Europe’s aggressive new emissions rules put gas engines on notice | Hacker News Reader

Europe’s aggressive new emissions rules put gas engines on notice

slashgear.com

39 pointshochmartinez99 comments

I wouldn't really call the new rules "aggressive". They are long overdue, thanks to very successful lobbying and blockades by Germany. The targets are also incompatible with the Paris agreements.

They are very aggressive especially for some countries in at the end of the tail in Europe where people struggle financially and this will just put more strain on them.

All the benefits we've seen so far for EVs are aimed at the people with a lot of available income, and with financial mechanisms to avoid paying taxes/tax benefits/deductions, like something as simple as owning a company and buy the EV through there - why are Teslas considered business expenses in Portugal?

So again, who is this targeted at?

Don't take me wrong - this is long overdue, but so it is bringing people up to allow them to comply with these reforms. Else this is just another tax to strip people of more of their income. Not only the housing market is being pressured by people with more available income with all the "new-normal" and remote trend, now we will get even more pressure from yet another tax.

EU must start to realize they are walking a fine line, a lot of people are starting to be tired of being the "low cost resort/factory" of Europe.

People in a global warming thread: - We're not doing enough, governments should tackle this very seriously

People when government are actually taking measures: - Wow those are aggressive measures

No, it's about being detached from the reality, that's all.

And people wonder why extremists are gaining popularity, it's like they are joking with people's livelihoods.

In case you didn't notice, it's going to be those who can't afford EVs that will pay these taxes. If people are already struggling to find where they will live, why would they prioritize how they get around?

It's absurd.

Let's tax electricity because people don't have brand new houses with proper isolation, that'll show them to not live in crappy houses. How dare they, right?

Those concern should indeed be taken seriously, which is why many people propose a carbon dividend paired with a carbon price. Poor people emit less carbon dioxide, so a scheme where a median emitter ends up with ca. 0 extra costs would be a net benefit for the poorest 50%.

That seems like a good proposal, but it should have been considered from the start to get people onboard: not scaring them into thinking they'll end up just paying more.

I'm not saying there's an easy solution, but it does seem like they're doing this upside down, and it will create nothing but resentment, anxiety and stress.

This must not be a burden on people who can't afford it, even if they are a major part of the problem. Make it cheaper to get a new EV, then to buy a second hand diesel car -> that's how you will fix the issue, and it's not by making diesel and diesel cars even more expensive.

Yeah, the idea is hardly new. It's at least twenty years old. At this point I'm cynical enough to entertain the thought that politicians actively want carbon pricing to fail so they set up in ways that will maximize the bad effects for the voters while minimizing the bad effects for the biggest polluters.

Really? Paying to people for doing harm but less than their neighbors? That's ridiculous.

Everybody emitting less than their neighbors is a differential equation where you end up with everybody emitting negative infinity carbon dioxide. That seems like a fine result.

Well, they were already on notice really. The UK will ban new car ICE sales 5 years earlier than the EU:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54981425

Volkswagen is the leader in EV sales in Europe at the moment. They are about to overtake Renault in cumulative EV sales too:

https://eu-evs.com/bestSellersCharts/ALL/Groups/Line-Cumulat...

What is going on here?

https://eu-evs.com/marketShare/ALL/Brands/Bar/All-time-by-Qu...

Is the market getting tons of new competitors, which is why the status quo is losing market share?

https://eu-evs.com/marketShare/ALL/Groups/Bar/All-time-by-Qu...

If you look by groups the effect is less. As an example Skoda Enyaq is from Volkswagen AG but it’s naturally not a Volkswagen branded product.

But yeah everyone and their dog is releasing EV’s now.

Not sure why, but that chart doesn't include Ford, which just released the Mach E, which happens to be selling very well right now in Europe.

The chart shows the top 8 brands only.

That's an individual brand view and it's showing percentages. Automakers are releasing more models across more brands these days. Volkswagen, for example, owns 12 automotive brands and most of them have EV models out now:

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/brands-and-models.html

So far in 2021 Volkswagen has about 27.8% of the EV market in Europe: https://eu-evs.com/bestSellers/ALL_MONTHLY/Groups/Year/2021

In Q2 only they had 30.1%: https://eu-evs.com/bestSellers/ALL_MONTHLY/Groups/Quarter/20...

