Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.transportenvironment.org
Cars, CO2 and ‘eco-innovations’
Jos DingsT&E, the European Federation for Transport and
EnvironmentEPP hearing, Brussels, 5 June 2008
www.transportenvironment.org
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK
49 Members – 21 Countries
T&E membership
www.transportenvironment.org
Future oil will be a lot more expensive …
www.transportenvironment.org
… and a lot dirtier than today’s
www.transportenvironment.org
History and theory show that lower oil demand means lower oil prices
ROW – Rest of the World
www.transportenvironment.org
~ 130 barrels of oil
~ €11,000 extra EU oil imports
←
www.transportenvironment.org
Car efficiency standards1 Are efficient – overwhelming evidence that
consumers only value fuel savings over the first 1-2 years, not all the rest;
2 Are effective – very few other measures thinkable with double digit savings;
3 Are not distorting competition - rules apply to everyone selling in market;
4 HELP citizens manage fuel bills; 5 Create added value and jobs in supply chain,
rather than wealth transfers to oil exporting countries;
6 Have no negative side effects of e.g. biofuels
www.transportenvironment.org
our views on the proposalA very flexible proposal – fleet averaging, pooling,
attribute-based, …
Problematic is lack of ambition: ‘130 by 2012’ is only 7% less and 4 years later than what industry had promised to achieve by itself (‘140 by 2008’)
Not even an indication of post-2012 target – 80 g/km for 2020 is needed.
Penalties are low – all measures up to €150 per g/km CO2 have a positive payback for consumer
www.transportenvironment.org
‘Phase in’ ? Postponement !
The best half of the fleet already met 130 in 2006
80 130 180
best 25% of fleet
best 50% of fleet
best 75% of fleet
100% of fleet
current fleet average CO2 emissions in g/km
~-18%
~-9%
~-1%
www.transportenvironment.org
We
eco-innovation
www.transportenvironment.org
And we would
to have a perfect test cycle
www.transportenvironment.org
But we are
if ‘eco-innovation’is used to
weaken innovation
www.transportenvironment.org
Unfortunately that’s what it is …
It’s used to further weaken existing requirements: emissions on the test cycle
It weakens innovation on measured emissions: drivetrains, weight, and aerodynamics, by far the most important ‘eco-innovations’
A very murky verification procedure – certainly not ‘better regulation’ and ‘cutting red tape’ ….
Please be honest and say that you think, even after the weakening from 120 to 130, the regulation is still too tough and want to further weaken it, in times of record oil prices
www.transportenvironment.org
… and weight based standards make it even worse
…Weight based standards severely punish car makers that eco-innovate on weight !!
4.6 g/km punishment for every 100 kg saving
People concerned about eco-innovations should support footprint-based CO2 standards.
www.transportenvironment.org
On other escapes
Flexfuels: an ability to burn 85% ethanol does not make a car green•Any fuel is scarce, also biofuel•Car maker does not have any control of E85 supply•Environmental performance ethanol doubtful
‘Supercredits’: why would selling one car of 70 g/km entitle you to sell 5 gas guzzlers of 190 g/km ?
www.transportenvironment.org
So what’s the way forward
then ? 1 car makers should be responsible for making their products more energy efficient
2 short term: establish efficiency requirements for items like lights, air conditioners, tyres etc;
3 medium term: include these items in test cycle
4 fuel suppliers should be responsible for supplying low-carbon fuel
