By on October 8, 2014

peugeot-rcz-enhanced-with-new-exhausts-and-custom-luggage_3

While hot hatches and hypercar hybrids caught the attention of everyone at the 2014 Paris Auto Show, senior executives for some of Europe’s major automakers warned all who would listen that potentially stronger greenhouse-gas regs could prove “fatal” to the European auto industry.

The Detroit Bureau reports European Union legislatures are considering issuing targets of 65 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer driven by 2025, a 30-gram drop from the target of 95 grams/km in 2021. The drop would be the equivalent of a vehicle in the United States netting 84 mpg, nearly 30 miles per gallon more than the CAFE target of 54.5 mpg set for the U.S. market at the same time as the 65-gram/km mandate would go into effect.

To make this a possibility, senior execs, like Volkswagen’s Martin Winterkorn and Fiat Chrysler Automobile’s Sergio Marchionne, claim significant investments would need to be made to meet the mandate. Winterkorn specifically stated that for every gram of CO2 cut to meet the target, his company must spend €100 million ($140 million USD) “without knowing when these investments pay off.” Observers also claim that while bigger automakers can handle the investment, smaller ones would likely be crippled if not die-off in doing the same.

On the other side, critics proclaim that automakers have been obsessed with the apocalypse of their industry since the 1970s, when the first clear air bills became law. Every time, the industry has been able to meet the challenges before it, and continue to do so today with the use of turbos, direct injection and advanced transmissions.

Marchionne acknowledged those statements, but added that it would ultimately be put on the backs and wallets of the consumers who want the latest and greatest, emphasizing that it would be delusional to think otherwise.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

84 Comments on “European Auto Execs Warn Too Stringent CO2 Regs Could Kill Local Industry...”


  • avatar

    There is a direct relationship between less CO2 and small energy-efficient engines. Throw in weight loss for vehicles (why limit yourself to the driver?), reduce oil import dependency from one of the most volatile regions in the world in the equation, and you have a winning formula. Most cars tip the scale at 15-25 times the weight of the driver, 90-95% of the times the car’s single occupant. Better concentrate on that, instead of complaining.

    • 0 avatar
      Kendahl

      Reductions in fuel consumption have been achieved primarily through improvements in the drive train and secondarily through reductions in drag. Improvements in safety have been achieved through a combination of more sophisticated design and added material. The price of safety has been increased weight. Using carbon fiber, it might be possible to build a super light weight automobile body that meets safety requirements but the cost to the consumer would be prohibitive.

  • avatar
    petezeiss

    wah wah wah

    I daresay Earth would survive the loss of the European auto industry.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    I’m with Marchionne one this. It can be done, but are consumers willing to pay and suffer with the product? Legislators may be sufficiently disconnected to not care at all.

    These rules are different than clean air regulations where the compounds being regulated can be modified in the exhaust stream or through engine design with less of an impact to power output. When it comes to CO2, there is no choice but to burn less fuel. In this case, significantly less.

    • 0 avatar
      Loki

      You can only push physics and chemistry so far. These are internal combustion engines, not magic boxes. Things get VERY difficult getting below 90 g CO2 per km.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Really? Because a Prius plug-in you can buy at any Toyota dealer today emits 49 g/km.

        When do the lies end?

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          I guess if everyone could make due with or afford to buy a Prius Plug-in that would be the solution. But that’s just not very pragmatic.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I think it’s just pushing everyone down the road to when it’s simply easier to make some powerful and fully-equipped electric or hydrogen vehicle. No CO2 restrictions, so it can be heavy and nice, etc.

            The restrictions will be such that only very small cars are able to cope with tiny and turboe’d ICE powerplants.

        • 0 avatar
          Zykotec

          Thank God we have batteries that just appear by magic in the car factories, and electricity that just appears magically in our walls.
          Imagine if those batteries needed transport, raw material or factories. Or if someone used coal or gas to make electricity, it’s a silly thought, I know, but just imagine it :)

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            You didn’t know about the electricity fairy? She’s the best.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            @28

            You made me spit my coffee… I choose not to say why

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            I should mention, I do believe electric cars are perfect for inner city transport though. Out here in the rural areas range anxiety and access to fresh air and trees make them obsolete.
            If done right, a car with a generator/electric motor combination instead of a classic mechanical drivetrain is probably the future though.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Lie2me

            Probably better for all of us.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Zykotec,
            You do realize that the batteries are recycled, right?

