New report suggests the way CO2 emissions targets are measured could be altered to ease the financial burden on car makers

The European Union could relax the way CO2 emissions targets for car makers are measured if proposals put forward in a new report are adopted.

According to German newspaper Die Welt, EU Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani and Fiat’s Sergio Marchionne – who is also head of European car industry association ACEA – are to present a report recommending a change in the way measurements are made.

German car makers have long been pushing for more flexibility in the way that the EU measures the progress they are making in cutting CO2 emissions. The brands want factors such as driver behaviour and national infrastructure to be taken into account, rather than simply tailpipe emissions from new cars.

There is also concern among car makers that the stringent targets that are currently in place are pushing up research and development costs and rendering their vehicles less competitive in price against overseas opposition, a factor that is accentuated by the difficult economic climate.

Car manufacturers are supposed to meet an average of 130g/km across their model ranges by 2015, or face financial penalties. A further target of 95g/km by 2020 is expected to be rubber-stamped by the EU in July.

Tajani will present the report in a meeting of the CARS 21 High Level Group, a body of key car industry figures and politicians over which he will preside.

Another likely topic on the meeting’s agenda is overcapacity, a problem that has prompted the likes of Fiat boss Marchionne to call on the EU to offer help in rationalising the industry.

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

Join the debate


5 June 2012

I can't help thinking that the authorities have been attacking the problem of CO2 from the wrong end. Surely the best way to reduce CO2 from vehicles is simply to reduce the amount of fuel sold?  Doing this would guarantee that targets were met.

Of course this would result in higher fuel prices or rationing, as the fuel companies would have to balance supply and demand. And this in turn would create a chain reaction persuading people to buy more efficient vehicles (or drive them less) and encouraging motor manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient vehicles in response to demand.

The present system of setting CO2 targets to be achieved in a complicated and unrepreseantative test clearly causes much confusion and isn't achieving much progress in the real world.       

5 June 2012

I have to ask,who said CO2 was a problem?," global warming is a fallacy",why do

you still take notice of this lie LP in Brighton?.

5 June 2012

kdwilcox wrote:

I have to ask,who said CO2 was a problem?," global warming is a fallacy",why do

you still take notice of this lie LP in Brighton?.

Watch it dude, the way things are going climate skeptics will be up there with 'Holocaust Deniers'!

Totally agree with what you are saying though, as far as I can tell there is no evidence to suggest that CO2 collectively has anything to do with rising global temperatures let alone any CO2 that is being injected into the atmosphere by man. The entire thing is completely still open to debate so why we're making policy on something that isn't scientifically ratified is beyond me.

How dare the non-elected so called "technocrats" in the EU/UN tax us for emitting a gas that is in fact, essential for supporting life on this planet! Totally and utterly preposteruos.

Also, exactly how do they expect to determine our driving behaviour? Are they planning to install some sort of black box and monitor our every move? Surely this is an extreme violation of privacy? I can't believe the CO2 lie is now going to be used to inspect our driving habits stripping away more of our freedoms as individuals; seriously people need to get angry and complain about this, it is completely beyond control now!

5 June 2012

How do you know "global warning is a fallacy"? Where do you get this ignorance from? Bloviators on radio and television who are paid to push agendas? These people have opinions and nothing else and no expertise in anything. Read studies by climatologists. Global warming is real.

If you understand an engine, you understand the universe

5 June 2012

Well for one, the hockey stick chart used to illustrate AGW in Al Gore's inconvienient truth was a proven fallacy. The first part of the measurements were taken from tree ring samples whereas from 1975 onwards they used modern thermoteres... Approximations verses specifics hmmm? Of course it'll show a rise in global temperatures.

Two, Co2 has been rising quite rapidly over the last decade with China and other developing nations buring more fossil fuels than ever yet, temperatures have stayed on average the same and have not risen in over a decade!

Three, Co2 accounts for 0.04% of of the gasses in the atmosphere and 3.5% of the 0.04% is generated by man.

Four, the met office models can't even predict what the weather is going to be like next week, let alone what the entire climate is going to be like in the next 50 years! This alone is completely laughable!

