BMW - Emissions standards present ‘huge challenge’

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by StrikeTwiceXR6

Maybe ask the dirty ranga that is running this country

The only country in the world stupid enough to implement a carbon tax and one of the lowest polluters to boot

If we dont follow the euro rules, this country will become even more behind the rest of the world and our industry would be a pathetic laughing stock that would grind to a complete halt in a very short time.

We're the only country in the world "stupid" enough to implement a caron tax are we?

All these countries have some kind of tax on carbon emmissions;

Finland
The Netherlands
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Switzerland
Costa Rica
South Korea

many states of the US, China, and Canada have some kind of carbon tax
China is planning to introduce a national tax by 2015
Japan is planning on introducing one.

[StrikeTwiceXR6]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

If we dont follow the euro rules, this country will become even more behind the rest of the world and our industry would be a pathetic laughing stock that would grind to a complete halt in a very short time.

We're the only country in the world "stupid" enough to implement a caron tax are we?

All these countries have some kind of tax on carbon emmissions;

Finland
The Netherlands
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Switzerland
Costa Rica
South Korea

many states of the US, China, and Canada have some kind of carbon tax
China is planning to introduce a national tax by 2015
Japan is planning on introducing one.

Thanks for the education tranquilized

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by OzJavelin

As everything these days is driven by $$$ Im wondering at what point does it just become to cost prohibitive to design, build and sell cars in Western countries? That the overheads of emissions and other environmental impacts, etc .. Maybe with such a large market, some manufacturers will just start building and selling only in China, India, etc?

How soon? I'd say "Now"...
The ABC radio had a motoring program a few months back where the commentator had visited a big motoring show in Asia, and he was shocked at the long list of manufacturers either planning on or outright opening soon manufacturing plants in India...he mentioned the usual suspects of the big Japanese makers (who already do build there anyway, our sons nicely screwed together little Suzuki Alto is made in India), but also other brands like Ford, GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, Aston Martin, and many others including, surprisingly, Harley Davidson.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

All these countries have some kind of tax on carbon emmissions;

Finland
The Netherlands
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Switzerland
Costa Rica
South Korea

Nice list of countries with no natural resources worth selling, or to use in making things. No wonder it is in there interest to bring in a tax and get others to follow. They aren't stupid.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by 4LTRsixT

Is there any reason we follow these euro laws though, like is it part of a treaty or something?

What would be the repocussions if we didn't follow them?

It seems that that this sort of decision is made by people who have no understanding of how to implement it.

lets think for a minute . how many cars were around 50 years ago in the world . now lets go forward 50 years . wether we believe in pollution or not , cleaner energy does make sense . if energy can become cleaner and cheaper , than the human race as a whole can access it , humans will not stay classed for ever , eventually all should have the right to live the same , wehter this happens in 50 years or another 1000 years is anyones guess , but employment helps get everybody working towards improved life , injustices will always be challanged .
i know this is going far off topic , but 1960's deisel and petrol technology in a world where there will soon be BILLIONS OF CARS . would definately harm humanity and all living things , one would think .

[Rodge]

Cars like the Volt make sense to me, mainly as a city car and only if the electricity mainly comes from renewable hydro, solar or wind power and only when they're competitivly priced.
N.Z., (one of the cleanest countires in thw world) was silly enough to pander to the Greenies and introduce a carbon tax before Australia.
More Politially correct B.S. if you ask me. I can't see those targets being met. Greenies need to get real, could we deport them all to Antartica

[StrikeTwiceXR6]

Originally Posted by Rodge

More Politially correct B.S. if you ask me. I can't see those targets being met. Greenies need to get real, could we deport them all to Antartica

You crack me up Rodge

[JPFS1]

Firstly, there's allot of work and collaboration to conclude between our Governments and manufacturers on setting the next target/scheme.

Secondly, I doubt the numbers quoted above will be voted in...

Thirdly, tightening CO2 doesn't automatically kill off an vehicle/engine that doesn't meet the target. The manufacturer will be financially penalised on the amount of CO2 above the Corporate Average. Ford Australia's preference on the design of the penalty is that it's linked to the Carbon Tax Price and only applied if target if not met by industry fleets.

