I am not really sure what HJ is getting at here, is he saying that we should not strive for lower emissions because (for some unstated reason) "Europe is having its economy destroyed"?
If cars are made with lower emissions will they not be sold in China?
Do the Chinese not care about their enviroment?
"A bunch of unelected nutters" is provocotive language from someone who is himself unelected.
What exactly is HJ on about?
|
Spospe. HJ is not elected and he doesn't need to be! He 'owns' and runs this forum and he can do what he likes. I also think he does it very well. If you don't like his attitude or views you can always post elsewhere!
|
Dear Armitage Shanks
I did not say I did not like his attitude or his views, I asked a question.
|
I apologise for a slightly 'shooting from the hip' reply! However, HJ isn't elected and doesn't need to be - this is his site.
|
|
|
|
Directive to reduce average emissions for new cars to 130g/km.>>
It would actually be better to stop people buying new cars!
Accounting for embedded carbon, carbon production would reduced more quickly if car production decreased therefore it would be much better if we all continued to drive our current vehicles until they simply stopped running rather than buy new more efficient ones. The maths on this are as follows:
[The amount of carbon produced in manufacturing and disposing of the new efficient car PLUS the amount of carbon produced by a the new car over it's life time ] MINUS The amount of carbon the current car will produce over the same life time = The amount of carbon used or saved by buying a more efficient new car.
If the answer is is a positive figure then that is the amount of EXTRA carbon produced by buying and running a new more efficient car, for most scenarios the answer will be a positive figure due to the embedded carbon in the new vehicle.
I am not suggesting stopping the purchase of new cars, rather the application of joined up thinking, i.e. in global terms K&C council should apply higher taxes/fees WHEN residents buy a new SUV and not penalise them for their current SUV which simply encourages them to buy a new car and the associated embedded carbon.
The "we'll have the 120g/km in West London, you can have the 50 odd tonnes of carbon in Tokyo, Munich, Turin or Seoul" is NIMBYist in the extreme.
Regards.
|
Surely the knowledge that a 4x4 you buy may be subject to future, as yet unquantified, tax increases is part of the deterrent? If you knew that new taxes would only apply to new cars, you wouldn't think so hard.
And if there was advance notice of an increase, everyone would rush out to buy one before it took effect... Okay, that's probably not true. A few people might though, if it was a big increase.
Also, I'm not sure about the effect on the second-hand market. If the taxes on 4x4s make them less economical as old bangers, then they'll tend to be scrapped sooner, leaving more of the more economical smaller cars on ther road. Doesn't that make sense?
I think simplicity is also part of it. It's complex enough as it is with the pre-2001 rule, and band G springing into existence in 2006.
|
I do agree your point that vehicle longevity should be tackled too. How do we compare on vehicle longevity with places like Denmark where they have a punitive car sales tax? (180% added to the price).
|
|
I've begun to wonder if two cars - air cooled 911's and the old Land Rover 'Defener ', are actually more 'green' than, say, a Toyota Prius. Reason - I have seen plenty of these cars at 20 years age running - I wonder how many Prius' will be running in 10 years, let alone 20 ...
|
I've begun to wonder if two cars - air cooled 911's and the old Land Rover 'Defener ', are actually more 'green' than, say, a Toyota Prius. Reason - I have seen plenty of these cars at 20 years age running - I wonder how many Prius' will be running in 10 years, let alone 20 ...
A study done in the US came to the conclusion that Jeep Cherokee was the most environmentally friendly car for exactly the reason that it could be kept going for a long time. Prius was one of the worst (if not the worst) due to the problems with disposal of its batteries.
|
That was intensely dubious. The "study" was "per mile", and they stated that a Jeep would be driven three times further than a Prius, thus instantly making the Jeep's "per mile" figure 3 times better. How exactly that mileage figure was derived isn't clear.
And what are the "disposal problems" with the battery? A large NiMH battery pack is much easier to recycle than the thousands of small ones in your digital cameras, and Toyota pays a couple of hundred for them to be returned to their recycling facility.
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that Toyota are less capable of making a car lasting 20 years than Land Rover? Hmmm....
Remind me about the Freelander's reliability record again.
|
|
|
I've begun to wonder if two cars - air cooled 911's and the old Land Rover 'Defener ', are actually more 'green' than, say, a Toyota Prius. Reason - I have seen plenty of these cars at 20 years age running - I wonder how many Prius' will be running in 10 years, let alone 20 ...
Another good type "Land Rover 'Defener '"
Porsche reckon that 70% of all Porsches are still on the road.
|
|
|
|
|
Common sense seems to have little to do with these decisions.
Semiconductors (chips) have recently been mandated to be lead-free in Europe causing all sorts of problems for the industry, including a lot of uncertainty about long term reliability of lead-free components.
Yet lead in semiconductors is less than 1% of the world's usage! Batteries make up 81%.
|
But car batteries get recycled and the lead recovered. Not as easy to do that with general electronics.
|
|
|
|
Just seen a news item that there is some new proposed EC Directive to reduce average emissions for new cars to 130g/km.
Is that the average for each and every car individually, or is it the average for all cars collectively?
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
Do we know whether this is a workable target? Do the engine manufacturers have the technology to implement these even tougher regulations in the short timescale proposed of IIRC 2012? It does seem too short a timescale and too tough a reduction in emissions.
I feel sure that the large French and German car makers will put pressure on their respective governments to alter these proposals. Before these proposals become law they must be agreed by all EU states and the EU parliament, so there is plenty of scope for changes to be made to loosen the limits and timescale or scrap the plan all together.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
Another point. How much extra is it going to cost to make cars meet these new limits?
Although we are talking about new cars, rules could easily change for existing cars and remove higher poluters. At present the Mayor of London is looking to exclude older commercial vehicles from within the M25 and £25 Congestion Charge per day for the highest band VED. Richmond Council has brought in parking permit charges based on vehicle emissions. What is there to stop changes in the MOT to reduce the emissions limit so more cars are scrapped rather than repaired?
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
130g/km is the opening gambit, just like the screen price on a car, so expect lots of
deferrals, exceptions & 'phase-in' schemes. What's important imho, is that this set a marker
- just like the unpopular Richmond proposals or Ken Livingstone's 'dirty old banger' (..and don't
we all know a few of those! ;) ) exclusion idea.
The OP perhaps misses the point when referrring to the Chinese (..and maybe Indian, Brazil, Russian)
current CO2 outputs & a big 'dirty' car markets - if Europe implements a regulatory framework at or near
those proposed, the other non-European car makers will be obliged to follow suite - or risk being excluded
from the (still) biggest trading block in the world. Although the Chinese et al are a mighty world economic force,
they rely on selling their wares to us & are party & signatories to several world trading bodies (not least the Kyoto accords)
The recent American 'conversion' will put further pressure on the 'new polluters' as well - the American state
not only comprises one guy at the Whitehouse, but the combined legislative power & direction of the individual states.
Californian car pollution & safety directives ,(remember Ralph Nader?) let's not forget, were almost responsible alone,
in the early days, for European car makers & legislators responses in these areas.
I think when the car makers get serious in producing low emission vehicles the 130 figure will begin to look easy,
not just by producing vehicles like the Prius - which I agree seems largely a marketing exercise - but genuinely
low CO2-lifecycle vehicles. With that new concensus in place , tackling other greater polluting activities
will become easie,r politically - currently, the emerging 'super economies' can easily point the finger
at our hypocrisy - and that perhaps is the more important reason we should take the lead.
|
|
|
|
More details here about these proposals
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6334327.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6337057.stm
Interesting that French and Germans may disagree on these proposals!!!
Quote:-
"French successes
In fact, some European carmakers are already making rapid progress towards such a goal.
Fiat has already met a target voluntarily adopted by the industry, to bring emissions down to 140g/km by 2008.
Citroen and Europe's second largest carmaker, Renault, are on track to meet this voluntary target too and Ford and Peugeot are not far off.
By contrast, the biggest carmaker in terms of sales, Volkswagen, is among the companies that has made least progress.
Among the major European manufacturers only Audi, Volvo and BMW are doing worse, according to a study published last year by the pressure group Transport and Environment.
Given these differences in performance, it is possible that the industry will not present a united front in the months to come.
France could also take a different position from Germany in discussions between the member states. "
--
Phil
|
Fiat does well because it sells shed loads of Pandas and virtually no Cromas. Citroën and Renault are nearly as strong, relatively, in small cars and likewise, Ford and Peugeot aren't too far behind in having a range skewed towards the smaller end of the market.
Audi, Volvo and BMW are all reasonably efficient in their class, Audi because of the sheer number of their cars that have the 2.0 TDi engine and BMW make some of the most efficient engines in the world in terms of CO2 emissions vs. power/size.
Also, does anyone know if this will apply to cars manufactured, or registered in the EU? If it's the former, whilst it might be possible for Europeans to drive around in a Z4 2.0 diesel (125g/km and 177 bhp if they ever make it?) the Americans will never wear the idea of a four-cylinder, diesel 5-Series.
As a result you can pretty much guarantee that US-spec cars (3, 5 and 7 Series as well as the Z4 and X5) would be domesticaly produced - causing big unemployment in Germany - if they make these legally enforceable limits apply to non-EU export cars.
|
The limit's for cars sold in Europe, whether produced by EU or non-EU manufacturers. Not for cars exported elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
It's OK, an equally unelected nutter will decide that they don't like the proposal and send the EU Environment Commissioner an explosive device through the post in an effort to change his mind.
--
Soupytwist !
|
Since it's an average it's easy to meet. Half your outputr is a 1.4 diesel Citroen/Toyota and you are at 129gms now...
I liked the picture of the Comissioners cars.. all driving S type Mercedes..
"Do as I say, not as I do" seems to be the motto for all politicians.. no wonder they attract so much derision...
madf
|
|
|
"How much extra is it going to cost to make cars meet these new limits?"
Er...not a lot
Focus/C-Max 1.6 TDCI 90 Studio 5dr = 125g
Jazz 1.2i-DSI S = 129g
Cee'd 1.6 CRDi LS = 125g
Mazda 3 1.6D 109 TS = 126g
Mercedes A160 CDI = 128g
etc
Technology exists - just needs a change in mind set by the purchasers
|
They're all grim diesels though. I want at least 140 bhp of nice smooth petrol engine...
I will drive what I want. I detest being told what I should do, had enough of that at school :-(
|
"The European Commission has proposed forcing carmakers to increase the fuel efficiency of new cars by 18%, by 2012.
It says it is planning legislation to ensure the average car emits no more than 130g of CO2 per kilometre, compared with 162g/km in 2005. .............................
The commissioners assured carmakers that the 130g/km average would not apply to each individual manufacturer, but to the industry as a whole. ......................."
Some cars will end up emitting less than 130 g/km , and others will be allowed to emit more so long as the overall average is less than 130 g/km.
Just a load of numbers. Nothing to get excited about.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
They're all grim diesels though. I want at least 140 bhp of nice smooth petrol engine...
It is not too far away
118i: New four-cylinder engine with high-precision direct injection and Bi-VANOS technology achieves zero to 62mpg in 8.7 seconds (8.8 seconds for five-door) before going on to a top speed of 130mph. Output is 143hp while peak torque is now 190Nm. Combined fuel consumption is 47.9mpg, CO2 emissions are 140g/km
|
If you want to save carbon dioxide over the long term buy a car which lasts and can be fixed. My 1966 Land Rover is still going after two engine rebuilds and I'll bet the total CO2 output is less than it would be buying a newly built car every three years even if it did 50 mpg!
|
|
|
zero to 62mpg in 8.7 seconds
Great typo. ;o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The item on this evening's BBC1 News was followed immediately by a report on the Airbus, how big it is, and how cheaper fares might possibly encourage more people to fly.
|
|
|