I'm quite curious to see how EU countries will abide to those rules, it is going to be messy and I wonder if there will be fines, I guess there won't...

I guess europe can expect a whole lot of yellow vest-style protests.

I keep reading that the yellow vest were arguing that the carbon tax was hitting the poor more, but in the end, carbon benefits everyone, not just the rich.

It's true that the rich emits more, it's true that the rich can adapt more easily, but in the end, the rich will also lose income because of a carbon tax. I'm not sure that "carbon inequality" is very high (even though air travel seems to really increase that carbon inequality).

I also really believe that fossil fuels allowed the poor to get out of poverty. It's necessary to cut down CO2 emissions, but it's also necessary to anticipate the social cost, because it is going to be huge and put a lot of people out of a job.

I generally agree. But if we don't cut co2 emissions the social cost will be even higher.

One of the issues with the carbon tax as was proposed in France is that it did not offer an alternative.

Many people rely on cars and, especially, utility vehicles for their livelihood and mobility. Slapping an extra tax on them without a viable alternative does not reduce emissions, it only makes people poorer. That's part of the reasons the public backlash was intense.

I think that should be one of the lessons learned for the transition to EV to happen smoothly.

> Many people rely on cars and, especially, utility vehicles for their livelihood and mobility. Slapping an extra tax on them without a viable alternative does not reduce emissions,

It is far from this simple.

In the 2010's when a barrel of oil jumped to over $110 USD and gas prices spiked, people drove less and changed their purchasing habits to favour smaller vehicles.

When the prices dropped, those behaviours reverted.

That natural experiment shows us that there are a wide range of adaptations people will engage in that allow them to adjust to higher fuel prices while lowering carbon emissions.

> it only makes people poorer.

And this is why well-designed carbon tax programs include rebate and subsidy mechanisms to help relieve the financial burden and support the transition to EVs.

We've also seen some governments shift their tax burdens around. e.g. lowering income tax and applying a carbon tax. This helps get more money back into peoples pockets while still sending a price signal that leads to a change in consumer behaviour.

I think the price of oil is not key to what happened in France, apart perhaps from somewhat exacerbating the issue at a specific time. Again, they tried to slap an extra tax on fuel "because the environment", which people had no choice but to pay.

Sure, people might drive slightly less if fuel prices get high but this only means less trips that can be avoided. Going to work, going to supermarket, using utility vehicles for business cannot be avoided in most cases.

If you're a tradesperson or on low pay in a small town outside of Paris you depend on your vehicle for everything, you cannot "just drive less" and you cannot afford a band new one. So that extra tax directly reduced your (potentially already low) income without making any difference on emissions and the environment.

Basically many people thought the government disconnected from reality and was treating them as cash cows when they were not that well off to start with.

So, these measures must be staggered in time with a clear schedule so people can plan in advance and there must be viable EV alternatives for people, all the people, to switch to (viable means existing and affordable).

>Slapping an extra tax on them without a viable alternative does not reduce emissions, it only makes people poorer.

The CO2 tax changes what is viable and what isn't.

That's what they said with congestion taxes too. "People need to drive in the city. It will hit the poorest the most!" But in almost every city where it has been implemented it has reduced congestion. Same with taxes on tobacco which has reduced smoking in many countries. It's essentially the only thing economists agree on - higher taxes reduces consumption.

Of course, fuel is so cheap that you need to raise taxes significantly for them to have any effect. After all, fuel is just a small fraction of the total cost of owning a car.

I think you need to look at whether alternatives exist. All cities that have a congestion charge have a well developed public transport system, as far as know. So making driving into the city more expensive may nudge people into switching to public transport. How big the effect may be is another issue. Poor people also often already take public transport into cities (in Europe at least), not least because even without congestion charge, parking charges are usually very high.

Tobacco is neither here nor there because, obviously, people do have the choice not to smoke.

On the other hand, when you're in an area with little to no public transport and the only way for you to go to work or go to the supermarket, or do anything really, is to drive there is no alternative. When you're a delivery driver there is no alternative. When you're a tradesperson there is no alternative.

There is no alternative because EVs either do not really exist (electric utility vehicles only start to be available) or are way beyond what you can afford and you do need a vehicle.

