I think it’s less about industry lobbying and more an unwillingness for these governments to actually do what needs to be done to reduce the roadblocks needed for an outright ban on new ICE vehicles.
There doesn’t seem to be much of push to get infrastructure like charging stations in place and it seems they thought it was a ‘reverse Field of Dreams’ where “if you come, they will build it.” Charging stations and grid upgrades aren’t going to appear out of the ether simply because some politicians want to ban ICE vehicles. I don’t know the situation in the EU, but here in the US, most of our charging stations are built by Tesla or VW (under the Electrify America name as a punishment for dieselgate). Tesla charging stations aren’t abundant everywhere and VW seems more than happy to let their charging stations become dilapidated and antiquated as they’re not building them willingly to begin with. There are many parts of the country where your only option to charge is a 120/240V outlet, which output as little as 3-4 miles per hour of charge. This isn’t the way forward and it’ll likely take government incentives to make it happen.
Where I live (NL, EU) there are several charging stations (+20 spots) within a 10 mile radius. Every neighborhood has like 5-10 parking spots with a charger. Around 10-15% of the residential housing have their own high-power charging outlet. Office buildings have around the same percentage (10-15%) of their parking lot converted to charging parking spots. Even parking lots in cities come with that same percentage of charging stations these days.
Next to that around 30% of all housing is equipped with solar panels. New office buildings and factories all have giant solar arrays on their roofs. No exceptions.
In the EU the biggest problem is not willingness or effort. The biggest problem is reality. You can’t connect that all to a power grid designed in the 60s. Energy infrastructure is hard, big and slow to build. Our grid is full. We are building like mad men but it just isn’t realisable in a short time. Especially since all of the EU is building a new grid at the same time… Building (nuclear) power plants, wind mills, conversion stations, high power grid cables all takes a lot of time.
But, mobility in the EU is starting to become too expensive for the median income. Here a litre of ron95 gasoline is around 2 euros. The purchase of new cars are taxed to insanity here in NL. Around 50% of the price is tax. A new electric vehicle with acceptable range is somewhere around 50-60k (ionic, ev5/6)
Electric vehicles had all sorts of tax exemptions. That’s changing. Soon they’re also taxes to the fullest.
Alas, everyone who doesn’t have a job which provides a car does what I do: drive that old piece of garbage till it really falls apart.
And I think that are the 2 main reasons for the laxer rules on ice vehicles. Reality regarding the needed infrastructure and cost to the public. Everything has become so much more expensive the last 4 years.
You didn’t even mention bicycles once!
Bikes aren’t for everyone. I personally don’t like them (and I’m Dutch, lol). I’d much rather see great public transport.
In my experience living in Hilversum (between Amsterdam and Utrecht) they’re great for covering that last “last mile” between a person’s home and mass public transport like the train and often do the same on the other side (between train and work place).
Given the massive (massive, MASSIVE) bicycle parking areas near the larger train stations, I would say that at least when it comes to trains the infrastructure is designed purposefully so that people can live further way from train stations and still get to the station quickly without requiring a car, since if they do require a car, in my experience, not just in The Netherlands, people often end up just taking the car all the way to their destination and skip the train altogether.
However, I can see how such a design that assumes bicycles are used like that, would be problematic for people who don’t use bicycles like that, since it will have fewer buses feeding the train station than if bicyles weren’t expected to cover most of those flows.
I my experience - having lived there and elsewhere in Europe - The Netherlands is invariably at the upper end of these things, even if the Dutch complain it’s still not good enough (I would even say the country’s “well above average” condition is probably because of that).
You should see the status of things in my native, car obcessed country of Portugal: all talkie-talkie yet a complete total disgrace for the rest. As for Renewables, the regulatory and legal framework has been designed to reward a few politically well connected companies (corruption over here is widespread, mainly at the higher levels and paid with the usual non-executive board memberships for “friendly” politicians and such), so personal solar generation is incredibly rare in this, one of the sunniest countries in Europe, because if you feed excess power to the grid you get at best 1/4 of what you pay for consuming it from the grid, and almost all of Renewables are big installations that no individual could ever have and hence are owned mainly by said politically well connected companies: hydrodams and large wind generators.
It doesn’t help that most people’s Ecological awareness is such a complete total joke that even for those who believe themselves as ecologically-minded ends at the point were they’re faced with, say, walking to take their kids to a school less than 1km away instead of going by car.
For all its problems (no country is perfect), The Netherlands if comparativelly a frigging paradise in this and a number of other domains.
It doesn’t help that most people’s Ecological awareness is such a complete total joke that even for those who believe themselves as ecologically-minded ends at the point were they’re faced with, say, walking to take their kids to a school less than 1km away instead of going by car
This tracks. Whenever I visit Portuguese relatives I’m always surprised by how quickly they default to the car. Once, it was literally to just take us to a train station that we could see with our eyes from where we were staying.
Weren’t a bunch of politicians caught in a scandal there recently about deals with fossil fuel companies?
It’s one of those things that “everybody does it” so only those who have lived elsewhere were the car culture is different tend to notice it.
