EU approves ban on new combustion-engine cars from 2035 | AP News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
BRUSSELS (AP) — European Union lawmakers and member countries reached a deal to ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars and vans by 2035.
The deal EU negotiators sealed Thursday night is the first agreement of the bloc's "Fit for 55" package, which the bloc's executive commission set up to achieve the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 55% over this decade.
Under the deal, carmakers will be required to reduce the emissions of new cars sold by 55% in 2030, compared to 2021, before reaching a 100% cut five years later. The European Parliament and member states must formally approve the agreement before it comes into force.
The European Parliament said the deal is a signal ahead of the U.N's annual climate change conference "that the EU is serious about adopting concrete laws to reach the more ambitious targets set out in the EU Climate Law."
According to EU data, transportation is the only sector in which greenhouse gas emissions have increased in the past three decades, rising 33.5% between 1990 and 2019. Passenger cars are a major polluter, accounting for 61% of total CO2 emissions from road transport.
The EU wants to drastically reduce emissions from transportation by 2050 and promote electric vehicles, but a report from the bloc's external auditor showed last year that the region lacks the appropriate charging stations.
The EU Parliament said Friday that funding should be directed to help small- and medium-sized businesses that are part of the automotive supply chain, as well as vulnerable regions and communities, weather the transition to ending sales of cars that run on gas and diesel.
World leaders agreed in Paris in 2015 to work to keep global temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and ideally no more than 1.5 degrees C (2.7 F) by the end of the century. Scientists have said even the less ambitious goal will be missed by a wide margin unless drastic steps are taken to reduce emissions.
"This is a historic decision, as it sets for the first time a clear decarbonization pathway — with targets in 2025, 2030 and 2035 and aligned with our goal of climate neutrality by 2050," Pascal Canfin, the chair of the environment committee of the European Parliament, said. "This sector, which accounts for 16% of European emissions at the moment, will be carbon-neutral by 2050."
Greenpeace said the 2035 deadline is too late to limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
"The EU is taking the scenic route, and that route ends in disaster," Greenpeace EU campaigner Lorelei Limousin said. "A European 2035 phase-out of fossil fuel-burning cars is not quick enough: New cars with internal combustion engines should be banned by 2028 at the latest."
Limousin called the deal announcement "a perfect example of where politicians can bask in a feel-good headline that masks the reality of their repeated failures to act on climate."
___
All contents © copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
No doubt it will lead to the "Havana effect" wherein car owners will maintain their gas-driven cars as long as possible.
Or be forced to to move next to their jobs. Expect city populations, home and apartment costs, and cost of living in cities to explode.
I doubt enough people will be willing to bike in the rain and snow; or be able to afford a horse; to offset the rolling blackouts- or restrictions on charging their electric vehicles.
So... Your solution is... Do nothing?
Where there's a will there's a way. If you can do this on a motorscooter you can do it on a bicycle.
They've been doing that for decades all across northern Europe. The train stations all have covered bicycle parking.
Life expectancy on that thing in a Michigan winter would be about less than a minute.
Yeah, probably. The winters I endured growing up were at least as bad as yours. Hamilton, Ontario, is in the Buffalo snow belt. However, I rode my bicycle in the winter - even when the roads were icy by keeping in the tire tracks.
Yep, until they decide to just mandate it, which most people cannot afford...
... most people could not afford a flat screen TV when they first came out.
So most people got by with what they could right ?
a comparison of a car to a TV set isnt exactly good IMHO.
I really doubt that the price of a EV will come down enough to be considered "affordable " like a flat screen , not with buyers trends and likes and dislikes .
most people would not have the ability to make a flatscreen , yet just enough people still have the ability to make an old car run and do some things .
personally i will be doing an engine swap in the next month or so on an old pick up, by old i mean the truck is an 89 , the truck body is solid and rust free, the engine it currently has has over 300,000 very HARD country miles on it and is basically a boat anchor by this point .
If you really want anymore proof that people will just do what they can , look at the prices in the used car market on what even what some would consider junkers , is bringing .
before the chip supply problem , i picked up a 98 lumina for $800,that had just over 150k on the odometer , i have had it for a year and so far have been offered $4k for it as it sits .
....or computers, or cellphones, or..........