Basically in France this was seen as Macron's "let them eat cake" moment with well-off people in Paris (with its world-class public transport system) deciding that everyone in the country could "just" drive less or change car.

I don't buy that argument. Join a car pool, buy an electric scooter, or a moped if fuel taxes bothers you so much. In general, I think it is a tragedy that we worry so much about the problems of those poor, poor motorists when our beds are burning.

Overall car ownership will most likely take a large dip until second-hand EV's are cheap enough and the power grid modernized. It'll require decades of large-scale social and infrastructural programs in order to catch up.

I don't think they are banning ICE cars--just new ICE cars. Anyways, simultaneous with electric cars being a big thing, e-bikes are taking off. Many European cities are wonderfully suited to e-bikes, so that may take the pressure off of needing to own a car for local trips.

Questionable. Prices for fuel will rise and people pay more. End of story.

Infrastructure sometimes requires you to have a car. Fuel price must change by a few magnitudes to change consumer behavior.

I can guarantee that 2022 will have more cars and more energy use than 2021. To be fair: I don't think there is any policy that could change that fact.

> Overall car ownership will most likely take a large dip

It many cases it's not possible for people to do away with their cars.

So the political reality is that governments needs to ensure that people can afford to switch to EV (and that the infrastructure follows) or face riots if they make car-ownership impossible.

Or make other changes that make it possible for more people to do away with cars- better mass transit, better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, less urban sprawl, more condensed housing options, etc

Yeah, I suspect it's going to be more people packed into smaller areas, and massive investments in public transport infrastructure. There's going to be a lot of people who don't buy it.

The point is that there are many locations and situations where this is not really realistic, and that "more condensed housing" takes a century.

So practically and politically it is not possible to hit cars in general. Encourage alternatives where-ever possible but realise that there are not always alternatives and in those cases people should not be penalised for driving. Instead there should be support to transition to EV.

> It's true that the rich emits more, it's true that the rich can adapt more easily, but in the end, the rich will also lose income because of a carbon tax. I'm not sure that "carbon inequality" is very high (even though air travel seems to really increase that carbon inequality).

Can you elaborate on this, and in particular on "rich emits more"? Do you mean per individual? If so, that may be the case, but absolute numbers matter more in this problem. The inequality is a social problem. Climate change does not care if the CO2 came from rich or from poor. I'm by no means trying to excuse the rich. What I'm saying is we should be careful to not distract ourselves from solving the actual problem here.

> Do you mean per individual?

Yes, per individual.

The rich are housed in larger homes, travel more, consume more.

Of course it's a generalization of, let's say, the richer 5% or 10%, so of course it's not always true. But there is a good correlation between consumption dollars and emitted CO2.

> but absolute numbers matter more in this problem

Indeed. And "World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam" [0]

It's not double per person. It's the total. So focusing on the rich is definitely not distracting from the actual problem. It is the actual problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-r...

It won't change anything in my country (Ger). People think they can nudge consumers, but we already have the highest energy price in the world. It would only make sense if there would be alternatives available that would actually change anything in reality aside from pushing state income.

Don't listen to my complaints, people are rich enough to ignore this tax (it isn't technically a tax) aside from the poorest of course.

Anyone would use the less CO2 polluting alternative were it available.

This is plain bad policy crafting in my opinion.

Coal plants are shutting down as a result of the CO2 tax and there is a shift to natural gas which will reduce the impact of CO2 taxes. The EEG can also be abolished once the CO2 tax is high enough because there won't be a need for a feed in tariff because consumer demand for renewables will be high enough to pay for renewables directly.

Energy is still pretty cheap in Germany. How many people choose a smaller car because gas is too expensive? Very few. How many people choose a bike for short trips because gas is too expensive? Very few. How many choose to pay higher rent and move to a city, because commuting from a suburb consumes too much gas? How many people try to form carpools because gas is too expensive?

The problem is that for some reason our politicians don't want to raise prices in a way that doesn't hit the poorest. For example with a tax&dividend system.

Honestly, I think the voters are plain stupid because there is no better explanation for it. For example. The greens in Germany want to make the CO2 tax revenue neutral. You then get people complaining that getting their tax payments back is unfair because there is that one millionaire who spent hundreds of thousands of euros on being CO2 neutral and thus pays nothing in CO2 taxes and gets a whopping 75€ per year back from the state.

