Tough new EU regulations passed today will force manufacturers to reduce the average CO2 emissions of their cars to 130g/km by 2015.
That's roughly the equivalent of achieving 58mpg in a diesel car and 52mpg in a petrol model.
A sliding scale will be introduced to meet the new emissions targets, with heavy fines for manufacturers that exceed them.
By 2012, 65 per cent of new cars must achieve 130g/km. That figure rises to 75 percent by 2013, 80 percent by 2014, and 100 percent by the 2015 deadline.
Small volume manufacturers (below 10,000 models per year) will have separate targets.
Meanwhile, niche manufacturers (producing 10,000 to 300,000 units) will be expected to deliver a 25 per cent reduction on 2007's average emissions by 2015.
Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston are counted among Britain's small and niche manufacturers.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers has welcomed the legislation. Chairman Paul Everitt said it "presented a tough challenge to the automotive industry".
"We share the environmental objectives and welcome the long-term framework the legislation sets out," he said.
Government loans - being sought publicly and privately by a number of UK-based car manufacturers - hinge around using public money to invest in green automobile technology for the future.
Join the debate
Add your comment
Re: Tougher CO2 regulations passed
I agree that competition has assisted, but there was no real demand for very frugal engines 10 years ago - we were all 'well off', petrol was cheap(ish) and diesel was largely in the minority.
It wasn't competition that suddenly caused the big shift over night it was tax, or more precisely company car tax. I was paying something like £4000 a year in tax on the old scheme and then suddenly when the changes came in if I took a diesel I was going to pay £1200! It was a no brainer, company car drivers were dumping petrols like there was no tomorrow.
We know it wasn't competition either that caused this because retail sales of diesels didn't really change - why? There was no real financial incentive for the public to change. Since we have had emmissions based tax for cars, high fuel prices and a pending recession the demand has arisen. Competition has certainly improved the likelihood of change, no doubt about it, but manufacturers will only build what we want them to.
You have got to incentivise people to change, as I said before we don't like change. We are seeing this in the states at the moment, there is suddenly a big need to go frugal - for them it is not tax, but the incentive is just as great - fuel prices. The Americans could have easily built more frugal engines, there is plenty of competition, but there was little demand.
Re: Tougher CO2 regulations passed
Seeing that we, as a country, are notoriously bad at making change, how would you suggest this is pushed through? I agree, it would be ideal without tax measures, but I just can't see what else is going to cause such a big shift.
Re: Tougher CO2 regulations passed
I am entirely unsurpised by your reply. Greenie - ha! Don't make me laugh. Proving things with science - surely not?
As for 'unverified statistics' - that'll be you, not me. If you bother to read the book to which I refer (which aims specifically to provide reliable, accurate numbers unmangled by greens, governments or people who otherwise have an agenda, such as yourself) you'll see that the statistics quoted are all referenced. For example, the per capita emissions data comes from:
"Breakdown of world greenhouse gas emissions by region and by country. Data source: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) Version 4.0. (Washington, DC:World Resources Institute, 2007). The first three figures show national totals of all six major greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, PFC, HFC, SF6), excluding contributions from land-use change and forestry."
If you'd like to explain how this is an example of 'unverified statistics' and you pulling '96%' out of the air isn't, I'm all ears.
Wrong. It states that the additional flow of CO2 into the atmosphere is small compared to the size of the balanced flows into and out of the atmosphere due to natural processes. Because these are balanced, any additional flow in, which is not balanced by a flow out is potentially very significant. As you said before, CO2 makes up a small proportion of the earth's atmosphere, so even a small flow of CO2 into the atmosphere can produce a large percentage change in concentration.
As a country, yes, as individuals no. China's total contribution is unsurprisingly larger than that of the UK given that there are 1bn or so Chinese, and 60m people in the UK. It's complete nonsense to point at a country's overall contribution without considering how many people live in that country. We're talking about a global issue here, not one that stops at country boundaries. I don't see how you can justify waving your finger at China given the per capita figures - I guess ignoring that aspect makes it far easier.
I do now. That fact is irrelevant without knowing how much power Poland actually generates in a year. According to the CIA World Factbook, Poland generated 146.2 billion kWh in 2005. In the same year the UK generated 372.6 billion kW.
If you don't believe me, here are the links. Poland UK
How about some more data? Energy-related CO2 emissions, from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Poland, 2003: 286.17 Mt CO2 (link)
UK, 2003: 564.56 Mt CO2 (link)
Oh look, I was right. If you want to claim that data provided by the CIA and the IAEA is 'unverified statistics', please go ahead. I could do with a laugh.Someone call me a doctor. I think I'm suffering an overload of irony.