As for politicians, just 2 days ago the Prime Minister resigned because he’s offically a suspect in some shenennigans involving “green hydrogen” (plus licensing for lithium mines and a massive data center project) which also caught somebody he has described as his “best friend” in the past, a senior member of the PM’s office (who is an ex-junior minister that lost his post in a smaller scandal involving an energy company a few years ago) and another minister.
Things haven’t been this entertaining over here in ages.
Alas, everyone who doesn’t have a job which provides a car does what I do: drive that old piece of garbage till it really falls apart.
And that is exactly the reason, why HVO100 diesel and Blue95 need to happen NOW and not in 20 years.
Maybe society doesn’t need to have cars at all?
On the other hand you have good public transit
The Netherlands is very bad at public transport though. Some villages only have 1 bus per hour and only during rush hour, nothing during the rest of the day. This way we’ll never get away from cars.
There doesn’t seem to be much of push to get infrastructure like charging stations in place
Is this code for taxpayer handouts to private businesses so they can maximize profit off of customers?
This isn’t the way forward and it’ll likely take government incentives to make it happen.
There it is!
Infrastructure needs central backing, that’s not exactly controversial. Would you rather each individual company has to fund its own chargers and end up with a patchwork that only works for each brand individually (and probably change over time to not support older models). Thats how the railways initially developed in 19th century Britain and it was a horrible mess of privately owned incompatible gauges.
Or maybe the government could take care of it themselves since the private sector can’t be bothered.
I’d rather businesses that require government funding to operate to be owned by the government.
Great, so would I. Doesn’t change the fact that in the here and now they aren’t and we cant wait for a great socialist revolution to start addressing climate change.
It doesn’t take a great socialist revolution, and nations won’t stop using fossil fuels as long as they remain cheaper than other options.
Other options won’t be cheaper until we run out of easily-extractable oil.
Can you name a single industry that wasn’t created off the back of government investment? This isn’t about handing money to private companies, it’s about getting the shit we need to comply with the laws that are being set. I’d fully support private industry funding the entire thing but what evidence is there that they’d actually do it? They haven’t over the last decade outside of Tesla, so what’s going to change that now?
If it needs government money to survive, then it should be owned by the government.
That way, the only people getting paid are the ones doing the work. We won’t be wasting money on private ‘owners’.
deleted by creator
Remember how many senior managers from automakers went to jail for the rigging of diesel car emissions during regulatory tests and which is estimated to have caused and still cause tens of thousands of additionl deaths in Europe due to the additional polution?
That would be that magical number that when multiplied by any other number yields itself as result: zero.
If per the actual actions of these politicians (not their words, talk is cheap and their words are often unrelated to their actions) even the lifes of europeans are less important than the continued prosperity of those “oh so important” top managers in the auto industry, you can hardly expect they would treat Climate as anywhere as important as the profitability of the auto industry.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The EU is poised to water down a landmark piece of car pollution legislation after extensive lobbying from the automotive industry, which experts say will cause an estimated €100bn in health and environmental costs.
Clove experts recommended significantly reducing the amount of nitrogen dioxide that vehicles are allowed to emit, and tightening real driving conditions in the approval tests for new models.
However, under an agreement made by the EU’s 27 member states in September, limits for nitrogen dioxide (and other harmful pollutants such as ultrafine particles), as well as approval tests, would be practically unchanged from those in the previous legislation, Euro 6.
In a secret meeting on 1 June 2022 between a representative of the European commissioner for the single market, Thierry Breton, and the then chair of Acea, Oliver Zipse, who is also the CEO of BMW, carmakers argued against strict nitrogen dioxide emissions limits and in favour of keeping weak approval tests.
Several sources indicated that lower exhaust emissions limits were traded off by the commission as part of an unspoken deal to secure industry support for the EU-wide phase-out of combustion engines in 2035.
Experts say current laboratory measurements fail to capture real driving conditions, for example in older cars, in cold temperatures, or for trips shorter than 16km (10 miles), which typically take place in urban areas.
The original article contains 951 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I feel that, at some point, the emissions standards get so restrictive, that it makes them impossible to practically meet. Making it a ban in all but name. I’m not familiar enough, with the original proposal for Euro7. But it seems like it might be at that threshold. The European Union needs to make up their mind, whether or not they want to allow combustion vehicles at all…
They did. Starting 2035, ICEs won’t be sold anymore in EU.
Honestly; instead of trying to tighten emissions restrictions (perhaps beyond feasible levels?), the EU should have just moved this date closer…
Edit: I just realized: I wonder how the ban affects all the talk about synthetic and bio-fuels? Those are still based on internal combustion. Then again; although ideally CO2-neutral, they still emit NOx and particulate.
I wonder how the ban affects all the talk about synthetic and bio-fuels?
Nobody cares. Synthetic fuels are an illusion sold to you by lobbyists who think that keeping combustion engines around will create loopholes for burning more fossil fuels.
In absolutely no reality will there be ever space for something that wastes 56% of energy in fuel production, to then waste another 70% while using that fuel.
Edit: I just realized: I wonder how the ban affects all the talk about synthetic and bio-fuels? Those are still based on internal combustion. Then again; although ideally CO2-neutral, they still emit NOx and particulate.