            And that study after study has shown that generating power centrally is a lot cleaner than cars running ICE, right?

            Then why persist in this nonsense?

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            @Vogo, I actually like electric cars, but so far I’m a bit on the fence if they will ‘save the world’ or not, compared to keeping old cars on the road and upgrade and recondition them ( I’m a bit of a luddite sometimes I guess). And I think Hybrids and electric cars are a very good way of cutting down on local emissions in condensed areas.
            I think too many people think of electric cars and hybrids as ‘prefectly clean and green’, but I think they are important for developing better technology.

          • 0 avatar
            rpn453

            Regardless of whether they are recycled, the large batteries still consumed thousands of dollars worth of energy and resources in their creation.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Recycling is also uses energy.

        • 0 avatar
          Roader

          Is 49 g/km only tailpipe emissions or does that include electricity generation at the power plant? If the latter then I guess it would depend where you live: coal vs. natural gas vs. hydro vs. nuclear.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          Driven how?

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          Only because of the way they calculate the figure for plug-in hybrids. Once that initial energy charge (which is likely not entirely free of CO2 either), it makes the same or worse as a regular Prius, which IIRC is ~90-100 somewhere. But they get credit for that initial “free” bump. It’s only wildly better if you only drive short distances.

          I still find the climate change alarmists a bit hilarious. The climate is, was, and always will be changing. In a geologic blink of an eye ago, where I am sitting was under 2 miles of ice. By some geologists estimation, we are late for that to be the case again. If the climate happens to be changing faster at the moment, then we should be trying to adapt to that change, not spending ridiculous amounts to “stop” it. You can’t stop it, unless you want to deny an awful lot of the world a decent standard of living to which they are completely entitled. And maybe not even then. I try to do my part to live as efficiently as I can, but that is more out of innate cheapskateness than any desire to save the planet. Earth will be just fine no matter what any of us do. I really think if humans had existed eons earlier we would have held bake sales to save the T-Rex.

  • avatar
    VoGo

    I think Winterkorn and Marchianne are wrong on this one. The world is moving towards stricter regulation of CO2 and better fuel economy. Full stop. The automakers that get there first will be the ones who are best prepared to gain global market share. Those that lag will wither and die.

    • 0 avatar
      Loki

      The consumer will suffer in the end, either by paying twice as much for their car or being restricted to OPEC Dark Ages level of horsepower.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        They said the same thing about getting under 100g/km. Lo and behold, cars have reached it and are cheaper with respect to inflation than they’ve ever been. 65g/km might be too low for whatever deadline they have, but you have no proof that if we can reach it it will be so expensive or detrimental to performance.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          The way automakers have gotten under 100, is to sell 700hp hellcats that can run on a quarter of a clinder for the exact speed and duration required by some arbitrarily chosen test loop. The put something on a window sticker for dimbulbs to fawn over and pretend matters.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        @Loki

        And yet we all got along just fine when a Porsche 911 needed 6.5 seconds to get to 60 and a sporty sedan needed 10. God, how did we ever manage, were we all growing old and dying in our cars trying to get from place to place? The utter horror of it all!

        Want to get people to use less fuel (which is the only real way to reduce CO2 emissions) in Europe? Double the gas tax. Way cheaper. Because then not only do you have an incentive for people to buy more efficient vehicles, but also to drive less. Regulating CO2 is just a different version of CAFE, and just as stupid.

        • 0 avatar
          Erikstrawn

          This. I don’t like paying more for gas, but double the gas tax. It’s the most reasonable and effective way. It hits the people who don’t want to give up their horsepower. Pay to play. And yes, 3 of my 4 vehicles are V8s.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “The world is moving towards stricter regulation of CO2 and better fuel economy.”

      It’s all part of a negotiation process. If the automakers don’t lobby, then the regulators will make decisions for them and without them.

      This way, the OEM’s have a place at the table and can cut deals that they can live with. Otherwise, the regulators would simply make new rules without any regard for whether their rules make sense, since they personally don’t suffer any consequences if their ideas don’t work.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        The ones that are cut out of all this negotiation, are those who could otherwise have been automakers. And hence competition for the those who already are. As well as auto consumers.

