Europe votes in favour of 40% CO2 reduction by 2030

Cars
11
0

Home

  • Europe votes in favour of 40% CO2 reduction by 2030
Jimi Beckwith

European Union lawmakers have voted today for car makers to reduce their CO2 emissions by 40% by 2030, and by 20% by 2025. 

The European Commission previously legislated that a 30% reduction must be achieved by 2021. The targets are for a manufacturer’s fleet average, calculated across all the models they sell. The stringent targets will effectively for them to put a major emphasis on zero emission cars such as electric vehicles.

The EU said these targets can be met through an accelerated pick-up of EVs, and that new cars with CO2 emissions of 50g/km or less must make up 20% of sales by 2025 and 35% by 2030. 

A previous fleet average target of 66g/km by 2030 was widely criticised by the car industry and described by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) as “aggressive when we consider the low and fragmented market penetration of alternatively powered vehicles across Europe to date”. 

Rapporteur of today’s EU vote, Miriam Dalli, said: “Achieving the European Parliament’s support for a 40% CO2 emissions target by 2030 was no mean feat and I am proud of the successful result achieved. Equally important is the 20% emissions target for 2025.

The targets are particularly challenging because of the recent introduction of the tougher WLTP emissions test procedure, which means that car firms have had to cut real-world emissions simply to achieve the same fleet average as under the old NEDC test.

Driven this week

  • McLaren 600LT 2018 first drive review - hero front

  • Vauxhall Insignia Sports Tourer 2018 UK first drive review - hero front

  • skoda fabia estate front

“This legislation goes beyond reducing harmful emissions and protecting the environment. It looks at setting the right incentives for manufacturers; it encourages investment in the infrastructure; it proposes a just transition for workers.”

CO2 from road transport – the only sector across the continent where greenhouse gas emissions are rising – is of particular concern for lawmakers. This has been compounded by an growing number of cars on the road and the public backlash against diesel, with a rising percentage of petrol car registrations contributing to increased CO2 emissions

A total of 389 MEPs to 239 voted in favour of the legislation, which has been met with scepticism from ACEA. “We remain particularly concerned about the extremely aggressive CO2 reduction targets and the imposition of sales quotas for battery-electric vehicles that MEPs have backed,” said secretary-general Erik Jonnaert. “Today’s vote risks having a very negative impact on jobs across the automotive value chain.

“There is no guarantee that we have the right enabling framework in place to facilitate this sudden transition to electromobility. Consumers cannot be forced to buy electric cars, without the necessary infrastructure or incentives in place.”

PSA Group boss Carlos Tavares, speaking yesterday at the Paris motor show before the vote, was critical of some MEPs from countries without major car production bases. He felt they were inclined to be more extreme in setting CO2 targets because they don’t appreciate the roblems in countries with an industry to protect.

“There is the problem with the superficiality of our society’s thinking,” said Tavares. “These are complex issues which need very carefully crafted solutions.” 

Tavarares also called on the EU to appoint a “battery champion” to speed the move towards greater EV use. “All car companies agree we have to keep cutting emissions,” he said. “But it is a question of how fast.

“We must draw a fine line between going so fast that we draw all battery supplies from Asia, the price goes up, and we price some people out of the market, or we go a little slower and source more locally. If we go too slow, we lose the competitiveness of our industry.”

Read more 

CO2 reduction targets ‘overly aggressive’, says European car industry

European car industry defends emissions standards amid TRUE Initiative media storm

Average new car CO2 emissions rise as market shifts away from diesels

russ13b

the actual problem

There’s too many people on the planet. If families only had one child, all forms of consuption and demand would be halved in around 80 years, with a global population decrease of about 50%. Not just fuel and exhaust emissions, but food, water, agriculture, housing development, everything would all be halved. Combine that with general improvements such as renewable energy, and co2 output would become comparatively miniscule. A 50% population reduction may sound drastic, but it would have it around where it was in the 1960s, and there wasn’t a shortage of people then. Things such as public transport would go from having a problem with overcrouding to undercrouding. House prices would fall as there would gradually become an excess of them, less traffic on the roads would mean they’d last longer, public transport would stop being overcrouded. With everything else in nature we accept that populations of animals increase to a certain point and then reduce as they run out of food and living space etc, and here we are trying to ignore that we have the same problem.

typos1

russ13b wrote:

There’s too many people on the planet. If families only had one child, all forms of consuption and demand would be halved in around 80 years, with a global population decrease of about 50%. Not just fuel and exhaust emissions, but food, water, agriculture, housing development, everything would all be halved. Combine that with general improvements such as renewable energy, and co2 output would become comparatively miniscule. A 50% population reduction may sound drastic, but it would have it around where it was in the 1960s, and there wasn’t a shortage of people then. Things such as public transport would go from having a problem with overcrouding to undercrouding. House prices would fall as there would gradually become an excess of them, less traffic on the roads would mean they’d last longer, public transport would stop being overcrouded. With everything else in nature we accept that populations of animals increase to a certain point and then reduce as they run out of food and living space etc, and here we are trying to ignore that we have the same problem.

