💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 141.gmi captured on 2023-06-16 at 21:46:49. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Europe diary: MEPs and motors

2007-06-07 04:24:34

7 June 2007

BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell on the appeal of fast cars, the damage they do

to the climate, and moves being debated in Europe to limit car emissions and

put a health warning on car advertisements.

The diary is published every Thursday. To always see the latest edition, please

click here and bookmark this page.

SHINY TOYS

Aston Martin

Do car manufacturers appeal to the child in us?

Should you be allowed to drive cars that can do a ton, even if you'd be

breaking the law? We all know that boys - and girls - of all ages love shiny,

big, powerful toys.

But do car manufacturers appeal to the child in us all who loves to go "Vrrrrm!

" the expense of the world's climate?

Members of the European Parliament are being urged to think so and to stand up

to them. The European Parliament is going to be asked to beef up plans to fight

global warming by stopping cars pumping out so much carbon dioxide.

NOT SO FAST

The European Commission came up with its own idea for the laws in February and

since then I've been trying to track what is happening to this proposed law,

which will affect how we drive all over Europe.

NEXT STEPS

June: Environment committee debate

September: Environment committee vote

October: Full parliament debate

End 2007 / early 2008: Draft legislation from European Commission

Timeline: EU car CO2 crackdown

The first really major step since then is upon us. Parliament is getting

involved. The basis of this is a report which has just gone to the translators,

who will doubtless have fun finding out the Maltese, Irish and Latvian for

technical terms like "limit value curve". It will then be debated in a

committee at the end of this month.

The MEPs will then have a chance to vote on further changes in September and

the full parliament will debate it in October. I've had a sneak preview of the

report that the debate will be based on. It's written by the Lib Dem MEP Chris

Davies, who is what is known in the jargon as the "rapporteur" on the proposal.

German campaigners for speed limit

Some Germans favour a speed limit on the autobahn

He wants to ban cars from doing over 101mph... that's 162km/h. (It's based on

25% more than the average upper speed limit.) Only military, emergency and

police cars would be exempt from the law, which would come into force in four

years' time.

Mr Davies notes that between 1994 and 2004 the power of new cars went up by

28%, making them a lot heavier, and so increasing the amount of CO2 they put

out, even though no country raised its speed limit to allow cars to use this

increased power.

HEALTH WARNING

The report that the parliament will vote on also calls for a big change in the

way cars are advertised.

1957 Fiat advertisement

Manufacturers won't like the idea of cutting the power of their machines

A fifth of ads would have to be given over to a variation on the health warning

on cigarette packets. It wouldn't actually point out the dangers of CO2

emission, but would highlight the car's fuel efficiency (or lack of it) and its

CO2 emissions. It would also be made illegal for adverts to boast about cars

being able to go faster than the national speed limit, although not being an

avid reader of car ads I don't know whether they really do this on a regular

basis anyway.

But what do you think: is it right to ban the wannabe boy racers and help fight

climate change, or is this more EU interference in the way we live our lives?

You can also listen to my report on the report, and an interview with the

author, on Radio 4's PM programme on Friday 8 June. I'm planning to drive a big

powerful car to illustrate the allure. And, well, just for the hell of it. But

rest assured, gentle reader, it won't cost the licence payer a penny. And I

won't break the speed limit.

The car manufacturers probably won't like the idea of cutting the power of

their machines, but Chris Davies has listened to their demands for more time to

implement any changes.

AVERAGE EMISSIONS

Commission proposal: 130g/km by 2012

Davies report: 120g/km by 2015; 95g/km by 2020

Average in 2005: 162g/km

120g/km = 4.5 litres of diesel, or 5 litres of petrol, per 100km

He says the commission proposal to make them cut average CO2 emissions to 130g

for every kilometre driven by 2012 is "too costly". So he's suggesting giving

them another three years on top of that, but at the price of making further

cuts.

He'll be asking the parliament to back his suggestion of a law making the

average emission 120g from 2015, and not allowing any new car to go on the

market if it produces more than double that, which would really hit the posh

sports car market. And he wants a further tightening to just 95g by 2020.