Below is Ford Australia's response (Dec 2011) to the Governments “Light vehicles CO2
emission standards for Australia – Key issues – Discussion Paper – 2011”.

Originally Posted by Ford Australia

Conclusions
Reducing CO2 emissions from motor vehicles is a complex challenge of which improving the efficiency of the new motor vehicle fleet is only one part of the solution. Ford Australia makes the following key conclusions and recommendations:
• Mandatory CO2 emission standard targets should be ambitious, yet achievable.
• Improving the efficiency of new vehicles is a shared responsibility for the automotive industry, Government and consumers.
• Ford Australia prefers a mass based parameter, as the most internationally consistent method of regulation.
• The scheme should be designed to attract advanced technologies to the Australian market earlier than commercial forces may achieve, through credits for alternative fuels and advanced technologies.
• The scheme should be designed to incentivise the uptake of fuel efficient technologies.
• The standard should be supported through a single piece of legislation and apply to all vehicles under 3.5 tonnes.
• All brands including niche brands and new entrants, should be required to demonstrate
a commitment to the industry target however, unique circumstances should be taken into consideration in determining targets.
• Brands should have access to flexibility arrangements including pooling, banking and lending to ensure that each brand’s commitment to reducing emissions is fully recognised through the standard.
• The scheme should be flexible, recognising the staged manner in which product cycles work and product investments are made.
• If financial penalties are included in the scheme, they should be linked to the Carbon Tax Price and applied only if fleet emissions targets are not achieved by the industry.

[JPFS1]

Questions from Discussion Paper

Originally Posted by Ford Australia Response

Q1. Do you support the setting of staged short and medium term targets?

Ford prefers staged targets including medium and longer term targets. Ford has a preference for targets, as stated in the Government’s election commitment, of 2015 and 2024. The 2024 target is consistent with longer-term targets established in other markets and provides sufficient lead time for new model planning and development. Associated with these longer term targets is a need to regularly review targets to ensure targets are "commercially viable" and that consumers are adopting the new technologies being introduced to the market.

Q2. If yes, do you consider 2020 is the logical date for a firm second stage target?

No, refer to answer #1

Q3 Do you consider it is appropriate to set a target beyond 2020 at this stage?

Refer to answer #1

Q4. Do you consider 2010 is theappropriate base year for determining the targets?

Due to market variations during 2009 and to some extent in 2010, as well as the need to recognise the adoption rate of technologies since the completion of the previous target of 222 grams of CO2/km, Ford prefers a baseline of 2008 be used for analytical purposes.

Q5. What rate of CO2 emissions reduction do you consider is achievable by 2015 and 2020 in Australia?

Refer to the FCAI’s submission.

Q6. What do you think is a reasonable CO2 target for the Australian new light vehicle fleet in 2015 and 2020?

Please refer to the FCAI's modelling of targets undertaken by PwC. This recommends a target of 195 grams of CO2/km in 2015 and a target of 176.1 grams of CO2/km in 2020. In regards to a 2024 target, the FCAI would welcome the opportunity to work with the Government to develop an ambitious and realistic target.

Q7. Are there any impediments to Australia achieving the more ambitious rates of reduction embodied in Scenarios 5 and 6 above?

Yes. The proposed magnitude of reduction has not been achieved or planned in any international market, is at least twice as fast as any previous emissions reduction in Australia and is not supported by international studies in this field.

Q8. Do stakeholders have any information on costs and benefits of standards which would assist the Department of Infrastructure and Transport in the preparation of the cost benefit analysis for the implementation RIS?

Refer to the FCAI’s submission.

Q9. Should Australia set a single set of CO2 targets for all light vehicles, or is there merit in establishing separate targets for passenger vehicles (cars and SUVs) and for LCVs (utes and vans)?

Ford's preference is for a single standard because it will increase flexibility and avoid difficulties associated with developing a separate standard.

Q10. Do you support the idea of bonus credits for new technology vehicles (such as EVs), flex fuel vehicles and other technologies, or should the CO2 standard be purely performance based, treating all vehicles on the
same basis (using the CO2 emissions result on the standard ADR test)?