I run 100% biodiesel in a 1998 VW. IMO its a super-underrated solution, especially for folks who often need to drive long distances.
We shouldn’t try to use it for 1:1 replacement of all current gasoline vehicles while changing nothing else, since it’d be a bad idea to devote that much farmland to growing fuel. What we should do, however, is transition the vast majority of driving to bicycles and rail, then use biodiesel for the niche cases left over.
Feel like a lot of these niche cases is logistics where the power is needed and no real viable alternative exists. Trucks, ships, and aeroplanes.
There are alternatives to diesel trucks, but from what I’ve heard they’re rubbish. Gas doesn’t perform that well, and is somewhat of a bitch to fuel, availability being an issue. They also don’t have as much range.
Electric isn’t even really a consideration since trucks just don’t have that much downtime, at least not the way it looks here. A standing truck is one that costs money, so the trucks run almost 24/7. Changing from spending 15-20 minutes fuelling once per day to 30-60 minutes fuelling 4-6 times per day just isn’t feasible.
We could try and force it, obviously. Have ships build sails again, add extra taxes on aeroplanes, and whatnot. When transport costs more, transporting will cost more, meaning anything that gets transported will cost more. The end result will be that everything will get that much more expensive.
There are alternatives to diesel trucks, but from what I’ve heard they’re rubbish.
On the contrary: freight trains are great! We just need to install pantograph wires on the tracks.
Have ships build sails again
I was gonna mention that if you didn’t. 'Course, nowadays it’s more about computer-contolled kite sails than traditional one hung off masts.
Trucks
Trucks. Trucks… Really? Freight train -> freight tram -> forklift.
ships
Nuclear submarinesThe end result will be that everything will get that much more expensive.
Capitalism.
Trucks. Trucks… Really? Freight train -> freight tram -> forklift.
This, already happens. You know that, right? I mean sure you might live in the US where people don’t believe in safe schools, access to healthcare, or public transport, but in my country this is already a thing. Yet we still have some of the largest trucks in the entire world.
Why? Because while trains are great at transporting goods to larger hubs, and if a company, say Siemens or SSAB uses a lot of good they might construct their own hubs, smaller companies and individuals (like farmers) don’t generally make the kind of money to buy their own forklifts, nevermind build their own train/tram tracks.
So the only option that remains on the table that’s the right mix of environmentally friendly and economically viable is to cater to these individuals and companies using gigantic trucks. That is not like to change any time soon no matter how hard we wish that was the case.
Capitalism.
Right. I’d be all for burning the system, executing those at the top, and starting over. While one can dream, that doesn’t seem very feasible.
So how do we explain to everyone that the prices of food tripling is actually a good thing for them?
You then run into the issue of manufacturers not having enough time to roadmap/push prequels out the door. 2035 seems like a long time away, but realistically it’s 12 years. That’s just about enough time for a large manufacturer to push out a solid platform and ensure it’s good enough. Any less time and most legacy automakers probably wouldn’t make it.
Look at the i3 and i8 from BMW. The i3 first released in 2013. In those 10 years they barely managed to introduce a second generation of electric vehicles. Now I’ll admit they weren’t focussed on it, but development takes time.
I’m not sure it’s even just that. If everyone tomorrow moved from a combustion engine to an EV we’d have a real problem. Because I think even if you turned every fuel station into a fast charging station with 2-3x the capacity they had for dispensing fuel (completely ignoring the cutover period where you WILL need to supply fuel too), you’d still end up with queues to charge because it takes sufficiently longer enough to pose a problem compared to just adding fuel. I’m not sure if there’s been a solution suggested, aside from charging stations at home, work, supermarkets etc, which we have now but would need to be in every parking bay to meet the demand of every driver now in an EV. I’m then thinking of all the power needed to charge say 100 cars at the same time on fast charge. There’s probably a lot of knock-on infrastructure change because of this.
On the other hand, people don’t solve problems until they’re actually a problem staring them in the face. Just look at climate change, it’s now patently obvious things are changing fast and still the changes come at a glacial pace. I have little doubt the same will happen with EV charging.
This is the reason I expect this 2035 date to be pushed back in reality. I’m just not seeing enough earth moving now to make it a likelihood. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong though in this case, I assure you.
That’s effectively been rescinded. It will likely be formally rescinded at some point.
Actually they went back on it at the start of the year, ICEs are allowed to be sold as long as they run on 100% carbon neutral fuels. The total ICE ban was going to completely shut the door on hydrogen so they changed the wording.
Doesn’t hydrogen use fuel cells anyway? Fuel cells aren’t ICE.
Edit: yep, fuel cells. So this was bullshit edit so automakers can keep selling their ICE.
High pressure hydrogen is a thing too and regular petrol engines can be converted to run on it. Toyota already did it with an old corolla and a rally Yaris https://mag.toyota.co.uk/restomod-ae86/ https://mag.toyota.co.uk/hydrogen-gr-yaris-showcases-experimental-engine/ so not fully shutting the door but still a big hindrance.
ICE with ideal transmission is less efficient, than real fuel cell + PMSM.