FINES AND REWARDS

One of the big questions in this whole debate is how to punish offenders. The

report comes up with the idea of fining manufacturers who break the limits. The

scheme would come into effect in three years' time and would also contain an

element of reward for good behaviour.

Mr Davies has called this the Carbon Allowance Reduction System (CARS:

geddit?). The fines, at a level to be set by the commission, could be offset by

credits for new cars that produce less carbon dioxide than the legal standard.

It's going to be interesting to see how much of this Mr Davies' colleagues

accept when they come to debate it.

GOING BLOGGING

I wrote a while ago about turning this diary into a blog and some of my

apprehensions. But I'm told it can still appear regularly on Thursdays with the

additional benefit of filing stuff (that's a technical term) whenever I like it

and replying to some of your comments.

Be warned. It's the sort of thing I get caught up in and can spend ages

agonising over criticisms and mulling over rebuttals, denials and old-fashioned

abuse when I ought to be reading another fascinating commission report or

actually talking to people. Sometimes editors of newspaper columns announce,

"This correspondence is closed," but I bet I am one of the few journalists to

have bored one complainant (by letter) into submission. After several exchanges

he concluded, "This correspondence is now closed." I can't remember what my

alleged offence had been but I regarded that as a sweet victory.

Anyway, I will start the blogging process next week, on plans for a new

European treaty in place of the constitution rejected two years and a month

ago. We're getting close to the summit at the end of the month and things are

hotting up. Watch this space.

Please use the post form below to comment on any of the issues raised in the

diary.

This is such essential legislation, it really shouldn't be controversial! As

for the fear of EU governmental "interference", surely that's the point of law

- to intervene where harmful activity is not addressed by consumer choice. In

this case, interference or not, it's long overdue.

Mark Calder, Edinburgh, Scotland

Just because somebody buys a car that can exceed the speed limit doesn't mean

that they do so. I have a car capable of over 160mph, but rarely would i

consider driving faster than the speed limit. Here in Switzerland, the speeding

fans are huge and bans are often imposed, cameras are hidden here too. I would

rather have a car that can accelerate from 0-60 in the blink of an eye and is

actually usefull for overtaking things (when safe) than some hybrid that takes

30 seconds to get there.

Pete Ray, Switzerland

i do not understand the focus on high end low volume sports cars - they should

be subjected to different CO2 requirements due to the minute nett effect they

have. reducing the CO2 levels of every Golf/Focus/Astra on the road by a few

grams will have a far greater effect than taking every lamborghini/ferrari/

aston martin off the road, and will allow this companies to survive.

Vinay Chauhan, London

People are stupid, health warning on car adverts? What a waste of time and

money! People should concentrate on sorting out the aero industry and the

factories in which the cars are made. Even the great al gore reckongnises that

cars a but a small contributor to greenhouse gasses! They already want to rape

us of our freedom in so many ways, c'mon mr Davies, i dare you to even try and

put a limiter on my car!

Ian Gowland, Falmouth, cornwall

Is there an offence called 'Motorist Abuse' and a register for those found

guilty of it? There would be an awfull lot of politicians and ministers on it

by now. As a motorist I am sick to death of this kind of nonsense. To insult to

injury, along with all the other things motorists pay for through taxation, the

vast majority of us are paying the wages of these good people.

Mike G, Northants, UK

This is completely pointless. Until the USA, India and China sign up to the

G8's proposed emission cuts, car pollution is insignificant. This will make a

nominal difference in the world's emissions but cost huge sums of money and

stop people from driving nice cars if they want to.

Simon Bromley, United Kingdom

Good idea. I'm appalled that there's a current TV advert promoting driving for

its own sake. Would it be a step too far to ban car racing? It's not just the

races, it's the shipping and flying from one country to another. Yuk.

Diane, Sutton

Interesting though this is, the most uneasey feeling comes from the bit where

citizens have cars that do say 70 mph and the police can do whatever speed

their regular Subaru's or Volvo's do, probably c. 140 mph. Aside from the fact

the only cars to nearly run me off the road recently have been spotty young

policemen out for a thrill, the big-brother police state becomes an even

greater physical reality. Yuk.