        Just like in every other field. Which is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich gets 500hp Teslas in the OHV lane, while the poor get to take the bus. Why banksters get money for free, while the rest gets to go $3million into debt for an Andy Gump situated less than a six hours bus ride from their 80 hours a week McJob. Etc., Etc.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Otherwise the Automakers will be hostage too extremely damaging regulations, that will destroy the Industry

  • avatar
    thelaine

    Go ahead and kill your auto industry, Europe. Only the elite need real cars anyway. The rest can have what their government determines they need. The CO2 pollution fantasy is as good an excuse as any.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      thelaine,
      Please present even a quantum of evidence that reducing CO2 emissions and improving gas mileage hurts the auto industry.

      Because a rational person would think that if the typical consumer can save $100/month on gas, then that’s $100/month they can spend extra on car payments.

      The world is moving towards reductions in CO2 and improvements in gas mileage. That is just fact. The carmakers that master the skills needed to conform to this requirement will be the ones that thrive.

      This only helps European carmakers. Marchionne and Winterkorn know that – they just want to slow things down a bit to favor near term financial results.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Vogo,
        Many people value other vehicle characteristics more highly than fuel efficiency.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Is breathing something people value over fuel economy? Is having their home above sea level?

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Euros cannot breathe because they are drowning?

          • 0 avatar
            ReSa

            We Dutch have no probleme with having our home well below sea level ;) Apart from that, I’m with VoGo.

            @thelaine: as soon as gas prices start rising, many people do value fuel efficiency more than many other characteristics. Hence the healthy uptake of efficient, light-weight vehicles in the US.

            And yes, any rational government provides its people with what they need. Cleaner air by emission restrictions and efficient public transport, for instance. And thus giving you a healthier choice in mobility options.

          • 0 avatar
            Master Baiter

            Drink the climate apocalypse Kool Aid much VoGo? You need to educate yourself:

            “The trend isn’t zero, but close to it. San Francisco has the longest tide gauge record in the Western Hemisphere. In 158 years sea level at San Francisco rose only 107 millimeters (4.2 inches) or 2.7 inches per century, a tiny rate of increase. At that rate it takes over 22 centuries, not 86 years, to reach “expert” predictions of an increase of 5 feet by 2100. Only 129 years ago, the 1884 San Francisco sea level was only 1.8” lower than 2013.
            Sea level fell since 1997 in San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Seattle, plus Victoria and Vancouver in Canada, when all the “experts” agree it must rise at an accelerating rate to increase 5 feet by 2100.
            All six cities had higher sea levels in both 1983 and 1997 than in 2013.”

            And I don’t think four C02 molecules per 10,000 in free air vs. three is going to keep you from breathing, but in your case, it would be nice if it did.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            Breathing soda bubbles sure as heck beats breathing NOx and soot.

            And breathing fresh air while vacationing i Hana, beats breathing indoor air at work because ones vacation budget was instead spent on ever more expensive to produce engineering feats by engine designers….

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            Probably sucks to be a bankster who spent a fortune on a having his government official eminent domain him a beach front pad; just to have some plebians in a fast car move the coastline back to where they could have some beach too……….

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            @stuki: except you can’t breathe “soda bubbles”. You just suffocate.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            @MB: Thank you for providing a source for that unbiased information so we didn’t have to go and look it up for ourselves on what is obviously a very credible website. Here’s a hint: calling yourself “The world’s most viewed site” on something does not mean that you are a credible source on that thing.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            @Drzhivago138

            I breathe soda bubbles every day. In slightly higher concentrations now than a few decades ago. Still alive and kicking. And drinking soda….

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            You’re not breathing them, you’re just inhaling then exhaling them again. At any rate, it was a reply to your comment that breathing “soda bubbles” would be better than NOx and soot, which is true, but it implies that we have to do one or the other, and we don’t.

            Plus drinking soda isn’t exactly the best thing to be doing anyway, CO2 notwithstanding. Anything that dissolves teeth is probably not something to be putting in one’s mouth. But I’m not trying to be holier-than-thou because I do it too.

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            “And yes, any rational government provides its people with what they need.”

            Replace the word “rational” with “paternalistic” and I’d agree. European governments are more paternalistic than US governments, and a goodly number of US citizens don’t believe that it’s any level of government’s role to provide its people with what they need.

  • avatar
    Boxerman

    When in the 70s Us auto manufatcurers were forced to impliment emission controls before the tech was ripe Detroit lost 10 years just trying to comply while euro manufacturers evolved.