One wonders how many realize that there is a worldwide movement away from fossil fuels and that this waning market is the primary factor that dissuades energy companies from investing in the production of fossil fuels but rather to pursue a strategy of draining as much profit as possible from the fossil fuel market.
Waning Market?
Worldwide sales and production of ICE vehicles still outstrips all others by a magnitude of 100... The Market isn't waning...
My personal belief, the market will force the electric car people to back off....
The infrastructure to support it isn't there yet and what I mean by that is the production of electricity is insufficient to service an all electric, worldwide fleet, including the power demands of a growing population for lighting and housing and such sundry items....
I guess we will see just how much people wish to survive in the current world rather the dream world...
Yeah, a waning market; a market that is shrinking rather than growing. We are moving FROM ICE to alternatives. That is what waning means. We are moving FROM fossil fuels to alternatives.
Yeah, we all know that. The infrastructure must continue to grow to support the demand. That is the nature of change, infrastructure must exist for the change to occur. The original railroads needed tracks to function. But, funny thing, once the infrastructure was in place they railroad industry took off.
I think you dreamed up a fantasy and now ascribe same to anyone who is in support of renewable over fossil fuel energy. A gradual move towards renewable is not a fantasy or a 'dream world'. Leaping immediately to same would be a 'dream world'.
Now, let's be clear. Do you think that a progressive (aka incremental, moderated, practical) movement towards renewables is not possible?
Government mandates are not progressive if history teaches us anything...
Market forces will always dictate the pace of change... What do you think about the German government tearing down a wind farm to expand a lignite coal mine?
Worldwide energy needs are still outpacing the ability to generate electricity....
Force when it comes to the material needs of a population never works in the long run, Market development is the surer path...
Incremental, moderated? yes, best approach, but the forcing of the issue is not practical...
The world will eventually go electric, but forcing it creates more problems than it solves...
See, we were talking about electric vehicles, of which the market hasn't adopted yet and is having trouble getting accepted...
But when challenged the discussion gets shifted to overall renewable energy, which is, (at current levels) completely unable to meet current demand and shifts away from the growing demand for ICE vehicles...
If you think the DEMAND for ICE vehicles is waning, show us the data... (getting back to the issue originally under discussion rather than changing and obfuscating the subject)
“Incremental, moderated? yes, best approach, but the forcing of the issue is not practical”
Agree 100%.
The movement towards renewable energy has been incremental. We are slowly moving away from fossil fuels. That is the mega-trend.
The market is the dominant force. Government's can influence the market but ultimately the market is the key factor.
Yes, and it is now Fall in the USA. I think everyone is aware of your claim.
Do you somehow think I have suggested force be used? Where is this coming from?
Again, you rebut a claim (use force) that was not made by me or even hinted at.
And yet again with this force nonsense. Why reply to me if you are going to rebut claims I have not even hinted at?
Government mandates are a form of force, but nowhere have I suggested or even remotely hinted that mere government mandates will be the dominant factor for the move to renewable energy. Governments can be significant influencers, but if the market cannot provide practical, cost-effective renewable energy, consumers will not comply.
If someone has argued that governments should force the move to renewables and that this force is going to effect the change then please rebut their argument.
It is a growing market. Nobody has suggested otherwise.
Are you suggesting I have shifted the 'discussion'?
As the demand for electric vehicles rises, it is shifting demand away from ICE. By definition. Those who buy electric vehicles are doing so rather than buy ICE vehicles. The demand for electric vehicles is rising . Do the math.
As I figured, you are just trying to pick a fight by making arguing points not made and now making bullshit accusations.
I'll tell ya where the term "force" comes from... The current "progressive" political environment favors the renewable energy side, heavily favors... And "progressive" government sensing a way to gain more control and influence is a dog whistle for them to step in with their inherent police power to force something that enhances their control... (and justifies they taxing authority)
There is currently a perfect storm of collusion between government and the environmental whackos who want to force fundamental change on the populations of the world...
And anyone who supports this fundamental change, is supporting the governments they have allied them selves with to make it happen before the systems are ready for it...
It's a lot more than just an environmental movement and denying that the progressives are using the environmental movement and the movement is using the progressive agenda...
Screw everyone else they don't count...
They have become so intertwined that at this late date, any support for either is support for the other, so looking at it from that perspective you are supporting using force to effect fundamental change... (no matter how it hurts others)
You can't have it both ways...