Yes, refer to the FCAI’s submission.

Q11. If you support credits, what vehicle types do you consider qualify for a credit and why?

Refer to the FCAI’s submission.

Q12. Do you support an attribute based standard?

Yes. Ford is opposed to vehicle, segment or model based standard and fixed percentage reduction models.

Q13. If so, do you have a preference for mass or footprint?

Ford supports a mass based mechanism due to international consistency.

Q14. If you do not favour an attribute based standard, what is your preferred approach and why?

N/A

Q15. Do you consider there are any other data elements which might also be required for the standards to be effective and enforceable?

Yes, collection of mass specifications.

Q16. Do you agree that the current VFACTS database (supplemented and audited as necessary) is suitable as the primary data source for assessing and reporting compliance with the standards?

Yes.

Q17. Do you also agree that data collected for the purposes of the standard should be made publicly available on an annual basis?

There will be a need for an independent annual report and auditing of the data.

Q18. Do you agree that the Motor Vehicle Standards Act is the most appropriate primary legislation under which to write appropriate CO2 regulations?

No

Q19. If not, what alternative legal framework would you propose?

The industry has a strong preference for a single piece of legislation to underpin both the targets and the penalties.

Q20. Do manufacturers, particularly importers, have any views regarding the identification of responsible entities under the standards?

Ford recommends that the entity listed as the full volume importer be the responsible entity.

Q21. Do you consider there is merit in allowing manufacturers to pool, or is it an approach that manufacturers are unlikely to pursue?

Pooling is more likely to occur in the Australian market due to the large number of related brands in the Australian market. This will also limit inducements to 'game the system' by introducing or merging brands to avoid penalties.

Q22. Do you think there is sufficient merit to warrant the inclusion of banking and trading systems as a feature of Australia's CO2 standards?

Banking and lending recognise that brands have model cycles which are not coordinated with the Australian regulatory cycle. Banking encourages brands to introduce low emission technologies into the market earlier.

Q23. Do you agree such systems are only possible where annual targets are set?

Annual targets will be necessary, however penalties must only apply in target years.

Q24. Do you agree that financial penalties are the most effective way to address non-compliance?

No.

Q25. If not, what alternative would you suggest?

Additional questions

What target would new entrants into the market be required to achieve?

At least the limit curve.

Should low volume brands be required to achieve a limit curve.

Low volume brands should be allocated fixed targets consistent with the industry average.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by StrikeTwiceXR6

Thanks for the input guys, but I still can't understand how the I6 is under the pump with regards to meeting future Euro standards, but nobody in the red corner is concerned about the current V8 lineup facing the scrapheap.

It all comes down to how much money development costs to pass the next level of emissions Vs how many engines you make.

Thats Fords problem with the I6 and was the reason the 5.4 was killed off. The R&D costs can't be spread over a high number of engines built.

The Holden/GM V8 is built in massive numbers so can handle a very high R&D cost to pass emissions.

[jpd80]

Ford Australia has consistently dragged its heels on meeting emissions in Australia and by doing so paid a huge price.
They stretched out the introduction of FG to the deadline of pre-Euro 4 so they could get another two years before
needing to comply in 2010. All cause by the flip flop on V6-I-6 causing a near two year pause on LPG development.
Thatdelay caused a huge gap in sales of LPG Falcons which has now resulted in permanent loss of that market
now that fleet managers have sampled alternatives.

Not meaning to be anti-Ford here but FoA has done themselves no favors in stalling delay tactics to save money,
the first six months of this year have been eye watering for Ford fans but many in the glass house are unfazed.
So I wonder, do they know something the rest of Australia doesn't, what are we missing?

[2011G6E]

You know...Australian car makers and manufacturers in general could just grow a pair and tell the world to get stuffed...perhaps also get a little perspective.
We have only 22 million people (Chinas population grows by a larger amount each year), spread out on a massive windswept continent. We produce as a total less than 0.1 of 1% of the world man-made pollution, which is only able to be made "bad" by dividing it as a "per head of population" figure because there are so few of us.Yes, we use coal for power...but China is closing down 20 old coal fired stations (which is trumpeted by the Greens), and replacing them with sixty new coal fired power stations...which the Greens won't mention.