    Now the Euro manufacturers are already falling behind to meet euro regs. No one in USA likes stop start. Do you really think mercedes is going to sell a lot of 4 cyl e and sclass here. There is a near obsession in euroland with 4 cyl turbos in premium cars etc etc. Here is USA we still like 6’s and 8’s. We like fuel economy to a point.

    methinks the euro laws will force the euro manf to build cars that are not too desired outsde of euroland.

    While some may point to the prius, frankly its a pos to drive, a sis the lexus hybrid. The pollution emited by a prius over its lifecycle is pretty horrendous when you take into account energy input to build and scrap. In fact what are we going to do with all those toxic materials from a scrapped prius send them to Nigeria. Same can be said about a Tesla.

    As to eneergy, we are close to importing no oil in the uSA.
    The euros are legislated out of existance in may areas, non elected beurocrats in brussles see to this.

    The good part is the Germans and FCA are building up their buisnesses in USA, they will survive and euro may sink.

    Pushing the reasonable boundaries of fuel economy is fine, going beyond prcatical application is just destructive to industry. If Europe wants to kill the last productive economy it has(germany) well that will be the final epitaph.

    I just hope detroit can see the gap and fill it, I know the koreans and Japanese will.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “we are close to importing no oil in the uSA”

      Er, we’re importing about 7 million barrels per day.

      Is there a place where you guys go to get misinformed, or do you just make it up as you go along?

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        @PCH101

        We are soon to be an net exporter of oil, AND are already the largest producer of oil and gas. Which is really irrelevant as oil is such a fungible commodity. We export some, we import some, it is pretty close to even right now, and expected to tip to export. And yes, that is because oil is expensive enough to justify using expensive tech to extract it.

        IMHO, what we should be doing is sucking the middle east dry while leaving every drop of oil here in the ground. Let them go back to doing whatever it was they were doing before we got involved. Oh yeah, that was primarily the same as now, killing each other. But at least they couldn’t afford to leave.

        In the long term it doesn’t really matter. Oil is effectively inexhaustible. When it gets expensive enough, alternatives become attractive, and the supply just becomes larger more it costs. That is simple economics 101.

        In the really long term we have an inexhaustible supply of hydrocarbons to do whatever we want with. The problem is that it averages about 500M miles away, the planet Jupiter. Not economically feasible now, but 100 years ago it was not economically feasible for the average person to jump on a plane and fly to Europe either. Assuming we don’t wipe ourselves out, who knows what the next 100 years will bring?

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Exactly.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The EIA has a best-case-scenario projection that says that the US may cut imports to close to zero by 2037.

          This is not the base case or worst case, but only the best case. The base case calls for imports falling to about 25% by the end of this decade before they increase again.

          “Maybe” isn’t “definitely shall.”

          2037 certainly isn’t “soon.”

          As usual, you speak in vague generalities, with lots of hunches but no data. US oil production peaked in 1973, and even increases in production from shale have not returned production to anything close to its former levels.

    • 0 avatar
      SELECTIVE_KNOWLEDGE_MAN

      I could link you to articles debunking most of what you say, but I have the feeling that you will not care about facts.

      If I’m wrong, then I shall happily do the most basic of google search and link to the very first results.

  • avatar
    50merc

    Ah, the CO2 terror…it’s one of those Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Elites things. The EU will be under water any day now.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Science is scary so we have to make fun of it, rather than take responsibility for our actions.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Scientism is scary. Measuring skullshapes to determine who is human and not comes to mind. Science is about discovering things. Then education is about explaining it sufficiently clearly that people understand. Screaming about how my dad is more science than your dad, so you have to do what I say, is just petty childishness.

        Nowhere in scripture is the one, true, correct, ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere disclosed. Humans, and the biosphere as a whole, are perfectly capable of adapting to different levels. Ditto for temperatures, at least between the freezing and boiling points of water.

        In addition, the utter silliness of believing that if I spend a fortune on a fancy powertrain to get the same power as a much cheaper one that burns 10% more fuel, total CO2 emitted will decline correspondingly is so far beyond the pale, it’s hard to believe even public school indoctrinated progressives could believe it.

