EU to Fine Car Makers on CO2 Emissions

EU to Fine Car Makers on CO2 Emissions

news.bbc.co.uk

Under the EU proposals, carmakers that fail to meet carbon dioxide emission limits by 2012 will face fines.

Penalties will start in 2012 at 20 euros (£14.35; $28.80) per gramme of CO2 over a target level, and will grow to 95 euros in 2015.

(visit the link for the full news article)

First carbon-trading, then taxes on CO2 emissions, now this!! There isn't even any proof that Global Warming is a bad thing, less man-made (as we're led to believe by the IPCC and Al Gore).

A report out last week shows that our climate models are seriously flawed, that Global Warming is not occurring as the IPCC suggests, and that it isn't a problem. The bigger issue is that because the IPCC didn't say this, it apparently carries no weight.

This whole Global Warming and CO2 thing has got out of control. The Governments of the world love it as they can levy taxes all over the place, but what is it going to achieve in the end???

THERE IS NO PROOF CO2 IS A PROBLEM, and further, last weeks study shows scientifically that it is NOT a problem!

A link to said study would be appreciated (I don't know what it was called to look for it).

EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "Passenger cars account for about 12% of overall EU carbon dioxide emissions and emissions from transport are continually increasing.

...then they go on to say...

"The aim of the legislation is to reduce CO2 emissions from cars in order to help fight climate change."

Errmm - right. So what about the other 88% of CO2 sources? Why target the 12% like this, if it WASN'T about money??? If this really was to do with Global Warming (and that assumes the science in that direction is correct), then the math says they should target the other 88%, and not the guy in the street who likes big powerful cars.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 19-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

What are they going to do with the money that they get from the tax? Seems like a ploy to grab more money to me. I would be fine with it if they turned ALL the money around and put it into some sort of environmental aid, but something tells me that isn't going to happen.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

THERE IS NO PROOF CO2 IS A PROBLEM, and further, last weeks study shows scientifically that it is NOT a problem!

A link to said study would be appreciated (I don't know what it was called to look for it).

Last week's study didn't prove anything. The news article spun it. The abstract to the actual study is below:

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

That's all it proved. Nothing ground breaking, really.

As for the topic at hand, I don't see what's wrong with government legislating for a cleaner environment. That's what the fines are about, as I see it. The auto makers will only be fined if they fail to make cars that are more environmentally friendly. What's wrong with that?

That would be based on the assumption that CO2 is "dirty" and unfriendly to the environment.

The trees sure don't seem to mind.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by apc]

Originally posted by apc
That would be based on the assumption that CO2 is "dirty" and unfriendly to the environment.

Good point. But then too much of a good thing can be bad. Such as too much greenhouse gasses.

This is TONS better than charging the consumer more money, wouldn't you agree?

The gov't limiting the actual car MAKERS in their CO2 output is great and harmless.

As far as whether it will help to clean up the environment or not, I guess time will tell, but just because there is no solid PROOF, doesn't mean it's not happening.

They are charging the consumer more money. You think the auto mfg's won't just make up any fees in the sale price?

This isn't about the environment and it never was.

reply to post by apc


No, it's a fine. It's not another overhead.

Do this or get fined is what it sounds like they're going for.

...and if they get fined, they'll simply pass on the cost - plus profit, of course. They're a business with shareholders to think of - they're not going to take a hit in the pocket!

reply to post by apc


If that will be the case, perhaps it will spur more consumers to use the public transport system. Or at least car-pool. That would be good, wouldn't it?

There are several good reasons to cut fossil fuel car exhausts.

CO2 is not the only thing comming out of your tailpipe!

Here are some of the more bad byproducts from them:

Hydrocarbons: this class is made up of unburned or partially burned fuel, and is a major contributor to urban smog, as well as being toxic. They can cause liver damage and even cancer.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx): These are generated when nitrogen in the air reacts with oxygen under the high temperature and pressure conditions inside the engine. NOx emissions contribute to both smog and acid rain.

Carbon monoxide (CO): a product of incomplete combustion, carbon monoxide reduces the blood's ability to carry oxygen and is dangerous to people with heart disease.

Theese above byproducts are directly related to the level of CO2 emission.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
First carbon-trading, then taxes on CO2 emissions, now this!! There isn't even any proof that Global Warming is a bad thing, less man-made (as we're led to believe by the IPCC and Al Gore).

