Car trouble for EU emissions plans
The Germans and the French are arguing that EU plans to fine polluting car makers are too harsh. Ministers are having their first say about a law proposed by . 
But the Environment Commissioner has told industry ministers, meeting in Brussels, that鈥檚 the point: the fines are meant to hurt so much that car companies will change their behaviour to avoid them. .
I鈥檝e been keeping an eye on the plans for a new EU law to cut carbon emissions from cars. This was the first chance for ministers from the 27 EU countries to get their teeth into the detailed plans that were announced in December.
The aim is cut the average emissions of CO2 to 120 grams for every kilometre driven by 2012. A key part of it is a complex formula to fine companies that break the law. At first it would be 拢20 for every gram per kilometre over the limit, going up to 拢70 by 2020.
The exchange came at , which is a gathering of industry ministers. Representatives of 12 countries spoke.
Too steep
The Germans argued that the fines were too high and needed to be reviewed. The French agreed that the increase was too steep.
They were backed by ministers from Eastern Europe. The British representative, a civil servant not a minister, spoke but did not comment on the level of fines. The British government doesn鈥檛 have a formal position on this yet.
responded by saying that the whole point of the fines was that they should be so punitive that they would be avoided.
The last thing they want is car companies incorporating a little light penalty into their business plans. The commission, and environmental groups, want them to be high enough that companies will be determined to avoid them, even if that means expensive investment to develop new techniques.
This was not a particularly important meeting and it wasn鈥檛 even formally agreed that ministers would resume the discussion when they meet again in May. But it鈥檚 a crucial part of the debate on this important plan.
In the jargon, it鈥檚 the environment ministers who are 鈥渋n the lead鈥 and they meet next Monday for their first debate on the issue. It's 13 months since the commission first outlined these plans and, to guess how long this all takes before it becomes law, one has to resort to the proverbial piece of string.
If things go really quickly, ministers will have their final say in June and it could then go the parliament in the autumn. But ministers would have to motor as fast as a BMW down the speed-limitless autobahn, and that鈥檚 not in their nature.
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
---The Germans and the French are arguing that EU plans to fine polluting car makers are too harsh.--
The Brits are arguing that EU is run by the French and Germans.
Please, do something, we are getting confused
B.F. Skinner would not be proud.
Whereas behaviorism distinguishes between four categories of learning (positive and negative reinforcement and positive and negative punishment), Skinner鈥檚 research pointed clearly in the direction that reinforcement (= rewards, but only when they actually work) is much more effective than punishment. If you want do decrease a behavior, reward a behavior that is incompatible with the target behavior.
Punished organisms find a way out.
Mr Mardell briefly touches on a general problem for environmenalism in Europe, whether at Brussels or member state level. The environmental ministers normally carry less weight then e.g. industry ministers and agricultural ministers. Therefore, many decisions that most people would have thought are mainly environmental are not actually made in that department. For example, car emissions are regulated by the industry minister, fish quotas by the agricultural ministers etc. Somehow the environmental ministries have got to get more weight.
Small cars are dangerous, they spin too easily going round corners. In the last couple of years I've seen a small car on its roof, and one on its side, both having spun off. I always go for a medium saloon as a minimum with its longer wheel-base. I don't think I could get much for 120g/km.
Mark, you have covered this story very well but you have reported the Commissions 19th december 2007 proposal incorrectly.
The proposal is for the european average to reach 130g CO2/km by 2012 (with 10g from complementary measures such as tyres, biofuels etc.) differentiated for each manufacturer by the average mass of their fleet. e.g. BMW who make slightly heavier cars will get a target of 137g CO2/km
If their emissions are over this then there will be phased in fines
2012 20 EURO per g CO2/km over x sales
2013 35 EURO per g CO2/km over x sales
2014 60 EURO per g CO2/km over x sales
2015 95 EURO per g CO2/km over x sales
However the 2012 start date is the main sticking point as car manufacturers squal about '7 year lead times' for new cars.
