EU sets new limits on CO2 emissions for vans

31.5mgp in a van....good luck with that.

"you must increase mileage...but do not make CO2 or nitrates. We tax you $80 per ton either way, AND fine you 95 euro per gram."

Looks like they'll be fining human beings also. We each automatically make over a kilogram CO2 per day just by breathing.

QC: where is the source of your human CO2 production?

QC: where is the source of your human CO2 production?

I googled it a while back, let's see...

epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html

2.3 pounds is just barely over a kilogram...

The average person, through the natural process of breathing, produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day. The actual amount depends strongly on the person’s activity level. However, this carbon dioxide is part of a natural closed-loop cycle and does not contribute to the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Natural processes of photosynthesis (in plants) and respiration (in plants and animals) maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon dioxide from natural process is not included in greenhouse gas inventories.

This quote? The one that explains that the carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere is processed by plants? The quote being part of an article that explains that industrial waste gases are the cause of the atmospheric CO2 increase? Yes. Good argument.

Hope your foot heals soon. Be careful cleaning your gun in future.

31.5mgp in a van....good luck with that.

A lot of our vans are already exceeding that limitation.
For example, an independant test of a Ford Transit 280 SWB averaged 32.5mpg whilst fully laden and that was back in 2002. Diesel engine technology has advanced a great deal in the last 9 years making them a lot more efficient....but still burning fossil fuel.

Is there a difference between the levels of efficiency when comparing our European vans to your U.S vans?

Vans account for 12 percent of the European market for light-duty vehicles, which together are responsible for 1.5 percent of the total EU CO2 emissions

So that is 12% of 1.5%, which comes to .0018 of estimated EU CO2 production. They plan to reduce it 14%, so 14% of .0018 is a net improvement of .000252 of the total EU CO2 footprint. The number may also be inflated because I'm sure this goal will coincide with increased bio-deisle use, which has a debateable CO2 footprint net effect. This is hardly newsworthy, unless you are trying to make the point that this isn't really an effective measure. They need something on the order of at least 100 if not 1000 times more potent than this change. This is only 2 tenthousandths of the EU's CO2, while other places still use leaded gas. China, Mexico, Brazil and India are racing to see who can pollute the most. A tarriff on goods produced in those countries would do much more good than a vehicle emissions limit in the EU.

A ten year old truck is relatively new for some European users. What is the average age of haulage vehicles in various locations around the world? That would tell you why the local federation has now timetabled the necessary upgrade of light haulage vehicles, helping the environment, stimulating the economy and creating new opportunities for the better established/financed (preferred, big name?) hauliers.

QC: where is the source of your human CO2 production?

What is a coal fired electric plant for 10.

QC: where is the source of your human CO2 production?

What is a coal fired electric plant for 10.

I was just joking around. Your points are well taken.

Why the low rating RayCherry? You seem to be agreeing with me, from a different angle. Your point is well stated, and further illustrates the futility of what they are doing here. In addition to the numbers I pointed out, you are quite right that the effects of any change they make to vehicles now won't even start to show up until all those old vans are off the road.

My job is problem solving in manufacturing. A usefull way to look at a complex problem like CO2 is by making a chart. You place potential solutions on the chart with the x axis going from easy to hard (including cost) and the y axis going from high impact to low impact. That way all of your most effective solutions are in one corner and the least are in the other corner. Limiting emissions on vans is good, but it's very low impact. Insulating buildings, replacing old windows, updating old heating and air units, etc. would have a much higher impact and would probably be cost neutral or better. Go for the big things first

continued:

The energy industry is phasing out the old coal plants in favor of much cleaner hybrid gas/turbine plants. The new designs are much more profitable than those old dinosaur coal plants, so the incentive is already there to make the change. It takes time to phase them out though, because they have to build a new plant before they can shut down the old one, and someone has to pay for it. In the immediate timeframe the best way to reduce the impact of old coal plants is by trying to reduce the power needs in areas supplied by those plants. Don't just offer a blanket assistance program for everyone; Target the areas with the biggest impact first. When the economy is so bad, it is especially important for people to feel that the price justifies the outcome.