the British media鈥檚 semi-silence about the most important symbolic change to the face of Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Today (21/12/07) the Schengen border-free area expanded to include the New EU Member States. That means that towns torn in two by the Second, or sometimes the First World War, such as the German/Polish towns of Guben/Gubin or the Italian/Slovene towns of Gorizia/Nova Gorica are re-united. The barbed wire was, today, torn down all over a continent. Germans and Poles sawed away at border barriers, symbolising one of the greatest achievements of our lifetimes. You noted that this was going to happen in your blog dated 29/11/07 but not a word today. The 91热爆 10 O鈥機lock news didn鈥檛 mention it, nor did, for example, the hour-long Channel 4 bulletin. Yet it was the top story in the Europe section on the 91热爆 website all day (see So a story that is on the front pages of newspapers across dozens of countries and is credited with top spot on the 91热爆鈥檚 own website doesn鈥檛 merit a mention on the 91热爆鈥檚 (or anyone else鈥檚) TV broadcasts in the UK. Why?
Everybody knows the Germans make the best cars in the world, and it would be an own goal for Europe to destroy this industry voluntarily. I think the best approach here is simply to increase taxes on petrol and let the consumers decide. The money rasied is used to reduce income tax. This approach has worked in the past to improve fuel efficiency AND to encourage people to use public transport, and I can't see any reason it won't work in the future. In contrast, these targets won't encourage people to drive less once they have bought a car.
In general, governments have an ability to use - and should use - taxes to discourage activities which are bad for society and encourage activities which are good for society. Income tax discourages employment, which in the current situation in Europe is absurd, while tax on burning the world's resources does make sense. These targets are an unnecessary complication; it is better simply to replace imcome tax with tax on petrol (and on aircraft fuel).
When asked about the fact that their own personal vehicles were among the most gas guzzling and highest CO2 output vehicles on the road, the top EU commissioners said that it was none of anyone's business but their own. "Do as we say, not as we do." The mice have spoken. This is what the European Union is really all about, an imperious tyrannical government which will dictate to every one of its slave colonies every aspect of every life from birth to death. Europe personified. Nothing ever really changes. It will be interesting to see how this ultimately evolves into another internecine European war. Next time I hope the US has enough sense to stay out of it.
I agree with Ronald Grunebaum (1) in almost all respects. What frightens me is the potential for damage to Angela Merkel - a person that I have come to believe is vital to all our futures. She is a firm consensus-builder, something Europe desperately needs after all those vapid place-holders we have been used to. The balancing factor - Sarkozy - is such an unpredictable loose cannon, that one doesn't know whether his legacy is going to be pure destruction or destructive creation. However we do know he will be extraordinarily partisan to purely French interests - that is immediately apparent.
On the vexed question of the heavy German auto - well, we all know the car's had it in the medium-term. It's certainly not worth building barricades around such an ephemeral industry.
How many Christmas presents fit in the back of a Smart? About the average number most people buy, I'd guess. Most people could do their Christmas shopping by bike.
I bet a lot of them do just that in cities like M眉nster, with a modal split for cycling of about 35%.
Germany is not just a little bit green at the edges. In terms of environmentally-friendly mobility and spatial planning, its the most advanced big country in Europe. And its economy is starting to see serious potential in the green revolutions to come in many branches of technology.
Where did the present German raft of successful luxury car models come from? From guys like Zetsche, Piech, Schrempp, Pischetsrieder, that's where. A generation of machos, in tune with Gerhard Schr枚der's style. 8-10 years ago they guys seemed like kings, but in the meantime all of them have suffered from major flops and scandals and perhaps their era is fading.
No doubt the push to lower-volume, high-quality, high-price cars made economic sense. But the leading German automotive firms are bursting with talent and there are certainly enough project groups raring to go and catch up on the Japanese in terms of cleaner car technology. Maybe the Smart was just a few years ahead of its time.
So I'd say the German car industry will adapt. Rest assured they are putting plenty of brain power into all the different scenarios. I doubt they will oppose these measures flat out.
Those living in the less developed countries may well be concerned about the problem of "dumping".
Low emmisions might be imposed within the EU -but what about cars made by the same (or other companies) outside the EU and exported to poor countires?
Pollution levels in places like Metro Manila (perhaps comparable with an urban conurbation such as London) are already unacceptably high -and presumably much higher than equivalent levels in a place such as London (certainly higher than Amsterdam and most other European cities). This is because (as a result of poverty) vehicles are poorly maintained. Also , it appears that many busses, for example, are third-hand (at least) having already having had several previous lives in richer countries before ending up here. The result is an endless supply of smoke belchers -often even apparently even from new cars.