Alan, St Albans, Herts

It is totally ridiculous to suggest that fast cars be banned or that adverts

should carry 'health warnings'. The majority of powerful cars that are in

question, are, on the most part often only used at weekends or for special

occasions. Maybe livestock should carry health warnings - I do believe that the

noxious gases produced by cattle are more harmful to the environment and are

produced in far greater quantities than those from the back of someone s luxury

car.

Hugh Powell, Norwich

how to do an average emmisions law? for every Aston Martin built, they have to

build a prius too? Can I still own a BMW as long as next door owns a Mini?

sounds too much like the crazy quota system for countries emitions, allowing

one country to buy the carbon another country does not produce. Ludicrous. My

solution? Right of way on the roads goes automatically to the smaller car. (i

never let range rovers pull out in front of me anyway)

David Wood, London - UK

Speaking as a guilt-ridden, conservation-minded speed-freak, if I were

super-rich enough to afford a supercar, I guess I would be happy to pay a bit

extra to cover the cost of the manufacturer's fine. Isn't that what will happen

if fines are introduced as punishment? Will the fines then be ploughed back in

to tackling CO2 emissions? Meanwhile, I get my thrills on a superbike. Do the

proposals extend to motorbikes?

Chris Townsend, London

The problem I find with most environmentalists today is that they tend to talk

down to people who either don't know what to do about controlling their energy

usage or don't have the money to spend making big changes to their cars,

houses, etc. Every single person who've I've seen talk about climate change

poke fun at the above people. Prehaps the environmentalists need to change

their attitudes before they can expect other people too.

Anon, Welshpool, Wales

For once, a sensible suggestion from Europe! Cars - by law - should never be

driven above the speed limit, so no-one can really complain about limiting

their top speed to 25% higher than the existing limit.

Baz, Luton, UK

I'd have to agree with all of Chris Davies proposals and think they're already

long overdue. I've always wondered what the point of making cars that go 140

mph if the speed limit is 70. There's only so many people who actually visit

race tracks at the weekend, and having this potential increases both emissions

and the temptation of irresponsible driving. Furthermore, with over 1m people

killed and 50m injured in road traffic accidents worldwisde each year (that's

slightly more than terrorism by the way) a health warning as well as an

environmental one on car advertising would make sense. However, as we have seen

with the petrol blockades of 2000 and recent road pricing petition, the

pro-automobile lobby has incredibly a loud voice and does not like being told

what to do - even for the benifit of the rest of the population. Mixed with

tabloid anti-Europeanism it should stir up a fair bit of patriotic 'right to

pollute' sentiment if it ever looks like going through.

Chris Baker, Cobham, Surrey, UK

One of the trends for cars to have increased power is to carry all the bulk of

'safety' equipment now required by the EU. The environmentalists favourite,

Toyota Prius is shipped around the world in to us in large, unregulated boats

buring 1000s of tons of fuel on the way. Airplanes pay no fuel tax. The train

service is in meltdown. London taxis are terrible poluters. The motor industry

is currently not very profitable. Lets get some perspective before we beat the

car industry and owners up. I dont know anyone who enjoys sitting in traffic,

but putting up fuel costs and making us drive certain cars isnt going to make

much difference to the bigger picture.

Dr Glenn Parry, Bath

This is focussing on the wrong thing. A serious attempt to reduce vehicle

emissions would involve reducing the distance travelled each day to work,

school, hospitals and local shops. Instead we have a government hell bent on

big centralised hospitals, fewer local post offices, a retail industry

dominated by giants and many people having to travel long distances to their

place of work. For those living in rural areas public transport is so

infrequent, costly and inefficient that it is not an option. Even if

manufacturers could be persuaded to restrict the power of their cars an

illegal, unpoliced range of modifications would soon remove the restrictions

leaving vehicles that are less environmentally friendly and possibly dangerous.