Five, the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. In fact just 3,000 years ago an entire region of Greece was lost under the water due to climate change; where were the foundries and billions of cars with dirty CO2 exhaust fumes back then?

Six, Co2 consists of 336 parts per million in the atmosphere, plant life grows at maximum efficiency at around 1,000 to 1,300 ppm which leads onto my next point;

Seven, Co2 atmospheric concentrates are low, relative to the past. There have been times in earths history when Co2 exceeded 800ppm and with number six in mind we could eventually contribute to global famine if we carry on, since crops will not grow as efficiently.

I put it to you, that AGW is an agenda that is being pushed by corporate elites and state sponsored organisations such as the BBC and the Met office in the UK and it is you who is ignorant of common sense. 

Yes climate change exists, but it's nothing new and it certainly isn't anything to do with Co2 emissions emitted by man; it is just a natural cycle, this is indisputable.

Don't get me wrong I totally agree that we do need to sort out the planet as it is in a complete state, but by getting the best minds in the world to concentrate on a problem that doesn't exist is beyond counter productive and will actually contribute to the REAL problems that we have.

I also don't claim to explicitly know anything, I am completely open to all ideas and the possibility that I could be wrong but I do not accept the theory as 'proven beyond doubt', there are just too many questions.

5 June 2012

OK, I never said CO2 was a problem, merely that the authorities believe it is - and if so, I don't believe they are going about addressing the issue in the best way.

But irrespective of this, hydrocarbon fuels extracted from the earth are a finite resource, so I think that it makes sense to minimise their use. So I don't think setting targets for CO2 is necessarily a bad thing.

Right now our cars are nowhere near as efficient as they could be and this is because we have so far had unlimited access to cheap fuel. In the long term. establishing lower CO2 targets can surely only be a good thing - both for the planet and also for the future vehicles which we will all be driving.  

6 June 2012

its about time they changed this ridicious law. It is having a negative effect on the car industry and making companies like Aston Martin make cars like the Aston Martin Cygnet to get around the law. (the law had the potential of bankrupting some small car manufacturers and forcing them into ownership of larger corporations, which is not a good idea considering competition is good for the consumer)

I think taking into account average annual mileage etc is a very good idea but would be challenging to enforce considering the manufacturers would push for them to be in the lower annual mileage categories and is hard to know what category a car would fit if it is all new for instance the 3 series GT when that comes out.

It is not just about CO2 emissions neither considering a Land Rover Discovery is better to the environment than a Toyota Prius, because of the pollution and damage to the environment in the construction of the car because of those batteries.


6 June 2012

It's amazing what can be reconsidered when you're trying to get around a huge recession and the Euro collapsing.

6 June 2012

CO2 has been rising ever since the industrial revolution kicked in (~1760). We have a global temperature record since 1850. So is there any correlation?

Well, prior to the global temperature record starting, the world had experienced 90 years of increasing CO2 emissions, yet for the first 82 (1850 to 1932) years of the temperature record, there was no global warming at all. There have been 2 further significant time periods of no global warming (1938 to 1981 - 43 years) and (1998 to present - 14 years and counting). Climate scientists have offered no consistent explanation for these long periods in which there has been no global warming despite increasing CO2 emissions. For the last 14 years, they've been claiming that it's due to 'natural variability', which when pushed they explain is solar cycles (peak to trough 11 to 13 years), ocean temperature changes known as ENSO events (last months not years) and volcanic events (last major eruption - Mount Pinatubo in 1991). When it's pointed out to them that they said that the CO2 signal would overcome natural variability in the 1990s and that the solar cycle, ENSO events and volcanic eruptions can't have suppressed the CO2 warming rate for 14 years, they go to a fallback position that 14 years isn't statistically significant and that we have to wait 30 years before it can be said that their hypothesis is false. When it's pointed out that we've had previous no global warming periods of 43 and 82 years, they claim that CO2 levels were weaker back then, so natural variability could suppress global warming for these extended periods. Given these massive holes in this nonsense, it's amazing the sheer volume of alarmist propaganda which is financed by the taxpayer to try to persuade us that if we don't go back to year zero by cutting all CO2 emissions in the next few years, the earth is heading for a Venusian hell.

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week