A report out last week shows that our climate models are seriously flawed, that Global Warming is not occurring as the IPCC suggests, and that it isn't a problem. The bigger issue is that because the IPCC didn't say this, it apparently carries no weight.

This whole Global Warming and CO2 thing has got out of control. The Governments of the world love it as they can levy taxes all over the place, but what is it going to achieve in the end???

THERE IS NO PROOF CO2 IS A PROBLEM, and further, last weeks study shows scientifically that it is NOT a problem!

A link to said study would be appreciated (I don't know what it was called to look for it).

EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "Passenger cars account for about 12% of overall EU carbon dioxide emissions and emissions from transport are continually increasing.

...then they go on to say...

"The aim of the legislation is to reduce CO2 emissions from cars in order to help fight climate change."

Errmm - right. So what about the other 88% of CO2 sources? Why target the 12% like this, if it WASN'T about money??? If this really was to do with Global Warming (and that assumes the science in that direction is correct), then the math says they should target the other 88%, and not the guy in the street who likes big powerful cars.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 19-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Its all about controlling the Industries.. The more control the Government has the less freedom we have. A man was pulled over for speeding ,but he didn't get a speeding ticket instead he recieved a ticket for "wasting Natural resources" gasoline,oil.. what a crock of BS..

Reply to beachcoma (is Reply To flaking out for you too sometimes?)


Education should be the method of changing people's habits, not force. Forcing people to abide by their questionable ideas of change may be the MO for a certain ideology, but it's never been right. Show people why they need to do this or that. Provide incentives such as car pool lanes and tax deductions. But if the people don't want to hear it and we all cook, at least we die free.

Originally posted by Bluess
Theese above byproducts are directly related to the level of CO2 emission.

Funny thing... CO output has been dramatically reduced by the use of catalytic converters. As have most nitrogen oxides. The funny part is the processes used in freeing nitrogen atoms to be released as harmless nitrogen gas, also produces nitrous oxide - a strong greenhouse gas that hangs around far longer than CO2. Yup, laughing gas is funny stuff.

reply to post by apc


(Nope, not having a problem with the 'reply to' button, never did. Could be your machine.)

Okay, good points on the education and incentive issue. But this can also be an incentive (the fines) albeit a coercive incentive (under economics). For example in Singapore, to prevent there from being too many cars on the road, the government introduced very high vehicle taxes and import tariffs. Sure, at first the people complained, but the result was that more people started using their mass transit systems, and it has developed into one of the finest in the region.

Anyway, not everyone can be educated. Some just refuse to learn, I'm sure we can agree to that. So making it less economical for people to continue a certain behaviour may be the only way.

Here's another point to consider -- could it be that this move was a direct result of the EU governments signing up on that treaty to cut emissions? It'll be hard for them to honour it if the number of cars on the road keep on rising.

Could always just make the roads narrower.

True some people won't learn, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be punished. Despite my strong doubt for the AICC claims, I've done my part. I bought a car with better gas mileage and moved to within walking distance of my office. By my own accord, because it's what's best for me, and by default best for everyone else. Not because some politician said I have to or else I'll be punished.

Coercion is never the answer. Offer people the choice, show them why one choice is supposed to be better than the other, and let them vote with their actions. Otherwise you start to get down to the bottom of the circle where liberalism meets fascism and everyone is controlled by the will of the State. It's not a happy place to be.

reply to post by apc


But if this proposal goes through, there is still a choice -- mass transit or the (possibly) more expensive car. Or bicycles

Anyway, this is still just a proposal. If enough people oppose it (which I'm sure there will be), it won't float. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I myself don't like this idea -- there are better ways to go about it. This seems like a shortcut, as per my previous suggestion that the EU is considering this to meet their emissions reductions target.

Diminished responsibility! Pass the buck.

Anyone know the amount of CO2 in grams per KM that they have in mind?
Reasonably economical cars today produce about 125grams per KM I think,so is it somewhere around that level?

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Reasonably economical cars today produce about 125grams per KM I think,so is it somewhere around that level?

The BBC article says 130gm/km average by 2012. That means smaller car manufacturers and larger ones can pool together to get that figure.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Aha,gotcha.Thats still one heck of an amount of C02 when you think about how many cars there are in Europe.
And it doesn't really encourage car makers to go with alternative fuels,which is what I think they should be moving towards.