What utter bullshit! You just made up an illogical rule and declared it a fact. One can be in favor of a sensible, practical move towards renewable energy without agreeing with governments (or any other entity ) seeking to push the move faster than natural forces will allow.
Same as I figured as well, you seem to make a lot of claims that are absolutely right and no one else has a position that is worth discussion...
Just more bullshit on your part as well...
And you ignored the issue of the German Government cutting down a green wind farm for non green coal?
Don't want to discuss that fact?
Put forth a claim (quote me) and then deliver a rebuttal. Otherwise, you are just engaging in slimy tactics.
Rebutting claims I have not made is a cowardly tactic.
If you want me to respond to every little question you ask (e.g. German government ...) then first you need to convince me that you are seriously trying to have a discussion and that it is thus worth my time to investigate your new links. Thus far, you have further solidified the opposite.
YES! what utter bullshite! you really have a knack for attacking rather than discussing intelligently don't you while avoiding anything real..
This highlights the divide in the positions, to you there is no collusion between government and the environmental movement, that's normal for the true environmental believers, but the rest of us see it plainly...
That's the major problem and rather than discuss it, attack and insult...
No credibility at all... and for such educated people, how they brainlessly destroy the resolution to it...
[Deleted]
I think that's the operative word.
I don't think any realistic person would disagree that the future of transportation is electric. All of the disagreement is merely about the speed of adoption.
[Deleted]
“Market forces” aren’t dictating anything when it comes to oil and gasoline. “Market forces” is why we don’t have 8-track tape or VCRs anymore. On the other hand, the oil and gas industry has been subsidized for 100 years by taxpayer money. So, if government now moves to favor electric vehicles over gas, that is really nothing new, beyond the choice being made.
Hmm ... A ban on gasoline and diesel powered cars and vans but not trucks and heavy equipment. Interesting.
One wonders how many realize that fossil fuels are used for far more than gasoline and diesel. Where do people think asphalt comes from? Where do people think synthetic rubber for tires come from? Even EVs depend upon oil.
Did you expect a ban on ALL usage of fossil fuel all at once?? If they had proposed a total ban, surely you would have objected based on practical and economic factors.
Given this belief:
It would make sense to focus on what they believe is the largest factor.
Seems apparent that the priority is to avoid addressing emissions from commercial transportation, commercial construction, and infrastructure.
Belief or fact? Road transport does not encompass all transportation emissions. There is also water transport, aviation, rail transport, and a variety of mass transport that isn't considered part of road transport. Aviation, alone, is responsible for 10 to 12 pct of emissions from transportation but does not contribute to emissions from road transportation. Parsing what is really happening falls into the category of sleazy political tricks. The public won't buy that for long.
The political impetus really does appear to place the burden of mitigating emissions upon the general public while carefully avoiding imposing inhibitions on commercial activities. Impeding commerce would result in political upheaval, after all. So, the sense being applied isn't common sense.
I intentionally stated and emphasized belief because there was no need for this to be a fact to support my point.
I was not going to try to fact-check their belief because I do not have time at the moment.
The point is that if they believe they have the largest factor then it makes sense to focus on that factor.
It's coming for sure. Sooner rather than later I hope.
thats going to depend on where it is feasably applicable , read an article a few months back about the major Ag equipment dealers developing EV equipment , and directing their contract customers towards that end , lot of questions that they couldnt answer , where as those farmers already know the answeres with what they are currently using in the places they use them .
Dont get me wrong , EV likely has its place , but it is not a panacea nor a one size fits all in all places .
Certainly true. EVs are part of the solution. They will continue to grow in popularity as infrastructure increases, prices decrease, features improve and consumers acclimate to the change.
personally i fall into the "all of the above where feasable and applicable " group.
so im leaving many options open .
Does EV make sense where i live ? not really so other more feasable options will be considered .
Yes. Additionally who I am and how I live. I'm a single guy so it really doesn't make sense for me to own two cars as I can only drive one of them at a time. The additional expense of licensure and insurance not to mention the initial purchase price doesn't make sense when it's really a luxury item to own a second car. In addition I like to take road trips in my leisure time and an EV just doesn't yet have the range or the fast recharge capabilities that I desire. While EV's can work in some areas they are not yet to the level of abilities to match my needs.
