| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

European Car industry

Page history last edited by PBworks 15 years, 9 months ago

 

 

European Car industry

 

IF BALI failed to produce much besides cop-outs and compromises, at least the European Commission showed that it means business when it comes to tackling carbon emissions. Transport-related CO2 emissions in the European Union grew by one-third between 1990 and 2005 and now constitute 27% of the EU total. Of these, the commission reckons, cars and vans are responsible for about half.

 

On Wednesday December 19th the commission published its final proposals for cleaning up Europe’s cars. Although it will be at least a year before they become law and there is still scope for some of the details to change there is now little doubt that in only a few years’ time European carmakers will have to meet the world’s strictest CO2-emission standards.

 

At present Europe’s cars emit an average of about 160 grams of CO2 per kilometre (g/km). There has been some reduction since carmakers were last threatened with legislation a decade ago, but progress has been painfully slow—about 1.5% a year rather than the 3% needed to meet the voluntary target of 140g/km by 2008 that the industry agreed to a few years ago. The commission is therefore insisting that by 2012, the fleet-average emissions from new cars sold in the EU must not exceed 130g/km, with another 10g/km reduction coming from other sources, such as low rolling-resistance tyres, more efficient air-conditioning and greater use of biofuels.

 

The proposals have split Europe’s car industry down the middle. The French and the Italians, represented by PSA Peugeot Citroën, Renault and Fiat, have so far been fairly sanguine. In 2006 their fleets, heavily biased towards fuel-efficient small cars, averaged 142-147g/km. It will not be easy for them to meet the new rules without increasing the cost of their cheap, low-margin cars, but they are close enough to be confident that they can get there.

 

For the Germans it is a different matter. Volkswagen makes plenty of small cars but its fleet-average emissions have actually been rising slightly because of the recent success of its Audi brand. But it is Mercedes-Benz and BMW that feel most threatened by the commission’s plans. Their brands are synonymous with big, powerful cars that promise luxury and high performance. Mercedes props up the 2006 emissions league table with a fleet average of 188g/km, and BMW is next from bottom with 184g/km.

 

BMW has at least been making an effort to burnish its environmental credentials. As well as reducing the weight of its cars, it is now extending across its range a package of fuel-saving tricks called “Efficient Dynamics”. This brings together the latest engine technologies with energy-saving auxiliary units, automatic start-stop and regenerative braking.

 

By contrast, Mercedes still seems to be in a state of denial. It has heavily promoted its BlueTec technology, but that is primarily designed to deal with clean-air regulations in America (which have limited the sales of diesel cars), not to meet European CO2 rules. Along with BMW, General Motors and Chrysler, it has developed a new hybrid system called Two-Mode. But this is an expensive option that is likely to find its way only slowly into the firm’s sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and bigger saloons.

 

Meanwhile, both BMW and Mercedes continue to build cars that are bigger than the ones they replace and have ever more powerful engines. Both firms insist that as long as customers want such cars, they will build them, particularly as they are highly profitable and popular in export markets such as America, Russia and China. They also point out, correctly, that removing their high-end models entirely from the European market would have only a minimal impact on carbon emissions, because they are a tiny proportion of the overall fleet. They argue that the makers of small cars, which sell so many more vehicles, should have to do more to reduce emissions—perhaps by reducing their fleet averages well below the EU’s proposed 130g/km limit.

 

Intensive lobbying by BMW and Mercedes, with support from the EU’s industry commissioner, Günter Verheugen (who happens to be German), and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has had some effect. To the fury of green campaigners, the commission has agreed to a “weight dispensation” that will allow makers of heavier cars (ie, the Germans) to produce higher fleet-average emissions.

 

The commission is determined not to let the premium carmakers off the hook, however, so much will depend on the slope of the weight/CO2 graph. The most grossly polluting vehicles may not be numerous, but if they do not attract stiff penalties the emission rules will lose all credibility. The commission would like to impose fines of €95 ($137) per car per gram on emissions exceeding 130g/km. Without any weight allowance, the existing Mercedes fleet would attract a penalty of about €5,500 a vehicle. In practice the final figure will be lower. But the commission is adamant that although it does not want to destroy the German carmakers’ business, they must be under real financial pressure to develop and implement radical fuel-saving technologies.

 

Even though it is clear what new technologies will be needed (smaller engines, more efficient automatic transmissions, various kinds of hybrid and greater use of biofuels) the Germans will struggle. Given that a new car takes five to seven years to develop, new technologies cannot be incorporated straight away, they argue. A further problem, according to Ricardo, an automotive consultancy, is that there are not enough engineering resources to go round. As things stand, the Germans have no hope of avoiding substantial fines unless they are given longer to comply and are prepared to change their mix of models. Neither looks likely.

 

source:  economist

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.