        Do they honestly think that all that fossil fuel will simply be left in the ground? Never to be burned? More likely, the slightly lessened demand for fuel for passenger car use, will depress oil prices just enough to fund another few hundred transpacific voyages by container ships of junk now made worth vile to produce in China instead of closer. And, of course, people wealthy enough to own container ships, are also wealthy enough to have their boats exempt from CAFE like standards, and can spew infinite amounts of stuff much more noxious than soda bubbles into the air……

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Sorry, you lost me at “public school indoctrinated progressives [sic]”.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          “Measuring skullshapes to determine who is human and not comes to mind.”

          – the things you choose to think about…

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            Just another example of government apologists claiming “science” as some supposed reason for meddling in people’s lives, and deaths… Standard fare progressivism, iow.

        • 0 avatar
          Zykotec

          Would you be annoyed at having to stop every 12 miles to fill up a car with Hellcat Challenger performance, built with 60’s tech. Yes or No ?
          Efficient engines are not necessarily a bad thing.
          It’s correct that cars are an almost insignificant part of the total Co2 emission (they wouldn’t have been if we all had carb’d bigblocks), but if and when fossil fuels eventually get rare and pricy, it will be nice to have an efficient and fast car.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            Annoyed customers create it’s own demand for technical solutions. No need for busybody interference.

            Nobody minds more efficient engines. But once the quest for efficiency gets so single minded that all else is sacrificed at it’s altar, there is no market for supposed “solutions” anymore. Which is when the ever more empowered busybodies see an opening to do the only thing their limited intellects render them capable of doing…

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            60’s tech by what measure, that it has wheels?

        • 0 avatar
          Roader

          “Scientism is scary. Measuring skullshapes to determine who is human and not comes to mind…Nowhere in scripture is the one, true, correct, ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere disclosed…it’s hard to believe even public school indoctrinated progressives could believe it.”

          It’s really not hard to believe. CCCC (Catastrophic Caucasian-caused Climate Change) is a religion, in every aspect imaginable. It’s the 21st Century version of Lysenkoism but on a much wider scale; not limited to just communist idiocracies.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Creating a crisis in order to increase control is an ancient technique of tyrants. This is the value of the catastrophic global warming myth to the statists.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Gravity is a liberal plot to keep us all down. Or something like that.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Cars are cheaper with respect to inflation than they’ve ever been. They’re also more efficient and environmentally clean. So what the hell are people whining about? Maybe it’s too much too soon, but I think we will get there eventually, and no, it won’t drive up the price of cars, just like it didn’t to get under the 100g/km mark. All of the <100g cars are the cheapest of cheap, for the most part. And it's going up. There will be a <100g/km Jaguar XE. Let's stop crying guys.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      “Cars are cheaper with respect to inflation than they’ve ever been.”

      Depends on how you calculate inflation. Which is, contrary to progressive superstition, pretty darned arbitrary.

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    Can anyone tell me why the Europeans are so obsessed with carbon dioxide emissions?

    I mean, was there some landmark study or influential research paper or report or something that drove them to fear this gas so much in the first place?

    CO2’s pretty benign stuff, and is a plant food after all, so what gives with the Continent’s aversion to it?

    I honestly don’t know – that’s why I’m asking. I haven’t been able to Google an answer to this question.

    Anyone?

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      Does the new spambot have a ‘sarcasm filter’? I don’t seem to be able to post a response to this?
      edit; seems to work without the sarcastic comment?

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      One of Al Gore’s wacko mentors did a study about 30 years ago that claimed rising atmospheric temperatures were caused by human CO2 emissions. Leftist politicians jumped on this, realizing that if you can regulate CO2, you can regulate virtually every aspect of human life. The CO2 boogie man is an environmentalists / leftists wet dream. Look into the climate justice movement to see how these people think.

      Since then, the UN like minded governments have been funding scientists to the tune of billions of dollars a year to release “peer reviewed” studies that support the premise that CO2 is going to destroy the planet with runaway warming. If you look at the actual data, model results vs. reality, etc. you will quickly see there’s nothing to these claims. Climate science, if you can call it that, is simply a giant echo chamber where skeptical views rarely see the light of day.

      This video is a nice primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U

      • 0 avatar
        Zykotec

        Most certainly so very extremely true. It was later discovered that everyone in California just had bad eyesight in the late 60’s, and that was the real reason they couldn’t see more than a mile… Luckily, and by pure coincidence the lowered emissions have caused their eyesight to improve since the early 70’s…

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          Nice try comparing particulate emissions and real pollution to CO2, you know, the gas we all exhale, otherwise known as plant food.