In a global system -CO2 levels will not respectlocal boundaries. Pollution levels in the Philipppines will ultimately affect city dwellers in Paris, Amsterdam, Rome, Vienna and elswhere where levels have been reduced. Preservingdifferent cultural values is important -but this is no time for silly parochialism.
Hi
Germany鈥檚 leader, Angela Merkel, has said on thing in Bali and another thing at 91热爆 in Germany regarding German cars which have been classed as extensive polluters. Also the no speed limit on the German motorways is a contributing factor for pollution.
Regards Dr Terence Hale
In my experience of traffic analysis in London, the average age of vehicles has remained at about 6.4 years for the past 5 years. If this is typical of the car population at large (my sample is taken from vehicles recorded for traffic violations) then any target set to be met in 5 years time will not filter down through the car population until 2018. That's not an excuse to do nothing, but it does suggest that the results may not be achieved as quickly as expected by the legislators. It might help the environment rather more if we encourage manufacturers to develop vehicles which can be maintained and upgraded easily rather than building more and more complexity into their products.
Toyota led the way with the Prius, now Honda and Nissan are jumping on the bandwagon with both feet !! Why can't the German carmakers join in too ?? Or is it a German NIH (Not Invented Here) attitude that is the problem ??
What is with this doom and gloom that so many of you are predicting for the German auto industry? There is no doom and gloom coming!
Just to give you an example. The new BMW 320d gets 4,8l/100km and 128g of carbon per/km, and that is a good car with good performance. Of course 5-series and their SUVs are not below the target, but not so much off. The technology is there, the question is just when it comes economically feasible to put it in production. In here BMW has been the leader amongst the German auto manufacturers, and others will follow in time.
I also agree with Frank (15) about the hybrids. Hybrids are just inefficient. Just think about it: you have both gasoline and electric engines with both gas tank and batteries. That just screams inefficient loudly! Just look at Prius, it has the same performance as an Soviet build Lada! You can get the same emissions from any new car as Prius just by putting a new software in an cars computers which makes sure that the car doesn't give any performance at all!
Maximum speed limits do not make economy. More people just fly shorthaul ....
USA has slower speed limits and worse petrol economy !
If the EU regs limit maximum speed - it's easy to import a foreign plated vehicle and also avoid tax discs, MOTs etc !
Tesla Roadster does 125mph and zero grams/km
The answer is simple - tax increases on carbon based fuel, but our politicians lack courage.
It's good to see the usual Eurosceptic suspects coming out of the climate change-sceptic closet. When you criticise the laws of physics it tends to make your criticisms of European politics carry less weight...
Environmentalist groups are mostly funded by the voluntary donations of their members - if you don't like what they say, join them and influence them. Green parties get lots of votes all over Europe.
This is an opportunity for the German car industry. Luxury cars, and the well-heeled people who buy them, should be the first place to go green. Only the better off will be able to afford the first generation of greener cars so build the new technology into aspirational models - the rest of the world will end up playing catch up...
Since several people mentioned Bali as a success story.
Can you identify signatories of Kyoto Protocol who met their obligations under the treaty?
Don't be shy! Name names!
And don't all speak at once!
Since several people mentioned Bali as a success story...
Can you identify signatories of Kyoto Protocol who met their obligations under the treaty?
Don't be shy! Name names!
And don't all speak at once!
I, for one, would love to see politicians and diplomats ferried around in smart cars. Practice what you preach.
Pfff 鈧100 per car, if you're buying a 2.0l+ car is nothing. The high speed v rated tyres will cost more than that. It's definitely not going to impact the business in any way. They can just do a Ryan Air and pass the fine along to the consumer.
These are luxury cars not necessities,
My 5 Series petrol driven BMW perhaps produces twice as much CO2 / 100km than my son -in-laws Valvo. But he covers 10 times the number of Km a year as I do, so who produces the less. Obviously petrol and oil should carry the cost as CO2 is a product of conbustion.
In this matter, Merkel is rightly chided and taunted by many in Germany for being absolutely schizophrenic. She is playing the role of the saviour of the planet by pushing hard for strict CO2 reduction goals, while at the same trying to protect an industry that continues to put engine output above environmental sustainability. This reflects the classic dilemma politicians are in today: they preach environmental awareness and economic progress at the same time. However, you can't have both. Today, if you want to be environmentally responsible, you don't drive a car, let alone a powerful one. If you want to strengthen the economy, however, you're investing your euros in a new car. Can't get it right, can you?
In my view, the solution to the issue you describe here lies not with the producers, it lies with the consumers. As long as they ask for powerful cars, they will get them. The powerful car is a status symbol. A status symbol is something horribly vain. We're all vain. All of us who buy luxury products know we're doing something irresponsible, but as long as everyone else does it, too, our sense of guilt is alleviated. So instead of fining the producer for making an environmentally unsustainable product, why not fine the consumer with a heavy charge for excessive use of petrol and causing excessive emissions? Let the parliaments of the Member States decide if they are responsible enough to charge a really painful environment tax on anyone who drives a 200hp BMW. The rich will still pay it, for sure, but if the tax progresses, it will work eventually.
So it is clear: the nationalist government of Germany defends national interests and all this talk about European values is just a smoke screen. How hypocritical of German government to pretend to be good Europeans and bash other European leaders and at the same time be a Nationialist German government.
Call me naive, but I am amazed that people cannot simply admit that there are just TOO MANY cars out there to begin with.
Everyone knows where we stand on petrol, climate and carbon footprint so why do we keep on producing and more importantly buying these BIG cars such as SUVs, which use up so much of it, to drive them in already congested cities and towns???!!!
I bet there are hundreds of good car designers who have already designed luxury cars that are also 'green'.
They are not manufactured and sold because human beings are selfish, egoistic and rotten, and a few of those who try to make a truly well-meant positive difference in this world (it is certainly not governments or EU-we all know why wars in The Far and Middle East are fought)cannot outperform the majority that still refuses to accept the planet's situation.
No one can change anything on this planet for the better unless we change our bad habits and dismal attitude to the nature.
Governments and manufacturers know too well (have known for decades) what technologies & resources are available in the 21st century to replace petrol but still prefer to rake in more money instead of making green cars that will carry this lazy society around.
Time magazine reported in its December issue on the best inventions of the year 2007 and several 'good looking' as well as 'green' cars were among them.
I agree with David (39) and his point that German manufacturers should be a shining example in producing luxury cars that are also 'greenest'. And there is no need to overprice what is meant to help our environment in the long-run. Unfortunately, Human GREED will most probably always go against the obvious logic of this and win over as well.
I would have to agree that there are simply too many cars.
Even if manufacturers achieve these emissions targets, due to increased car ownership of 25 a year and increased mileage of 2% a year studies have shown that there will be no net reduction tin overall CO2 emissions.
However, the car manufacturers can, have and will achieve these targets - because it means just a 18% improvement across the range. VW, Renault, and Peugeot Citroen have all produced 'ec0- versions of existing cars that just have a few simple low costs refinements e.g. low rolling resistance tyres, tweaked aerodynamics, downsized turbo diesle engines, lighter weight, higher gearing etc. - and produce reductions of 30% or so.
Therefore why can't these tweaks be rolled out across the entire range at little or no cost ?
in short there is evidence that manufacturers have been withholding technology until they are forced to use it to meet emissions targets - VW and Mercedes have had stop-start systems for years but decided not to fit them to boost profits.
the real issue though is that whatever technolgicial redcution can be made to emisssions it is impossible with current technology to produce a zero emissisons vehcile at an affordable price - it will be 20 to 30 years befopre hyrgoen fuel cell or battery technology is good enough to realistically replace the internal combustion engine.
the short term answer i believe is not to penalise the manufacturer - but adhere to the polluter pays principle i.e. the driver.
i have calculated that it would costs around 6p/ litre of fuel to completely carbon offset you emisssions - you would easily save that much be driving more economically - this seems to me a realistic and much fairer way to actually bring CO2 emissions to zero.
will the politicians implment such a tax when most drivers already believe fuel is already overtaxed ? highly doubtful at the moment - but the tide is shifting gradually.
Let's face it....environmental concerns should be at the top of the agenda. What we do now, will have effects for our children. However, any government or organisation such as the rising evil of the EU wigs that espouses to punish those who don't fall into their idealistic framework, needs to go away and FIRST stop also banging on about "globalisation" being a good thing. I'd be very happy to pay more for goods made in my own country, and not have a ship from the far east bringing frozen chicken pieces to the local baguette shop, burning half a tonne of diesel every mile. similarly why the heck are we importing milk from Poland to the UK for? We have cows....milk them here. Employ people here. Stop polluting by policy. The double standards are unreal. EU...you can keep it!
With a prospect of one billion incredibly fuel-efficient Tatas in India and billion and a half in China I would be concerned about a global gas chamber in a long term.
But if I bought one I would be more immediately concerned about a tractor-trailer's impact on this tin can at freeway speeds.
To be honest, I'd rather be in a V-8 Lincoln TownCar, although it might not be as quiet as Tata.
[You can't plug your ears with your knees in it very easily; you'd need at least a Fiat 500 for that.]