The benefit from the reduction in CO2 emissions (from average to 0) is already worth more than 75€ so the state is getting a bargain. Imagine that for every 1€ you spend someone else spends 1000€ in reducing their CO2 emissions. Where else can you get a 100000% ROI on this planet?

Of course this is where that fictional scenario breaks down. Those people are the exception. There are maybe 100000 of them in Germany. The vast majority of people that receive money back are going to be average people who emitted an average amount of CO2.

For people who own a gasoline car, what are they supposed to do with it? Lot of them are still in good conditions but will be useless and worthless. If you cannot use it, cannot sell it, what are you supposed to do? Should they just throw them away, then buy a new car? Or drive it to a foreign country outside of the EU?

Why would they be useless ? You can use them until they die.

The mandatory vehicle inspections [0] will likely cut them down before they die a "natural death".

Links:

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection

The rule applies to new cars, fuel will still be sold after 2035. Of course, at some point gas stations will begin to close and the price will begin to rise, so there will be more incentive to buy a new car. Weigh that against the fact that EV fuel is much cheaper per mile than gas, EVs require less maintenance and that by 2035 will be cheaper upfront than a similar ICE car.

Sorry, but I don't understand why fuel price should rise if the demand takes a dip

The EU carbon price will continue to go up. Fuel will get hit with it when crude oil crosses the border and during refining.

You do raise a good point about the size of that effect vs that of lessening demand.

State(Superstate?) market intervention

This only affects new cars.

The rules seem to target new cars not old.

The article is illustrated with a photo of a CCS combo type 1 socket, which are not common in Europe but north America.

Several car manufacturers, Volkswagen being the biggest, have publicly stated goals of aggressively growing their electric fleets or going carbon free by 2030-2035. https://apnews.com/article/volvo-electric-vehicles-only-2030...

I was surprised I didn't hear about this sooner since this seems like a big deal.

Pretty good write up on many more manufacturers goals. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g35562831/ev-plans-automak...

Those cars will actually be carbon free in Europe in the following countries: France, Sweden, Finland and Island. For most of the others it's actually a lie.

Your car is "carbon free" if the electricity you put in is carbon, or close to carbon free. That's it.

38% of Europe's electricity was generated by renewables in 2020 - not including nuclear. This proportion is growing rapidly. It's a win already particularly given the relatively poor efficiency of internal combustion engines.

And it will only get better as a virtuous cycle between the growth of renewables in generation and the growth of BEV ownership. Off-peak EV charging provides a valuable sink for cheap off-peak renewably generated electricity.

Because Tesla investors need to be lied to that they have a unique edge over the incumbent manufacturers.

For incumbent manufacturers it is an all or nothing proposition. They have to abandon their ICE lineup. It looks like they are standing still because of that but the rate of change can actually be much faster than at Tesla because once they abandon their ICE lineups there is nothing but EVs left to manufacture and they will manufacture them at exactly the same rate they manufactured ICE vehicles.

More importantly EU is finally, gradually, fixing the problems in Emissions Trading System (ETS is cap-and-trade where they set up a annual cap for emissions and then it's possible to trade with emissions)

They have been giving the largest chunk of emission allowances (EUAs) free for big polluters. In principle that's OK because there is still incentive to reduce emissions and get money from selling EAUs. Unfortunately if you pollute less they reduce those EUAs and that takes incentives away. That will be eventually fixed.

There will also be carbon tariffs from imported products to take out incentive to move emissions elsewhere and level the playing field.

I think sensible policy crafting would have required to reorder these approaches.

Actually, giving out certificates for free is bad because it means that planning for a specific certificate price is impossible because the free handouts constantly mess with the prices.

A carbon tax has the advantage that you can plan ahead because the government releases a schedule for future CO2 tax increases.

No. Free certificates don't mess with the price when there is a predefined cap (as in cap in cap-and-trade). Trade afterwards is the price discovery mechanism.

What messed the system was the reason I mentioned.

I expect gasoline engines to stop being popular in the next 4-5 years. EVs are getting cheaper and cheaper, and they’re much simpler to own and maintain. The next gas shock will probably tip more people over to ditching gasoline too.

$30k isn't cheap imo, the average person would need to take out a loan to go buy an EV. Outside of big cities infrastructure doesn't exist.

Also hauling stuff in an EV, which is where most of the emissions are, isn't even close to feasible yet.

>they’re much simpler to own and maintain

Maintain maybe... own not really https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/a32494027/ev-vs...

Personally, I have zero desire to sell my gas vehicle which will be perfectly fine for the next 5 years to drop 30k on an EV that won't be able to do as much.

At least in the US, average sale price of a new car is $40k.

> $30k isn't cheap imo

Many non-treehugger analysts are projecting upfront price parity is expected by ~2025 without subsidy. Coupled with lower fuel and maintenance costs the adoption curve will really take off at that point. Will they be for everyone at that point? No. By 2035? Seems likely they will be for the vast majority of people, my guess is there will need to be some option for plugin hybrids for some.

If they can create an SUV that can go off-road like my xterra can and can go the same distance hauling a decent weight I'll be interested. Until then I'll pass. I bike to work so I don't need a small commuter vehicle.

You can get a used Nissan Leaf for about 8k right now. It's just the matter of time before some of the higher range cars are old enough to be cheap on the used car market.

Wow! That's a great price. Where can I get it at that price? The car looks okay but I can think of many others that I would rather own. The more "desirable" EVs seem sell at much higher price bracket as compared to their fossil fuel counterparts...

What year? How much are the batteries depleted on a used EV?

Big cities may have more public charging stations, but I'd say they are possibly the least suited to EV ownership because if you live in an apartment and park on the street, you can't charge your car at home.

That's true and I didn't even consider that. I was recently in the UK and actually the uber driver said the same thing. Most of them don't have driveway or garages so where are they going to park and charge their vehicles? This is pretty much the same situation in the rest of Europe as well.

> $30k isn't cheap imo, the average person would need to take out a loan to go buy an EV.

$30K is cheaper than the average new car being sold right now by quite a bit, and most consumers get a loan to buy those. It seems more than a little bit strange to complain about a $30K EV being expensive when the average new car buyer is taking out a $40K loan for a gasoline car.

> Outside of big cities infrastructure doesn't exist.

Outside the big cities everyone has a garage. People also regularly overestimate how much they drive. The average American drives about 30 miles a day, you need to be in the top 1-2% of daily drivers[0] for range to be an issue, especially if you can charge at work.

> Also hauling stuff in an EV, which is where most of the emissions are, isn't even close to feasible yet.

Bulk freight by road is a stupid way to organize a society. Don't make semi-trucks green, use trains. They're far more efficient, have cheaper and longer lasting infrastructure, and are trivial electrify. Semi truck transit represents a massive handout to the semi truck industry in the form of unpaid road maintenance[1], we should stop that.

For smaller inner-city transit, we're getting very close. EV pickup trucks are already coming out, I would expect cargo vans to show up soon.

> Maintain maybe... own not really https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/a32494027/ev-vs...

I said that it was simpler to maintain and you replied with a link about it whether or not it is cheaper. Those are different words that mean different things.

Yes, EVs are not yet universally cheaper than ICE cars for all use patterns, but that appears to be almost entirely a factor of the purchase price, which is dropping year over year. EVs are lower maintenance (the link you provided backs this up), and cheaper to operate per mile than gasoline cars (your link also shows this). Given how quickly EVs have dropped in up front purchase price, I think we're really close to EVs being a no-brainer decision for most consumers.

> Personally, I have zero desire to sell my gas vehicle which will be perfectly fine for the next 5 years to drop 30k on an EV that won't be able to do as much.

I hope gasoline gets expensive enough and EVs get cheap enough to change your mind.

0 - https://www.solarjourneyusa.com/EVdistanceAnalysis.php

1 - Estimates range from 60 to 120 billion dollars per year. This includes congestion, accidents, and most importantly road damage. The wear that a vehicle causes to a road is proportional to the per-axle weight raised to the fourth power, which means that virtually all damage to public roads are caused by semi trucks and semi trucks alone.

> much simpler to own and maintain.

As a person who never owned an EV I am curious to know how it is simpler to maintain it?

Rotate tires and refill the washer fluid. Done! I've had a Nissan Leaf since 2014, and that's all I have ever done.

And eventually replace the battery which is expensive and wipes out all the previous savings. EV batteries still need to become more durable and more repairable.

And sometimes EV manufacturers don't try very hard to do right by their customers:

https://www.thedrive.com/news/41493/teslas-16000-quote-for-a...

You usually don't replace the battery of an EV. It's like replacing the engine of an ICE car, it can be done but it's usually not worth it.

An old leaf with a bad battery should simply be sold for cheap to someone who needs less range.

Yup, my Leaf gets only about 40 miles of range on a good day :) But it still works for errands around town.

It would not make financial sense to ever replace the battery. It is better to just get another EV when I can no longer get out of my driveway :)

Buying a new EV is the same as replacing the battery and spending extra on top. It still wipes out the previous savings and increases your carbon footprint because another complete car was manufactured.

The used EV can replace another dirtier car.

No, it can't. Its range is now so low it's no longer practical. Expecting people to accept a lot less is not realistic.

I see tons of first gen Nissan leafs with shitty range every day. And they still have some value on the used market.

No, you don't. What you see are the few people who are willing to make compromises to practicality that the majority of people are not. I would not buy a first gen Nissan Leaf with shitty range and neither would most people.

I'm quite sure I do. The Leaf is the best seller where I live and a lot of them are getting old : https://elbilstatistikk.no/

People don't drive that many km everyday and an old Leaf is an okay second car to quite a lot of people. Anyway, it's just an example because the first gen Leaf is an old car with a low range and a battery with a high degradation. If you think about newer leafs and other cars with more range, it's not really a huge difference if the car has lost some range over time.

I'm quite sure you don't. There are 2.8 million registered private cars in Norway. 68,873 Leafs doesn't equal "tons" in comparison:

https://www.ssb.no/en/transport-og-reiseliv/landtransport/st...

Halving the utility of the vehicle relative to an ICE car. Being able to repair the battery at a reasonable cost is a more eco-friendly option than having to get a new car:

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/39687/teslas-early-vehicles-ar...

Throwaway cars aren't good for anyone.

That's an argument against ICEs because of their non continuous failure. An old car with a 66% degraded battery can still be used. An old car with a busted engine is scrap.

> It's like replacing the engine of an ICE car

I downvoted you because that's not true. It's far easier to replace batteries than an engine. It requires minimal skill.

If they start building them into the body that may change though.

It's not the same kind of skills for sure. Some cars are easy to replace the battery, but you still need to deal with high voltage procedures. I wouldn't trust myself with an e-golf, but I wouldn't mind replacing the ice engine of a Twingo with the right tooling.

Assume $100/kWh, and a 50kWh battery, that's $5000 to replace it, after, let's say 100,000 miles. You've saved, let's say, 10 cents per mile on fuel, so that's $10,000 saved.

Battery should last about a million miles though, with proper temperature and charge management.

Once your battery has degraded to, say, 75%, now you have a free 35kWh battery to store power in your house, that's worth $3500

> Assume $100/kWh

Batteries are not that cheap in 50kWh quantities.

They should be by the time you need a replacement in 10 years

Yup, Tesla is shitty when it comes to things like repairs. They are like Apple, they want you to get a new car vs repair your old.

I suggest you avoid Tesla if you are the type of person to drive a car until the wheels fall off.

More of a right to repair issue than an EV issue.

Had my Leaf for 4 years, it's time to buy some new windscreen wipers. Apart from tyres, that's been it.

> I expect gasoline engines to stop being popular in the next 4-5 years.

That may be true in the US and other countries dominated by suburbs (Australia?). However, I can't see that happening that quickly in dense cities in Europe - the cities just won't install millions of chargers required along all streets where people park quickly enough.

European cities should start banning cars regardless of what they're powered with, they do not fit into their older cities and they make everything worse. They should double down on public transit, and push cars out to where they provide more benefit than drawback.

That would make sense in the richest/tier1 cities, I don't think the rest could afford good enough public transit though.

> By 2050, the EU says, “nearly all cars and vans on the roads will need to be zero-emission vehicles.” Stricter CO2 emissions standards that came into force at the start of 2020 will be made even tougher. Newly registered cars must reduce emissions by 55-percent, compared to 2021, by 2030, and then by 100-percent by 2035. For new vans, those targets are 50-percent by 20230, and 100-percent by 2035.

Way too little and way too late. :/ In almost every opinion poll in almost every country, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of climate change mitigation measures. It's sad that this is the best our politicians can do.

> In almost every opinion poll in almost every country, the public is overwhelmingly in favor of climate change mitigation measures

Do you have sources? In my experience is more like fifty-fifty, some prefer faster cars and don't care about emission, others prefer cheaper cars (e.g. used ones, which don't pass newer strict guidlines).

In my country most people buy used cars, because they are cheaper and one can afford it.

Same with energy production, would you prefer to pay higher or lower bills?

"Even though the survey was conducted during the COVID-19 crisis, there was still widespread recognition of climate change as a global emergency in every country surveyed. Over all 50 countries, 64% of people said that climate change was an emergency – presenting a clear and convincing call for decision-makers to step up on ambition."

https://www.undp.org/press-releases/worlds-largest-survey-pu...

"Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate"

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...

"In 2021, the AEE's representative annual survey was conducted by online pollster YouGov, which approached 1,051 people aged 16 and over. The AEE added up the categories “extremely important,” “very important” and “important” to arrive at the conclusion that “almost nine out of ten citizens (86%) support the increased use of renewable energy in Germany.” It also found broad support for renewable energy installations in interviewees’ direct neighbourhoods (60% good/very good), which increased further if respondents already had experience with such installations."

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/polls-reveal-citi...

"European citizens now identify climate change as the single most serious problem facing the world."

"93% of EU citizens see climate change as a serious problem and 78% see it as a very serious problem. 90% of respondents – and at least three quarters in each Member State – agree that greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to a minimum while offsetting the remaining emissions, in order to make the EU economy climate-neutral by 2050."

"87% think the EU should set ambitious targets to increase renewable energy and support energy efficiency."

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/support_en

"In France, seven-in-ten think protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs."

"A 20-public median of 58% say their national government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change. A majority in France (63%) say their government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change, while 26% say the government is doing about the right amount, and just 7% say it is doing too much."

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/fact-sheet/public-views-...

"International concern about climate change has increased over the past several years, with growing shares viewing climate change as a major threat. In addition, large majorities in the current survey express worry over climate change and describe it as a serious problem."

"A median of seven-in-ten across the set of 20 publics say climate change is having at least some effect on their local community. And in some places – Italy, Spain and Brazil – about half or more see a great deal of impact from climate change in their community. Government action on climate change is widely seen as lacking: Majorities across most of surveyed publics believe their government is doing too little to address climate change (20-public median of 58%)."

"When asked to choose, a median of 71% said environmental protection should be the greater priority even if it caused slower economic growth and loss of jobs; a much smaller median of 25% said creating jobs should be the priority (the survey was conducted before the coronavirus pandemic and resultant economic strains took hold in many of these publics)."

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/29/science-and-s...

"More than two thirds (67 per cent) of the British public want to see the UK as world leader on climate change, according to a YouGov poll commissioned by Global Witness, with this view consistent across all sectors of the population."

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/yougov-poll-...

In my experience, climate change deniers often get a lot of attention and it therefore seems like they are more plentiful than they are. For example, in my country some people started a Facebook group about how gas prices were too high and should be lowered and they got a lot of attention. In response, people started an opposing Facebook group about how gas prices were too low and should be raised. That group quickly got as many members as the first, but almost no media attention.

Most of those surveys are more like "yeah there is a problem".

But only few were about actions. And none were "are you willing to take a pay cut to save the climate", or "do you approve banning cars in the city".

People are vocal when their money is not involved or when they don't need to take action.

Like I said in other comment: who do they think will buy these zero-emission vehicles? Who can afford them?

Are they planning on giving them away?

Edit: just to give you an example. In the US the standard Model 3 costs 35k$, in Portugal costs 51€k (around 60k USD), in Germany 30k€ (around 35k USD).

>Way too little and way too late. :/

yeah, fuck poor people who can't afford a new EV car. Am I right?

These rules are about selling brand new cars. Poor people only buy used cars anyway and AFAIK this ruling doesn't say anything about used cars.

For those more knowledgeable. Are emission limits calculated similarly for all countries.

Is it: calculate current emission, set allowance for next year as prev_year_emission * 0.99 (or some other reduction)?

This equation would need modifications for richer and poorer countries (which can't modernize so easily)

Is that similar to how those limits are set?

Or all all countries set to some arbitrary limits - that would explain those emission purchases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com