Politicians love legislation because it looks as though they are doing

something but what's needed is a cultural change which govenment could

encourage by moving to more local facilities and helping people to work within

their own communities instead of commuting. Leave cars alone and do something

worthwhile.

John Owen, Inkberrow, Worcestershire, UK

1. Remove the fossil fuel tax on biofuels and make it legal to make your own

biofuel. 2. Make small cars 'funky' like the Figaro and the Smart car. This

will increase their popularity. An electric version of the Smart car is

available. 3. Remove VAT and road tax from electric vehicles. The UK government

says that the EU won't allow this - so ask the EU to change the rules. 4.

Convert existing cars rather than build alternative cars. Then drivers won't

feel odd - most people like to fit in with everyone else. 5. Trade oil in Euros

instead of US dollars. This will cut the stranglehold that the US has and will

open up the market to more alternative technologies.

Russell England, Stourbridge, UK

I think we should focus on: Turning off office lights and equipment Usage of

energy efficient lights in public areas i.e. street lights, advertising

hoardings Efficient/sustainable home heating systems to reduce carbon emissions

rather than looking at the quick win that is hammering the motorist. I live in

the middle of nowhere where it is impossible to not have 2 cars in a family

where myself and my wife work in different parts of the country. I cant wait

for the historical moment when even the countryside will be devoid of people as

it will be almost impossible due to cost alone to live where I am at the

moment. I simply cannot believe that this is a fait accompli idea to save the

planet as it seems all too easy to remove one taxable input and not have

another without the need for the same taxation and I can definately see this

with diesel, lpg, bioethanol and biodiesel

JK, Hampshire

The 101 mph limit would be an irrelevant law. Cars might be more powerful, but

their exhaust gases are significantly cleaner now. Policy makers seem to focus

on negative legislation that stops a certain activity rather than positive

legislation that promotes a desirable activity. If the EU wants to make a

difference the MEPs should be looking at controlling the felling of rain forest

and other land management issues. Promotion of new energy (not the hype of

biofuel) such as solar to electricty & heat and hydrogen fuel cells.

Simon A, London Uk

A target of 95g/km does not seem remotely feasable. For a petrol car that would

mean ~70mpg (and almost 80mpg for a diesel). With increasing vehicle weights

(often due to legislation on crash protection) I do not believe that is

possible for an average car (and likely the resulting attempt would be so slow

that it would be incapable of pulling out into traffic without causing

disruption). On the other hand with average passenger levels 78mpg for a diesel

car means about 117mpg per passenger (~1.5 people in the average car). For

buses to manage the same (with an average of ~9 people) would require them to

average 13mpg which is likely to be an even bigger struggle.

Keith Walker, Stafford, UK

I don't strongly oppose the idea of an upper power limit, but the statement

that cars have got heavier because they are more powerful is absolute nonsense.

The reason they have got heavier is the addition of all the extra safety that

is now built in, coupled with the need to fit extra equipment in order to meet

environmental legislation.

Chris Whelan, Bracknell, UK

Mr Davies is talking rubbish. Why does increasing the power of cars make them

heavier? That just wrong - engines have seen a dramatic increase in efficiency

over the last 15 years which has had the effect of increasing power (the two

are not mutually exclusive). The power of cars increased *because* they got

heavier (due in no small part to crash legislation plus extra equipment

demanded by consumers) but this was categorically not at the expense of

increased emissions. Car manufacturers have failed to meet the 140g/km limit

imposed by themselves (except Fiat of course) but all of them have seen drops

in the average C02 produced; actually the failure to meet these targets is more

to do with what people have bought rather than the available product.

Phil, Bristol

Limit cars to 101mph? How about limiting motorbikes to 101mph also!