The European Parliament, ACEA, and the European Economic and Social Committee all recommende 2015 as a better start date - only the Commision and environmental groups are sticking to 2012.
Seeing as parliament and national enviromenta minsiters will actually have to vote this through by QMV it is likely to be 2015 once it actually becomes law
I can't think of anything more detrimental for our economy than for the barking-mad greens to get any more influence than they already have. Let's remember that every 'Green' party in Europe is, at its core, a 'Red' party, with Marxist or Communist beliefs. If we wanted to be ruled by Communists, we should have told the Soviets in 1945 and saved the US an awful lot of work.
Don't blame manufacturers. It's consumers that drive manufacturers to produce wasteful cars.
For all our "green" talk there is no rational justification for consumers to demand cars with more than 100 horsepower or capable of breaking the motorway speed limit.
Put limiters on cars restricting them to 70mph and implement swinging fuel duties, with the justification of a green tax which, for the sake of haulage companies, can be claimed back.
What matters is not the grams per kilometre, but the GRAMS. In other words a small car driven a lot, and unnecessarily, will emit far more than a weekend Porsche.
Fuel prices and taxes, plus a growing environmental awareness, are already high enough to have brought about a significant market-led switch to more efficient cars, and this will continue apace.
The car industry is one of the very few to have reduced its emissions, yet it continually gets clobbered, whilst greater contributors to climate change such as the concrete industry and shipping, get away scot-free. It makes no sense.
Interesting piece, Mark. I am left wondering, after your penultimate paragraph. Does anyone want to lay bets that, however long it takes for a directive of some sort to come out, the car companies will complain about "having no time to prepare"?
It's said that pressure increases invention, eg in war-time all sorts of advances are made that seemingly weren't possible before. The pressure is already on the consumers (ie drivers) via fuel price increases. It's time to exert some pressure on the inventive minds in the car-engineering world.
The French and Germans have no desire to commit industrial suicide. I don't blame them for wanting to protect their successful automotive industries from the enviro-taliban.
I think it's a stupid idea. Global Warming can't be stopped. Learn to live with it. If the EU thinks it can stamp Greenpeace Ideals on everyone, they should really think again and stop trying to run our lives.
Do as we say, not as we do. That's what the EU ministers said when asked a while back why they drove among the highest CO2 output, least fuel efficient, most polluting cars on the road. They told the press it was a private matter and none of anyone's business.
Funny how the EU is so ready to tell the rest of the world, especially America what to do but ooooh, when it's own ox that might get gored look out.
I looked up the word "European" in an American dictionary. The definition was only one word; hypocrite.
BTW, what progress has the EU made in meeting its Kyoto Protocol obligations? In case you haven't looked it up, I'll save you the trouble...um....none. And why not? Well for exactly the same reasons the US Senate voted 95-0 against it. I hope and expect that if the EU proposes another such treaty,
Son of Kyoto" the US Senate will vote more correctly next time....100-0 against it.
Please stop thinking that higher taxes will help, they will not.
How about a more radical idea like issueing a fuel quota to all private drivers, for example enough litres of petrol for say 10,000 miles per year per driver for an average size car.
Anyone who uses less will get a nice tax refund and no one can use more, and you can't trade your entitlement.
Company cars will have to follow the same rules as well.
Let's face it, if you do more than 10,000 miles per year you really need to find an alternative, as it it you who are clogging up the roads, not the old boy who goes shopping once a week.
I am 42 in full time employment I have a car and a motorbike, total mileage between the two is 4500 per year max.
The car is the ultimate short journey vehicle where time is important. Longer journeys where time is no so important should be by train or coach etc.
I am not saying my idea above is workable, but it will effect everyone equally. Alternatively let's have some radical new ideas, who now's we may just find an idea that is workable from the average person in the street..
I'm guessing that the British Government has not adopted any official position on this because we messed up our own volume car industry years ago - we are therefore completely reliant on the good will of foreign manufacturers to adhere to any standards
It is remarkable how the Commission wants to reduce the number of high-emission cars and at the same time the majority of Commissioners are driven around in 7 series BMW and S-class Mercedes, i.e. cars with probably the highest emissions on the market. At any given moment, there is an armada of these limousines parked in front of the Berlaymont building. It is not known whether these cars, which normally have high-powered V8 motors, have been specifically adapted to fulfill the criteria the Commission preaches.
Thus, can you believe any Commissioner who talks the talk? Who of the high-fliers in the Commission is being driven in a Prius?
Cars are toys for individuals. Mass transit must be the primary means of transport - for people and for products. Cars are luxury, status and achievement symbols rather than practical tools for transport. As the result cars create endless spinoffs of new luxuries and ongoing waste.
So the EU is proposing to make car manufacturers produce cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars. Um, what's the problem here? It's a win win situation for consumers and the environment. The habitual complainers on this blog will always find some way of twisting it out of shape.
To clear up the nonsense posted by Mike (no. 12), the EU is making good progress on its Kyoto goals:
Meanwhile, the US continues to be the world's biggest polluter and produces gas-guzzling monsters which not even its own people are buying.
* Fuel quotas are interesting but to enforce them we shall need ID cards. And when they are enforced you can still trade your petrol away - I can see the classifieds of the future .. and diesels can run on frying oil ..
* Regulating in Europe is nice but will advantage commercially those who do not, like Japanese cars sold in the US
* The best way I can see for reducing emissions is to get a public transportation system (Underground included) twice as fast as now where I can sit down
I'm a Canadian, but I'm looking for the most efficient vehicle on the market. At this time, it appears to be either Japanese or European (which is a sad statement for North America).
I comprehend, though do not believe, the hype about global warming.
I am, however, confused on one point: Is carbon dioxide the true greenhouse gas? Because if it is, ANY hydrocarbon combustion (even wood), is going to yield, in its most efficient form, byproducts of CO2 and H20 -- carbon dioxide and water.
Are these Greens going to try to outlaw ANY combustion in ANY form? So how do you cut down the CO2 production? Better gas mileage is only ONE point, and one I applaud, especially with fuel prices the way they are. But any increase in mileage will only demand further increases. At what point will it be enough? Will they target home heating next? Or do they prefer we go back to the days of horse and buggy (which is fine if you live in a densely populated area -- look up my city (Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada) and tell me mass transit is enough!), but it brings its own health issues with it.
When will this environmental paranoia end, and REAL science take over?
I think this is an example of the inability of The European Union to rule in Europe. The continuation of this saga will reveal even bigger disagreement and problems to find solutions of the air pollution from cars.
Politicians have very nice speeches and concerns about our climate, but when decisions have to be made, the consequences and the cost of such decisions start to scare them off, especially after meeting industry lobbies and alike.
At this point, sudden reluctance to actually do anything about the problems they are supposed to do some decision making about, seems to set in.
But I guess we knew that from the start. Didn't we?
Give them good salaries and send them off on holiday and we will get a safer world. Or, don't give them anything and forget them, and we would be better off.
17. At 11:39 AM on 28 Feb 2008, Philip Edwards wrote:
So the EU is proposing to make car manufacturers produce cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars. Um, what's the problem here? It's a win win situation for consumers and the environment. The habitual complainers on this blog will always find some way of twisting it out of shape.
To clear up the nonsense posted by Mike (no. 12), the EU is making good progress on its Kyoto goals:
If I have posted nonsense, do you really think posting a link to a pathetic site that says "if Member States implement now all additional policies being planned" answers anything, you are sadly misinformed. A mass transportation system is only any good for people, it is useless for shopping or goods or anything above about 3kg in weight.
I did say I don't have the answer, I was just looking for some new ideas not the same old rubbish people keep spouting about public transport being the answer, which it clearly is not to any right thinking person.