Too true, but there will never be a solution – few people have the desire or foresight to limit the number of children they have, enforcing 1 child  per family didnt work in China. I Basically, we will wipe ourselves off the planet in the end.

XXXX just went POP.

xxxx

typos1 wrote:

There’s too many people on the planet. If families only had one child, all forms of consuption and demand would be halved in around 80 years, with a global population decrease of about 50%. Not just fuel and exhaust emissions, but food, water, agriculture, housing development, everything would all be halved. Combine that with general improvements such as renewable energy, and co2 output would become comparatively miniscule. A 50% population reduction may sound drastic, but it would have it around where it was in the 1960s, and there wasn’t a shortage of people then. Things such as public transport would go from having a problem with overcrouding to undercrouding. House prices would fall as there would gradually become an excess of them, less traffic on the roads would mean they’d last longer, public transport would stop being overcrouded. With everything else in nature we accept that populations of animals increase to a certain point and then reduce as they run out of food and living space etc, and here we are trying to ignore that we have the same problem.

Too true, but there will never be a solution – few people have the desire or foresight to limit the number of children they have, enforcing 1 child  per family didnt work in China. I Basically, we will wipe ourselves off the planet in the end.

Basically it did work. Scientists believe it kep population down by between 400-500 million over the decades it was in place. Worked to the extent the rule is now 2 children but may now be dropped.

typos1 – Just can’t respect opinion

Peter Cavellini

Where have I heard this before..?

There’s too many people on the planet. If families only had one child, all forms of consuption and demand would be halved in around 80 years, with a global population decrease of about 50%. Not just fuel and exhaust emissions, but food, water, agriculture, housing development, everything would all be halved. Combine that with general improvements such as renewable energy, and co2 output would become comparatively miniscule. A 50% population reduction may sound drastic, but it would have it around where it was in the 1960s, and there wasn’t a shortage of people then. Things such as public transport would go from having a problem with overcrouding to undercrouding. House prices would fall as there would gradually become an excess of them, less traffic on the roads would mean they’d last longer, public transport would stop being overcrouded. With everything else in nature we accept that populations of animals increase to a certain point and then reduce as they run out of food and living space etc, and here we are trying to ignore that we have the same problem.

. Pie in the Sky, if there weren’t this or less of that there would less of this more of that!?, of course if we only had one child per household, but how are you going to Police that?, that last person who got the chance to put this theory to the test lost the War!, weren’t we lucky?, if they’d gotten there way you and I might not have been here!

Peter Cavellini.

LP in Brighton

Unnecessarily complicated

Why complicate matters, make life difficult for the manufacturers and encourage more emissions cheating? There is an easy solution to controlling CO2 emissions just by limiting fuel sales. So a 40% reduction in CO2 would be achieved by a 40% reduction in fuel availability.

Market forces would do the rest, with fuel prices escalating as demand matches supply encouraging drivers to buy more economical models, drive more efficiently and fewer miles – and the industry in turn would have to produce lighter more economical models, more EVs and so on.   

 

eseaton

It is not remotely possible

It is not remotely possible in that timeframe.

It is so easy to vote for nice things, like free money.

But you shouldn’t vote for something if you don’t know how it can be done.

That bloke

If you just look at the

If you just look at the actual statistics, the leading cause of global warming is the entire agricultural sector.  But rather than do something about it, they go after cars instead.  It’s insane, but hey, that’s just how it is.  It used to annoy me that people cannot understand this, everyone just thinks ‘cars’.  Now, when I read inane and crass remarks, I just smile at the staggering ignorance.  People just comment on what they’ve read, they don’t go and actually look for the data.  To end agriculture’s terrible effect on the planet would require a complete up-turning of so much…like all of us going veggie, or even vegan.  And there’s why it just ain’t gonna happen.  Politicians are too scared to tell people the truth of what is happening (like immigration and population growth), and the journalists are too ignorant and too stupid to do the research.  So the majority of people have absolutely no idea just what agriculture is doing to Earth.  The facts are incredible, and incredibly sad.  But hey, let’s just blame cars.

russ13b

@peter

what?!

artill

The EU has voted for worse

The EU has voted for worse cars that will cost a lot more. Same old story. Buy the best car you can now, and keep it.

Pages

Driven this week

  • McLaren 600LT 2018 first drive review - hero front

  • Vauxhall Insignia Sports Tourer 2018 UK first drive review - hero front

  • skoda fabia estate front

Facebook Comments

Comments are closed.