By on April 25, 2013

European carmakers, faced with greenhouse gas emission targets much stricter than America’s CAFE rules, can breathe slightly easier. According to Reuters, European politicians backed a compromise deal that keeps stringent targets in place, but that also introduces a loophole: So-called supercredits, gained by making very low emission vehicles, such as electric cars, which nobody actually needs to buy. Quota cars, here we come.

The proposal still needs to be voted on by the full European Parliament and endorsed by member states. The compromise keeps a 2020 emissions limit of 95 grams per kilometer as an average for new EU cars. It even introduces a new 2025 goal in a range of 68-78 g/km. However, it allows manufacturers to use supercredits to partly offset the requirements.

While the U.S. sets mileage targets and the EU sets targets for CO2 output, the two amount largely to the same: Burn less fuel, create less CO2. The standards set by the Obama administration equate to 93 grams of CO2 per kilometer by 2025 for ordinary cars, excluding sport utility vehicles, the International Council on Clean Transportation says.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


19 Comments on “CAFE Mit Sahne: EU Greenhouse Targets, Now With New Loopholes...”

  • avatar

    I fail to see how we are “reducing greenhouse gases” when the cheap prices of imports allows more people to drive – which increases total CO2 levels. Not to mention the increases in population.

    • 0 avatar

      If someone has the budget to buy a cheap new car, they have the budget to buy a cheap old car with a bigger engine and worse economy. Every economical new car sold is bought by someone faced with this choice.

  • avatar
    Michael S.

    They aren’t accomplishing anything. The amount of carbon dioxide needed/produced to make the new vehicles and exhaust systems don’t always negate the difference in CO2 output, either. And since most budget eco vehicles today are almost “disposable” in nature, they aren’t really worth repairing or retrofitting. Thus more emissions to get the new materials to build the new budget eco car.

    You get what you vote for…

    • 0 avatar

      Psychological obsolescence means they have to keep changing and improving cars as time goes on. They use MORE ENERGY creating new things than mass producing old ones.

      I believe that with the absense of wars and space travel the gubment’ imposes these “do more with less” standards to force innovators to stay on their toes.

    • 0 avatar
      VA Terrapin

      New cars, even cheap ones, are more reliable and durable than ever. Cheap credit makes money appear to be cheaper, and this is what makes expensive products seem to be cheap these days. Best financial advice is to keep your current car repaired until repair costs are more than the car is worth, then replace your current car with the cheapest car you actually like.

      As for CO2 emissions, leave it up to European Union politicians and bureaucrats to eclipse their American counterparts in terms of stupidity. The Euros shoved soot producing diesel cars onto their populace in an attempt to reduce CO2 emissions. Now that the Euros are waking up to the notion that diesel cars being good for the environment is idiotic, that some of them want to take nuclear power plants offline after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and that they are still hostile to fracking (which has made natural gas much more competitive in America vs coal, and thus has allowed America to significantly reduce CO2 emissions), the Euros are grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to appear to care about reducing CO2 emissions. Forcing auto companies to build environmental “compliance” cars that most people won’t seriously consider is farcical.

  • avatar

    Sucks for them. We still get the bigger engines here in the US on global cars.

    I’m surprised the eu is going this far. Their car traffic is much less than here in the US. Their you have a choice to have a car or not. Not so much here.

    • 0 avatar

      Why do people think this? In many parts of Europe, just like in the US, a car is pretty much a necessity. All of Europe is not London or Paris, just like all of the US is not New York City or Chicago. Good luck living without a car in rural areas.

      Technically, I could get by without a car too – I live right on a city bus route that can get me to shopping, the interstate bus station, the railroad station (one and the same actually), and the airport. But I don’t have hours of my life to waste. Neither do Europeans if they can possibly afford a car, and have a place to keep it.

      • 0 avatar

        The good thing about Europe is you can live near where you work in a city, and not have it be a total crap hole. I know i live in what used to be a city. Only poor people live here. I admit nearly every European i know owns a car.

        But, nearly every place i have been has efficient public transportation that doesn’t require you to wait hours like i often have to do here.

        The rural areas yes you’ll need a car. But, lets be honest rural areas without services are rare. Plus they don’t have the suburbia problem that we do.

        On a side note they didn’t have the same hidden racism we did here with White Flight, the reason our cities suck.

        • 0 avatar

          I’m not trying to be rude, but have you ever been to Europe? White flight from some of the districts of Paris is quite obvious. Or when I was an exchange student in Bremen (northern Germany), I was explicitly & repeatedly warned to stay away from the neighborhoods with Turkish immigrants. A few years ago The Economist had a stat that Paris’ population was down 500,000 from it’s 1921 peak. The B&B in the UK can attest to the suburban sprawl around London. Even with train & bus service, many of these households have one auto.

  • avatar

    Now that Global Warning is over, and we are entering into the era of Global Cooling, shouldn’t we try to burn as much fuel as possible to maintain the Earth’s best temperatures? Even if we run out of petroleum fuels in 100 years (barring CNG), we could always keep war with butanol and biodiesel, right?

    This is April 25th, and there is still snow on the ground in my backyard! What does that tell ya’?


  • avatar

    Did industrialization kill the dinosaurs?

  • avatar

    Of course in the real world, non of this matters, since no politician has ever kept one single promise more than half an hour. 2020, 2025?? Fat chance any of those yahoos can even count that high. All it amounts to, is progtard hipster whore A trying to outdo colleague B, by claiming his jeans are even skinnier than B’s. In the process inadvertently (or not) driving auto makers and other lobbyists to fork more money into campaigns for or against the silliness.

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • nels0300: I like the base Civic engine, I’m a old school Honda fan and the 2.0L is Honda old school style....
  • ghostwhowalksnz: Samoa just recently switched over from RHD to the ‘un natural’ LHD. In Asia theres quite...
  • Eaststand: That thing is awesome! I would love one them.
  • MudFlap: I have an avalanche, and the car we chose for my wife(odyssey) has nothing to do with fuel economy, each...
  • ghostwhowalksnz: Cant be the worst populist decision made by a politician- it was a decision of the majority in a...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote


  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States