          Now excuse me while I go kick off a social media hysteria about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            Not at all. We also got lucky and suddenly had a lot more varied weather instead of the usual boring four season cycle that is ‘so retro’, while coincidentally the gas we know cause a greenhouse effect was above the level that the also boring trees we cut down was able to ‘eat’ as food. Turning most of our water ‘sour’ (more like soda, and who doesn’t like soda ?, except fish , but fish tasted bad anyway) Also, we were lucky enough to get more of the particle emission so that we get more clouds, which makes for some funnt dirtslides and all other sorts of exciting activities :)

            Oh, almost forgot, cars are a pretty lousy source of Co2 anyway, it’s mostly heating, forest fires, cows, unvoluntary coalmine fires and powerstations that makes the threes go to bed on a full stomach :)

          • 0 avatar
            Zykotec

            And also, fish can breathe in dihydrogen-monoxide, so we should just ‘man up’ and do the same…

          • 0 avatar
            Roader

            “We also got lucky and suddenly had a lot more varied weather instead of the usual boring four season cycle that is ‘so retro’, while coincidentally the gas we know cause a greenhouse effect was above the level that the also boring trees we cut down was able to ‘eat’ as food.”

            If by “varied” you mean “better” then you’re right on target. Tornado activity has been flat since 1954 and low for the last three years:

            http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html

            While we’ve enjoyed a record low number of Cat 3+ hurricanes for the past nine years:

            http://www.newsnet5.com/weather/weather-news/us-hurricane-drought-still-in-record-territory

      • 0 avatar
        OneAlpha

        Got it.

        Thanks.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#References

  • avatar
    brianyates

    That’s a neat looking rear on that Peugeot.
    Is it a prototype, do you have more imazges of it?

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    ” The pollution emited by a prius over its lifecycle is pretty horrendous when you take into account energy input to build and scrap.”

    Just like every vehicle or any other manufactured product.
    Anti-liberals always repeat that lie, and point out to the brownfield created by the nickel mines in Sudbury, Ontario as proof. What they fail to realize, is that those mines had already created the environmental wasteland decades before the Prius was even conceived.

    “In fact what are we going to do with all those toxic materials from a scrapped prius”.

    What everyone else is doing; recycle them.

  • avatar
    Noble713

    CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles seems like we are wasting resources on the wrong target to me:

    http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Who’s to say we can’t “waste resources” on both targets? It’s not an either-or situation. And shipping industries over land, sea or sky know that it’s within their best interest economically to make their engines as efficient and non-polluting as possible.

      • 0 avatar
        Noble713

        “Who’s to say we can’t ‘waste resources’ on both targets?”

        Because resources are finite, and their efficiency should be maximized? For example, say we only have 1000 man-hours of skilled engineering labor available.

        It doesn’t make sense to spend 900 man-hours trying to squeeze gains out of the already-efficient consumer automobiles and leave only 100 man-hours to tackle the bunker fuel problem. If we put all 1000 man-hours into shaving container ship emissions by 5% or so, we’d accomplish more.

        It’s kinda the same reason why the military doesn’t devote that much effort to inventing new bullets. The tech plateaued decades ago, what we have is “good enough”, and there’s more gains to be made investing in other sectors such as precision-guided munitions and drones. Caseless ammo is a comparatively low priority compared to Predators with Hellfires.

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      Technically on their own they are, but it ‘raises awareness’ and puts the development cash in the hands of consumers of ‘luxury goods’, so that tech can be advanced to the point that we can develop tech that is cheap enough to clean other sources of CO2.
      Planting more trees would just be too difficult…

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • FreedMike: Ford and Chevy sell tons of Mustangs and Camaros to fleets as well. I suspect it’d be a wash.
  • FreedMike: Back in 2011, my company sent me for a three-week training in Jacksonville, and I drew a Hemi powered...
  • Kyree: I remember being enamored with the clean styling of the 2012 NMS Passat’s styling. This is before I...
  • FreedMike: @dal: I don’t know why you need to make this toxic-masculinity thing – there are plenty of...
  • azfelix: This is the best answer. Aside from the near impossibility of meeting the limits of battery resources,...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber