European Auto Execs Warn Too Stringent CO2 Regs Could Kill Local Industry

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon

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.

Cameron Aubernon
Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments
Join the conversation
5 of 84 comments
  • Schmitt trigger Schmitt trigger on Oct 08, 2014

    " 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.

  • Noble713 Noble713 on Oct 08, 2014

    CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles seems like we are wasting resources on the wrong target to me: http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

    • See 2 previous
    • Noble713 Noble713 on Oct 08, 2014

      @Drzhivago138 "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.

  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
  • TheEndlessEnigma Poor planning here, dropping a Vinfast dealer in Pensacola FL is just not going to work. I love Pensacola and that part of the Gulf Coast, but that area is by no means an EV adoption demographic.
  • Keith Most of the stanced VAGS with roof racks are nuisance drivers in my area. Very likely this one's been driven hard. And that silly roof rack is extra $'s, likely at full retail lol. Reminds me of the guys back in the late 20th century would put in their ads that the installed aftermarket stereo would be a negotiated extra. Were they going to go find and reinstall that old Delco if you didn't want the Kraco/Jenson set up they hacked in?
Next