And to me that is understandable , i looked at the differences in a what is now a normal P/U vs an EV one because thats what is most useful here for what i do and my lifestyle . I saw that everything being equal , the EV lagged far behind what the conventional rig will do . it was more limiting than useful doing the same things ., now if i lived in an urban setting and had a different lifestyle and pursuits , EV might be a better option .
In what ways? Is range an issue?
For me range is a major issue. If all I did was run around town it would not be. But when I'm on a road trip I tend to drive for 7 to 8 hours a day, stopping for gas as needed. There's no way I could do the same type of road trips with an EV as the range just isn't there yet and recharge times can take way too long to still maintain a day's travel.
range and tow capacity , like i said everything being equal , same load , same road , the EV made it like 87-89 miles before needing a recharge , the conventional truck still had 3/4ths a tank of fuel left ...get in the middle of nowhere , and that becomes a big concern and if weather is coming in , life threatening .
Morning same here...whoopty do for Europe..they are packed in like sardines and a town every couple of kilometres..and love telling the rest of the world what they should do.
Here there are thousands of kilometres of absolutely nothing...sand, desert and flies. The only way around is fly or by four wheel drive. You need a decent vehicle here with grunt or you could end up dead.
An EV is not going to cut it in the outback or going across the Nullarbor full stop...city living it would be ok, but when you have to travel hundreds of kilometres forget it..
An EV road train??..a prime mover pulling three trailers, I would like to see that...
Meanwhile, eu lawmakers surely will not lead by example. I’m sure they will continue to fly around the globe in their private jets so they can avoid the frightfully common plebes that are so below them.
Of course they will not compromise their own lifestyles. The best one can hope for is action to reduce fossil fuel emissions; elite sacrifices would be nice to see but typically that does not happen in human history.
Then they shouldn’t be surprised if the masses get angry enough to toss them out on their asses, but i’m sure they will be stunned.
The masses will not toss them out. That is the problem. Aristocracy continues to rule because the people are not organized, informed, activated and have a short attention span. That is why the USA continues with its crappy politicians. How many politicians are routinely reelected by name-recognition, habit or simply because they have the proper party affiliation for their constituent area?
If people were to truly hold politicians to account then they would indeed do what they promise and we would see far fewer career politicians and more statespersons.
A pipe dream in todays media driven, soundbyte world
I see no indication that this will occur and every indication that the condition will simply worsen.
Then we agree on something...
It would be a remarkable change from the lessons of history.
Actually, thanks to a pretty good high speed rail network, the Europeans are ahead of us on that issue.
How's the high speed rail development in California going?
No where... (very quickly)
How do you reconcile the criticism of people for flying with ongoing resistance to HSR development?
I haven’t. How is California’s HSR development going?
Was the original bond issue for the project approved in 2008 with an estimated completion time of 2020 and a cost of $33 billion?
How many passengers this year?
It's interesting.
In Texas, we're supposed to be building HSR between Houston and Dallas. Eventually, the plan would be a triangle connecting Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. Austin is directly between Dallas and SA, so we'd connect four of the nations 11 largest cities.
Construction is a year behind schedule, apparently over some eminent domain issues. It seems many of the same environmental activists who want to get rid of IC cars also don't want people to have to sell their homes to make way for the rail.
I think there is often a disconnect in people's minds between the things they think they would like to see happen and the reality of what it will take to make those things happen.
Very few people I know want an electric car
The very few people that I know want an electric car too.
I am considering an electric vehicle when I replace my current vehicle in a few years.
My gas truck sounds badass, but I wouldn’t mind at all if it were electric. With electric torque, I’d accelerate much harder, and with less engine noise, I’d get more out of cranking the stereo. Refueling it wouldn’t bring the risk of getting gasoline on the side of the truck or on my hands.
Now if I were driving a sports car, it might be different. Electric cars behave differently than gas at higher speeds. There’s something to be said for the high end horsepower of a gas engine. But now we’re talking about the kind of driving that usually results in either a ticket or an accident, so maybe I shouldn’t be advocating that kind of thing.
Quiet electric torque is incredible.
I got a ride in SILs Tesla. Acceleration was a neck kinker but I was surprised by the road noise. It didn't seem any different from a well-kept ICE.
When I was a kid, I loved my 1/32 electric slot car with it pancake engine and silicon tires.
As I think about it, I believe that it was 1/24.
Years ago we had a slot car club and raced every other Sunday evening