We're not the bad guys, and I don't see why we should have to do anything when countries like China and India do very little, if anything, with their combined near-three billion people...

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

You know...Australian car makers and manufacturers in general could just grow a pair and tell the world to get stuffed...perhaps also get a little perspective.
We have only 22 million people (Chinas population grows by a larger amount each year), spread out on a massive windswept continent. We produce as a total less than 0.1 of 1% of the world man-made pollution, which is only able to be made "bad" by dividing it as a "per head of population" figure because there are so few of us.Yes, we use coal for power...but China is closing down 20 old coal fired stations (which is trumpeted by the Greens), and replacing them with sixty new coal fired power stations...which the Greens won't mention.

We're not the bad guys, and I don't see why we should have to do anything when countries like China and India do very little, if anything, with their combined near-three billion people...

The plan is to use coal fired power plants to establish the power grid and then in about 10-15 years time
switch to nuclear power plants. Where will that leave Australia's precious coal exports?
Sure metaliferous may continue but steaming coal will go out backwards.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

We have only 22 million people (Chinas population grows by a larger amount each year), spread out on a massive windswept continent. We produce as a total less than 0.1 of 1% of the world man-made pollution, which is only able to be made "bad" by dividing it as a "per head of population" figure because there are so few of us.Yes, we use coal for power...but China is closing down 20 old coal fired stations (which is trumpeted by the Greens), and replacing them with sixty new coal fired power stations...which the Greens won't mention.

We're not the bad guys, and I don't see why we should have to do anything when countries like China and India do very little, if anything, with their combined near-three billion people...

Have a trawl through China's 12th Five Year Plan (their latest - December 2010):

www.apcoworldwide.com/content/pdfs/chinas_12th_five-year_plan.pdf

Their key priorities, targets and policies in regard to energy use and climate change are summarised here:

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/gove...nge-china.aspx

Their international commitments under the United Nations climate change agreements are to:

• lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40–45 per cent by 2020 compared to 2005
• increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15 per cent by 2020, and
• increase forest coverage by 40 million hectares and forest stock volume by 1.3 billion cubic meters by 2020 from 2005.

They also have the following key targets:

• increase the proportion of non-fossil fuels in energy consumption to 11.4 per cent by 2015
• reduce energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 16 per cent from 2010 levels by 2015, and
• reduce carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 17 per cent from 2010 levels by 2015.

They also have the following measures in place:

- The world's largest investment in renewable energy (attracting $54.4b in 2010)
- Pilot emissions trading programs for several key cities and provinces
- imposed higher electricity prices on inefficient and outdated companies in heavy industries such as cement, steel and aluminium. "Outdated" companies are required to pay 20c/KWH tariff on electricity.
- Shut 70GW of inefficient coal power plants.
- Increased taxes on coal, oil and natural gas, and subsidised clean energy and energy efficiency.

Your figures on Australia's emissions contributions are a little awry. Our overall carbon contributions (CO2 only) as a percentage of world total in 2008 was 1.32%, not 0.01% as you say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions). Of 216 countries, our ranking was 16th. With the exception of China (1st), the US (2nd) and the EU (3rd), all other countries only produce a few percent, but together total 44%). Our international ranking in 2009 was 15th. I haven't yet found data for the years since.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Nice list of countries with no natural resources worth selling, or to use in making things. No wonder it is in there interest to bring in a tax and get others to follow. They aren't stupid.

i dont understand your point!

they import coal and burn it there they pay tax on it.

like most countrys they have their own smelters, and heavy industry that import the raw materials.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

We have only 22 million people (Chinas population grows by a larger amount each year)

Sorry mate to be pedantic on this as well... China's annual population growth rate is low, around 0.47% (ranked 156th on a world scale - compare with Australia's 1.2% in 2009). Their population was 1,339,724,852 in the 2010 census - calculator gives us an approximate annual increase of just under 6.3 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China