D C Adams, Birmingham UK

With the EU interfering in the sports car market, they are just going to make

things worse - most wannabe boy racers cannot afford big sporty cars and have

to make do with a common car, which they just modify to stupidity. So i don't

really see how the sport car industry is affecting this - obviously the Co2

emissions do need to be cut down, but in the long run if you compared the

amount of people who drive big shiny pollution machines to the amount of people

who will have to drive common cars if this law comes into place (or do

already), you would get about the same weight on either side and therefore the

same amount of pollution. Plus we have too many new ideas for rules of owning a

car (is there much else they can do before it starts getting stupid?), and

taxes for having the privelege to drive, so why don't they just start

concentrating on more important things - the rising prices of houses, the lack

of housing and living space, and the fact that cars are not the only cause of

global warming / pollution. There is no point in sorting out all of this global

warming if we are going to run out of places to live anyway. Surely if they

really gave a monkeys about the environment, they would have started all of

this a long time ago instead of ignoring what people were saying and then

trying to do something when it is probably too late.

Emma Jackson, Portsmouth, England

Mark Mardell's blog says, in part, that "Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies notes that

between 1994 and 2004 the power of new cars went up by 28%, making them a lot

heavier". I think he will find that it's actually the other way round: that car

safety legislation (from the European and national parliaments) has caused

cars' weight increase. This has been brought about by requiring better side and

rear impact protection, adding weight to the vehicles. In addition, the

increased use of "driver aids" (abs, and many other tla's), and driver risk

aversion, resulting in additional air bags and passive safety equipment, has

resulted in an ever increasing weight penalty. Engines, of necessity, get

bigger and more powerful, just to haul these weighty vehicles around. And

bigger engines themselves weigh more, so suspension needs to be "beefed up",

adding additional weight, which in turn requires a larger engine to move around

- and there we have the classic vicious circle. I would point Mr Mardell and Mr

Davis in the direction of the Lotus Elise, a fast sports car, whose CO2

emission value is amongst the best; why? because it is small and very light.

Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies should take note of this fact in formulating his CO2

emision proposals; lightweight cars are fuel efficient. Perhaps, as a way to

reduce CO2 emissions, an upper weight limit for cars of, say, 1600kg should be

imposed.

Mike Powell, London

It's about time somebody with some influence suggested this, although he'll

have a tough job fighting the car lobby. Despite the governments best attempts

with speed cameras everywhere, horrific public information films and so on,

there is a fundamental disconnect in the minds of many people between their

actions and the suffering they cause other people, directly and indirectly.

Anybody buying a fast car wants to drive fast, otherwise they would buy a more

responsible car. A car capable of illegal speeds should not be considered

street legal. They are for racetracks and that's where they should stay. I

don't like the ubiquitous cameras and overbearing government plans as a matter

of principle. However, I understand they have to make plans in a country in

which a sizeable minority of people are either too selfish or too immature to

make the right decisions. If some people refuse to drive safely and with due

consideration to other road users, pedestrians, global climate and the air we

breath then people with more sense must impose rules upon them. Another option

might be to include strict intelligence and empathy testing as part of the

driving test.

Tim Lewis, Horsham, England

I have just checked my calendar to ensure it is not April 1st as this is

outrageous and factually incorrect. Cars have not got heavier because they are

more powerful. Cars have got heavier as a result of all the safety equipment

the EU demands (airbags, ABS etc) and convenience features that consumers

demand (air-con, electric everything etc). Despite the increased weight,

manufacturers have in most cases managed to maintain or improve performance by

making cars that are more powerful but often with better fuel economy and lower

emissions. Have emissions improved enough? Maybe not but power is not the

reasons cars are heavier, and consumers will always want more power and

performance until the environmental or financial cost becomes too high. As for

the proposal to ban all new cars putting out > 240g/km, the emissions of cars

exceeding this are actually tiny fraction of the total emissions, so this

becomes a political gesture with little practical impact (and people wonder why

the public have lost faith in politicans and the EU.) Far better to tax it and

still give people a choice. I am not anti-green, far from it, and the debate is

valid, but these recommendations are not the answer. Reducing congestion must

be a big part of the emissions puzzle, and if that means road charging, then

most will understand and accept that they now have to choose when to drive and

pay accordingly. But again, to be credible politicians must ensure this is

genuinely tax-neutral and not just another stealth tax.

Tim Masters, Basingstoke, UK

This has absolutely made my liver fizz, though well done to Mark Mardell for

reporting it with balance and without bias. Firstly the major car manufacturers

are only listening to what customers demand, which is only good business; and

the consumer over the period has wanted more power, in the same way they have

bought bigger televisions, or faster computers. Secondly, Chris Davies'

statement "That between 1994 and 2004 the power of new cars went up by 28%,

making them a lot heavier, and so increasing the amount of CO2 they put out,"

is simply not true. Despite a rise in power outputs and weights - mainly due to

increased crash legislation - the average output of equivalent cars is far, far

lower than it was in 1994; even today, new cars being released have outstanding

fuel economy and power gains simultanously, which can only be the result of a

motor trade putting serious investment into reducing CO2 emissions. I am not an

MP, and can't remember the figures to support these but then neither does Chris

Davies, it seems. Thirdly, people who don't live in central London, like our

friend Chris I fear, have to use the car for almost everything. With five in my

family, a caravan to tow, frequent trips to make on holidays, and big loads to

transport in comfort and speed, it simply isn't possible to have a car any

smaller or less powerful than the one I currently own; besides, like many

people, I get a great deal of enjoyment out of my car. I enjoy driving, fast

sometimes; I enjoy the freedoms associated with it; and would probably be

called a 'Motoring enthusiast.' Above all, I believe in the right of individual

choice, within the reason of common decency, and resent having to live within

an exact framework dictated by mentally unbalanced, short-sighted and

thoughtless beauraucrats from the South who have no conception of the way I

lead my life, and whom for me represent malignant pro-activeness tantamount to

socialism.

James Cross, Silverdale, Lancashire

I have reduced my carbon footprint drastically by turning down my thermostat in

the house and not using the air conditioning until it is just too hot not to

and then I have turned that up to 78 degrees F. so it won't come on until it is

really hot outside. I compost too and recycle. I drive a Hummer3 a large and

petrol hungry vehicle. I use it because it is safe, turns on a dime and looks

good. I'm not young and yet I like the power it possesses. It is used

infrequently as I go about my daily life. Speeding down the highway on my way

to family and feeling quite safe is paramount to me and family and this vehicle

gives me confidence. I try to offest my carbon footprint but will not give up

this beautiful roaring monster to be run over by an articulated lorry careening

down the highway. Jokingly, I always say I can cut off the highway if caught

speeding and going cross country over fields!!! I don't though. Everything else

I do remains environmentally correct.

Beryl Shannon, Cambridge Canada

The following extract from the article does not make sense, is it a mistake or

does it shows a complete misunderstanding of car design? "Mr Davies notes that

between 1994 and 2004 the power of new cars went up by 28%, making them a lot

heavier, and so increasing the amount of CO2 they put out, even though no

country raised its speed limit to allow cars to use this increased power." The

increase in power has not been an attempt to increase the speed of cars, but as

cars have become heavier, due to greater safety legislation and refinement

expectations, they have required an increase in power to offset the weight to

allow them to travel at a reasonable speed? The answer is not to reduce car

power, but to reduce the weight of cars using modern materials and

technologies. A lighter car will be more efficient. An underpowered car is not

a safe one.

Emeye, Manchester

To be honest I find most of the anti-car discussions of the day to be based

around the politics of envy and based on a wilful ignorance on how most

performance cars are used. Most of us drive efficient vehicles because we need

to travel from A to B and don't want to pay too much for the privelige. Most

performance car owners typically use their performance car as a Sunday toy. It

may consume more fuel and push out more C02 per mile - but in its life it will

far fewer miles than their everyday transport. The number of truly wealthy

performance car owners who can afford to use their Ferrari, for example, as

daily transport are so few that the emissions of their cars are irrelevant. As

to making cars that can travel above the speed limit? Its a consequence of

power and gearing that make travelling below the speed limit fuel efficient.

Yes cars could be electronically limited but why? Our fastest roads, the

motorways, are statistically our safest. Most accidents that occur due to

excessive speed occur BELOW the speed limit - the speed was excessive for the

conditions NOT illegal in and of itself. But for those who have an agenda such

logic does not make sense and the facts are merely an inconvenience.

Don Hughes, Basingstoke, UK