Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 78

Thread: EU: Proposed 18% CO2 cut

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163

    EU: Proposed 18% CO2 cut

    According to BBC, manufacturers that are selling cars to the EU, must reduce their CO2 emissions drastically.

    In 1998 the manufacturers and the EU voluntarily agreed to aim for average emissions of 140g/km by 2008/9, but are no longer expected to meet this target. This is because the 2005 level is 162 g/km, so it is unrealistic to expect a fall to 140 g/km by 2009.

    Instead a new plan was agreed. The commission will propose a package of measures designed to bring emissions from the average new car down to 120g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012 - 25% below the 2005 level of 162g/km.

    Carmakers would be be responsible for getting emissions down to 130g/km through the use better car technology, under the commission proposal.

    Increased use of biofuels, better tyres and measures to ensure drivers change gear at the right time would help to save the extra 10g/km.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6334327.stm
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Posts
    7,827
    Quote Originally Posted by lightweight
    According to BBC, manufacturers that are selling cars to the EU, must reduce their CO2 emissions drastically.

    In 1998 the manufacturers and the EU voluntarily agreed to aim for average emissions of 140g/km by 2008/9, but are no longer expected to meet this target. This is because the 2005 level is 162 g/km, so it is unrealistic to expect a fall to 140 g/km by 2009.

    Instead a new plan was agreed. The commission will propose a package of measures designed to bring emissions from the average new car down to 120g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012 - 25% below the 2005 level of 162g/km.

    Carmakers would be be responsible for getting emissions down to 130g/km through the use better car technology, under the commission proposal.

    Increased use of biofuels, better tyres and measures to ensure drivers change gear at the right time would help to save the extra 10g/km.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6334327.stm
    One could see this coming... It's their own fault

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    One could see this coming... It's their own fault
    I agree with you.

    It must be noted that the previous agreement between EU and carmakers was fundamentally flawed, since it was voluntary. There was no cotract/fines for not meeting targets.

    Anyway, looking at the bigger picture, the consumer pays for all this. According to the BBC link I posted above, it is expected that car cost will rise by 400-2500 Euros on average.

    What must be said is that ground transportation emissions accounts only for 30% of all carbon emissions. Factories account for another 30% more and aviation for another 30% (I can't seem to remember the source of these, but I'm pretty sure this is correct )

    I don't understand why the auto industry has to be the one to face the emission cuts. Let's see the aviation industry and the factories do their share of the work...
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Posts
    7,827
    Well what is find worst is that CO2 is only a minor contributor to the greenhouse thing. In a sense we are all lied to

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by drakkie
    Well what is find worst is that CO2 is only a minor contributor to the greenhouse thing. In a sense we are all lied to
    Beat me to it

    Plus even we don't make the most CO2, nature itself does.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    This is great. Yeah it sucks for fast cars but it's good for the planet.

    CO2 is indeed a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect; CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of our atmosphere. However, we are upsetting the balance and that's the problem. At this point in time you'd be a complete moron to argue against the evidence. Scientific consensus has increased consistently over time.

    The International Panel on Climate Change just released their latest findings (the last report was 2001). Compare the two. In 2001 the report concluded that something was happening, but scientists were reluctant to point out the cause because there was not enough research done to prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt. Over 5 years have passed and now we've got a lot more evidence and research to look at.


    So what are the conclusions now in regard to climate change?
    • The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%
    • The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%
    • It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones, and extreme high tides.


    Drakkie, you should be proud to be European at a time like this.
    Last edited by Egg Nog; 02-06-2007 at 04:02 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    Plus even we don't make the most CO2, nature itself does.
    You fail at understanding.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
    You fail at understanding.
    Ok mabye...

    I promise to do more research before posting...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    Ok mabye...

    I promise to do more research before posting...
    Good stuff

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
    Good stuff
    But I will stick to the point that it is still a debate and global warming/climate change caused by humans is still a theory...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,495
    In my opinion car manufacturers should be forced to the 140gr/km target for 2008, as the agreement stated. Fiat, Citroen and Renault will most likely reach the target so there's no excuse for all the other manufacturers.

    Those were the numbers for 2005:

    2005
    1.Fiat 139
    ------------limit for 2008 140-----------------
    2.Citroen 144
    3.Renault 149
    4.Seat 150
    5.Ford 151
    6.Peugeot 151
    7.Skoda 152
    8.Opel/Vauxhall 156
    9.Volkswagen 159
    10.Toyota 163
    11.Suzuki 165
    12.Honda 166
    13.KIA 170
    14.Hyundai 170
    15.Nissan 172
    16.Audi 177
    17.Mazda 177
    18.Mercedes Benz 185
    19.BMW 192
    20.Volvo 195

    Source.
    Last edited by Ferrer; 02-06-2007 at 04:18 PM.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    These regulations are a great opportunity for certain sportscar companies.

    In particular, companies who produce lightweight sportscars will have a big advantage. Imagine Honda S2000 vs Lotus Elise 111R. The Lotus is about 300 kg lighter, so in order to get the same performance it employs a smaller engine. And because it's so light this means smaller CO2 emissions.

    Regulatory changes are for some companies threats and for others great opportunities.
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    But I will stick to the point that it is still a debate and global warming/climate change caused by humans is still a theory...
    Sure, but you won't get much respect for doing it. Gravity is also just a theory. The fact that something is "just a theory" doesn't invalidate it. There is a single truth, it's just that at this point we can "only" have extreme certainty that it's true.

    It is not a debate anymore. You get to a certain point where you can become extremely certain of something. At this point it's stupid not to agree. You can stick to your point and argue that climate change is caused by natural causes if you'd like, but please realise that the thousands of brilliant unbiased scientists who make up this committee disagree with you.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,495
    Quote Originally Posted by lightweight
    These regulations are a great opportunity for certain sportscar companies.

    In particular, companies who produce lightweight sportscars will have a big advantage. Imagine Honda S2000 vs Lotus Elise 111R. The Lotus is about 300 kg lighter, so in order to get the same performance it employs a smaller engine. And because it's so light this means smaller CO2 emissions.

    Regulatory changes are for some companies threats and for others great opportunities.
    I believe the future of fast cars will be lightweight and not very powerful with good acceleration and low top speed. Not only because the emission regulation, but also because engines powered by alternative fuels are usually less powerful than comparable petrol powered engines. Add to this the incresingly restrictive speed limits almost everywhere, and you can see why I came to that conclusion.
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
    Sure, but you won't get much respect for doing it. Gravity is also just a theory. The fact that something is "just a theory" doesn't invalidate it. There is a single truth, it's just that at this point we can "only" have extreme certainty that it's true.

    It is not a debate anymore. You get to a certain point where you can become extremely certain of something. At this point it's stupid not to agree. You can stick to your point and argue that climate change is caused by natural causes if you'd like, but please realise that the thousands of brilliant unbiased scientists who make up this committee disagree with you.
    Can you be sure?

    But anyways, in the long run I guess we won't be around to find out who was right, or if it will even matter by then. So cheers to free speech and on going debates

    I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •