Europe to cut greenhouse gasses by banning sales of CO2-emitting cars from 2035

[Alfonso Maruccia]

The big picture: The European Union finally approved a law that will put traditional combustion engine cars out of the market. The Union had to overcome last-minute opposition from Germany, and other countries pushing for alternative solutions like Italy will have to deal with the aftermath of the final agreement.

Starting in 2035, new cars sold in Europe will have to use alternatives to combustion fuels. The European Union recently took the unprecedented decision to ban sales of traditional vehicles based on combustion engines, with a novel approach destined to radically change the automotive market in the Old Continent.

European Union countries recently gave their final approval, weeks after German opposition to the original draft brought the discussion to a standstill. Berlin wanted an exemption for cars running on e-fuels, which was ultimately granted by the European Commission.

E-fuels or electrofuels are a class of synthetic fuels produced using carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide captured from the atmosphere, mixed together with hydrogen obtained from other sustainable sources such as wind, solar and nuclear power. The e-fuel manufacturing process uses the same amount of carbon dioxide which will be released into the atmosphere when the fuel is burned, providing e-fuels an overall low carbon footprint compared to traditional fuels refined from crude oil.

Together with the outright ban on sales of traditional cars in 2035, e-fuels should help the EU adopt a climate-neutral approach to mobility. Frans Timmermans, head of Europe's climate policy, said the "direction of travel is clear: in 2035, new cars and vans must have zero" or very low CO2 emissions.

Starting in autumn 2023, Brussels' Commission will have to decide how sales of e-fuel cars will continue after 2035. The new vehicles must be equipped with a technology designed to prevent the engine from starting if "illegal" petrol of diesel is employed in place of "lawful" e-fuels.

Porsche and Ferrari were among the companies supporting the e-fuel exemption, while the giants of Europe's automotive market (Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Ford) are going all-in with batteries and electric vehicles. Poland voted against the 2035 phaseout, while Bulgaria, Romania and Italy abstained. Italy was one of the biggest losers after the final decision, as Rome's government was proposing an alternative solution based on biofuels extracted from biomass - a solution which was ultimately rejected by the EU.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/98124-europe-cut-greenhouse-gasses-banning-sales-co2-emitting.html

 

[m4a4]

Still just looks like virtue signalling for the green crowd; putting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't need to force this if the green alternatives were actually good.

I could understand if there was better battery and renewable tech that actually rivals ICE engines properly without artificial handicaps (along with a better acceptance of nuclear), but this still just looks like a shortsighted agenda from people who are out of touch. Or who stand to gain too much from pushing stuff like this.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Still just looks like virtue signalling for the green crowd; putting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't need to force this if the green alternatives were actually good.

I could understand if there was better battery and renewable tech that actually rivals ICE engines properly without artificial handicaps (along with a better acceptance of nuclear), but this still just looks like a shortsighted agenda from people who are out of touch. Or who stand to gain too much from pushing stuff like this.

Imagine thinking any of this is about the environment.

It's not. EVs are far easier to control, and bam from moving, then ICE is. With this you can, via semi autonomous vehicles, software updates, ece effectively control whether a population is allowed to move. You can remotely ban charging at unapproved times and monitor resource usage to make sure nobody is using "too much".

It's not about the environment. It hasn't been for years. Much like how the "TikTok ban" has nothing to do with TikTok and everything to do with making it possible for the government to up and ban anything they don't like, and destroy your life if you dare speak against them.

 

[gamerk2]

Still just looks like virtue signalling for the green crowd; putting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't need to force this if the green alternatives were actually good.

I note the markets have historically supported "bad" or "worse" products for a variety of reasons. A lot of the reason for slow uptake of electric vehicles is the existing stigma against them.

I could understand if there was better battery and renewable tech that actually rivals ICE engines properly without artificial handicaps (along with a better acceptance of nuclear), but this still just looks like a shortsighted agenda from people who are out of touch. Or who stand to gain too much from pushing stuff like this.

Its more a recognition that we're probably already a few decades too late to stop the worst effects of a warming planet, so we're now at "drastic measures" because we dragged our feet far too long.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I note the markets have historically supported "bad" or "worse" products for a variety of reasons. A lot of the reason for slow uptake of electric vehicles is the existing stigma against them.



Its more a recognition that we're probably already a few decades too late to stop the worst effects of a warming planet, so we're now at "drastic measures" because we dragged our feet far too long.

A few decades ago the alarm bells were ringing how Florida would be underwater by 2020.......oh wait.

Well maybe the ones from the 70s where they predicted an ice age......huh.

Now the narrative is "oh were too late to stop the worst so TORPEDO Everything NOW!" which fixes nothing. Doing things that would fix it, like not shipping everything from China or mandating repairable products that last a long time, go against the interest of government, hence they are not done. At some point you have to admit that this "day after tomorrow" climate event isn't coming.

EV stigma comes from their performance, or lack thereof. We've been hearing about claims of affordability, recycling, better batteries, ece for 15 years now, EVs are still monstrously expensive, heavy, short ranged, with no sign of improvement.

 

[Underdog]

The point about controlling peoples' movements by remotely controlling their wonderful new electric cars is a point I hadn't thought of myself but the idea certainly has legs. The newfangled Linky meters that have been forced upon electricity consumers is the thin end of that wedge. Our consumption is not only observed remotely but can be limited or shut down completely at the click of a button. Better not get too far behind paying your bills guys. If the same scenario gets applied to cars at some point your entire life will be handed over to Big Brother.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

The point about controlling peoples' movements by remotely controlling their wonderful new electric cars is a point I hadn't thought of myself but the idea certainly has legs. The newfangled Linky meters that have been forced upon electricity consumers is the thin end of that wedge. Our consumption is not only observed remotely but can be limited or shut down completely at the click of a button. Better not get too far behind paying your bills guys. If the same scenario gets applied to cars at some point your entire life will be handed over to Big Brother.

It's.not just falling behind on bills. Multiple times in the last year we have seen utilities remotely shutting down people's AC in a heatwave because "muh grid", California is demanding people stop charging eva during the day because of brown outs, ece.

What bette rway to control people then to make it impossible to charge their car unless you give them permission?

 

[psycros]

EVs work fine in one place, and one place only: big cities without cold winters. Anyone who has paid even marginal attention to the evolution of the technology knows this. The problem is, as it so often is, the tyranny of the majority. People who've never lived outside major metro areas are very ignorant of what life is like beyond the concrete jungle. EVs don't work well in cold climates or over very long distances. Driving 60 miles round trip to work without a single charging station to be seen is extremely common in rural America. Even city dwellers don't have an easy way to charge at home unless they have both a garage and the expensive charging station. Electric cars are like Apple products: their toys for rich people and not much else. Give it 30 years and things may change..there are a number of promising technologies coming down the pike.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

EVs work fine in one place, and one place only: big cities without cold winters. Anyone who has paid even marginal attention to the evolution of the technology knows this. The problem is, as it so often is, the tyranny of the majority. People who've never lived outside major metro areas are very ignorant of what life is like beyond the concrete jungle. EVs don't work well in cold climates or over very long distances. Driving 60 miles round trip to work without a single charging station to be seen is extremely common in rural America. Even city dwellers don't have an easy way to charge at home unless they have both a garage and the expensive charging station. Electric cars are like Apple products: their toys for rich people and not much else. Give it 30 years and things may change..there are a number of promising technologies coming down the pike.

And dont forget: car insurance companies are now fighting to refuse to insure vehicles charged in garages or within 200ft of a house because of fire risk. All that underground or narrow city parking? That's a no go. Same for attached garages in suburbia.

Electric motors are a fantastic piece of tech. EVs are an abomination of ideas held back by practical limits. They're being forced down our throats by politicians who dont know what its like to be a regular joe in today's world.

 

[gamerk2]

A few decades ago the alarm bells were ringing how Florida would be underwater by 2020.......oh wait.

Not by any serious climate scientists, although the risk of increased flooding was understood.

Well maybe the ones from the 70s where they predicted an ice age......huh.

What you are referring to was a study done by a group of 100 climate scientists on what the predicted outcome of increasing CO2 emissions would be. Of those, THREE predicted cooling, sixty something predicted warming, with the rest unsure pending new data.

When you have to go back to a time before we even had weather satellites to argue the predictions were wrong you know you have a bad argument. And experiment after experiment, plus our own measurements confirm a warming trend, as well as a direct historical link between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

Now the narrative is "oh were too late to stop the worst so TORPEDO Everything NOW!" which fixes nothing. Doing things that would fix it, like not shipping everything from China or mandating repairable products that last a long time, go against the interest of government, hence they are not done. At some point you have to admit that this "day after tomorrow" climate event isn't coming.

Therefore, "do nothing". Your just repeating the "do nothing" argument we've had for the past 50 years.

As for China, while they do output the most CO2, on a per capita basis they produce about three times less per person then the United States does. China surprisingly has a lot of people living in it; I certainly didn't know that before looking that up. [Sarcasm is implied] Blaming China is yet another "do nothing" argument made by people who don't want to actually do anything about solving the problem.

EV stigma comes from their performance, or lack thereof. We've been hearing about claims of affordability, recycling, better batteries, ece for 15 years now, EVs are still monstrously expensive, heavy, short ranged, with no sign of improvement.

Because the relatively low volume necessitates higher prices. Coincidentally, forcing EV adoption directly addresses this particular aspect, and would drive down prices in short order.

As for batteries, there's a number of alternative chemistries out there, the issue is they are theoretical until someone (at this point, likely the automotive industry or a major government) invests in their R&D into a real product. I've been advocating for the US government to directly invest in this area for some time now, since throwing money at development is the fastest surefire way to eventually get a working product. But once again: Once the issue is forced, the problem will naturally address itself (because Capitalism works; some auto company will do the investment because it would give them a market edge).

As I said before: We could have started this transition 50 years ago when the problem was first identified. Now we're starting to see the first climate effects (already totaling hundreds of billions per year) and we still haven't really done anything. The issue is now being forced, and suddenly the same people who argued to "do nothing; there's no problem" are coming out and saying "wait, your changing too fast". Well, thats what you do when you ignore problems and have to rush a solution out.

 

[gamerk2]

It's.not just falling behind on bills. Multiple times in the last year we have seen utilities remotely shutting down people's AC in a heatwave because "muh grid", California is demanding people stop charging eva during the day because of brown outs, ece.

What bette rway to control people then to make it impossible to charge their car unless you give them permission?

Uhh, you do know it requires power to run a gas pump at a gas station, right?

 

[gamerk2]

EVs work fine in one place, and one place only: big cities without cold winters. Anyone who has paid even marginal attention to the evolution of the technology knows this. The problem is, as it so often is, the tyranny of the majority. People who've never lived outside major metro areas are very ignorant of what life is like beyond the concrete jungle. EVs don't work well in cold climates or over very long distances. Driving 60 miles round trip to work without a single charging station to be seen is extremely common in rural America. Even city dwellers don't have an easy way to charge at home unless they have both a garage and the expensive charging station. Electric cars are like Apple products: their toys for rich people and not much else. Give it 30 years and things may change..there are a number of promising technologies coming down the pike.

Counterpoint: 79% of all new vehicle registrations in Norway were EVs. Not only is Norway fairly rural, it's also fairly cold.

How did Norway pull this off? Simple: Socialism. Their government built an EV infrastructure on their own dime, rather then waiting for the market to get around to it.

The only major downside to EVs is the recharging infrastructure needs to exist, which can be done for few hundred billion (which lets face it: That's chump change for the Feds). 15 Minutes to 80% isn't quite ideal, but "good enough" when considered to the long-term costs of doing nothing.

 

[someOtherGuy]

How is this not just virtue signaling and a move to control people and make them poorer? Are they banning CO2 emitting yachts? ships? planes? industries? Power plants (ohhh, Germany!)? I assume there are no non-electric trains in Europe anymore which I guess is what you're supposed to use (and your bicycle, probably)

 

[toooooot]

I read about e-fuels. It seems just like other fuels we dreamed about for many years.
If it will work with current gasoline stations, it would probably be the only positive.
There are billions of tax dollars in expensive gasoline sport cars, real jobs, real economy.
It will artificially remove this industry and the ability for thousands of people to support themselves financially.
People should be able provide for themselves, not rely on the government.
And yet they just wanna cut this industry like there are limitless jobs waiting for so many people.
Not one country benefited from economy shifting a structure where people have no choice but rely on handouts.
Electric is not developing fast enough because there are real reasons for that. There must be a lot of innovative and needed decisions before gasoline is banned. This is not a delay, this is again of knowledge we need for new way of using energy.

 

[Hodor]

The point about controlling peoples' movements by remotely controlling their wonderful new electric cars is a point I hadn't thought of myself but the idea certainly has legs. The newfangled Linky meters that have been forced upon electricity consumers is the thin end of that wedge. Our consumption is not only observed remotely but can be limited or shut down completely at the click of a button. Better not get too far behind paying your bills guys. If the same scenario gets applied to cars at some point your entire life will be handed over to Big Brother.

Also, if there are people who criticize the system, you can just order the AI to crash their car into a wall and make it look like it was an accident.

 

[Hodor]

CO2 is not a dangerous gas. There are tons of really toxic exhaust gasses generated by ICE engines, but interestingly, those fake ecologists aren't worried about the toxic gasses. They never talk about cancer caused by those gasses. However, they worry about a pretty useful CO2 gas, which helps Earth become greener. So, in essence, "greenies" are against green. They want our planet to have less plants. The treehuggers hate trees.

And as we saw during the experiments of 2008 (economic crisis) and 2020 (Covid lockdown), reducing the number of ICE cars and airplanes in traffic didn't change CO2 emissions by any noticeable amount. CO2 emissions kept going up as usual. As if..... it's a natural process. Just like many serious scientists have suggested.

So, you have to wonder what's the real reason for the CO2 agenda. One thing we know - it's not ecology.

 

[kiwigraeme]

Not by any serious climate scientists, although the risk of increased flooding was understood.

What you are referring to was a study done by a group of 100 climate scientists on what the predicted outcome of increasing CO2 emissions would be. Of those, THREE predicted cooling, sixty something predicted warming, with the rest unsure pending new data.

When you have to go back to a time before we even had weather satellites to argue the predictions were wrong you know you have a bad argument. And experiment after experiment, plus our own measurements confirm a warming trend, as well as a direct historical link between CO2 levels and global temperatures.


Therefore, "do nothing". Your just repeating the "do nothing" argument we've had for the past 50 years.

As for China, while they do output the most CO2, on a per capita basis they produce about three times less per person then the United States does. China surprisingly has a lot of people living in it; I certainly didn't know that before looking that up. [Sarcasm is implied] Blaming China is yet another "do nothing" argument made by people who don't want to actually do anything about solving the problem.


Because the relatively low volume necessitates higher prices. Coincidentally, forcing EV adoption directly addresses this particular aspect, and would drive down prices in short order.

As for batteries, there's a number of alternative chemistries out there, the issue is they are theoretical until someone (at this point, likely the automotive industry or a major government) invests in their R&D into a real product. I've been advocating for the US government to directly invest in this area for some time now, since throwing money at development is the fastest surefire way to eventually get a working product. But once again: Once the issue is forced, the problem will naturally address itself (because Capitalism works; some auto company will do the investment because it would give them a market edge).

As I said before: We could have started this transition 50 years ago when the problem was first identified. Now we're starting to see the first climate effects (already totaling hundreds of billions per year) and we still haven't really done anything. The issue is now being forced, and suddenly the same people who argued to "do nothing; there's no problem" are coming out and saying "wait, your changing too fast". Well, thats what you do when you ignore problems and have to rush a solution out.

I was not going to post my usual rebuttal - as people that post these claims - just do endless hit and runs .
If does matter the argument whether global warming has a significant man made element is over.
The arguments now are just what we need to do and if we care enough - plus I want to get voted back in by politicians.

They are not interested in the truth - every hero scientist the oil companies have backed have been rebutted big time .
Ha lots of them made predictions - it's just a nature cycle - we will be in cooling phase in in a couple of years - said over 10 years ago etc.

Were are in one of the fastest and longest warming periods ever known

with extreme weather events becoming very common - the next 30 years will be very interesting .
Those saying it is all rubbish are mostly old , in well off countries and have benefitted through most of their life time - cheap gas in the 60s, 70s etc . They don't want to pay any cost so others in poorer countries , or their own grandchildren will have a better life - sure as little green apples they will beg for govt assistance if their property gets hit .

Weird thing is people are pretty good at handling changes - and soon forget why they were so bothered.

You won't see a rebuttal ever by them = I never have - hit and run same BS again and again
They are exactly the same people saying for over a decade all the evidence that the world is getting warmer is a complete lie - Scientists lying , making up and massaging data . Have you ever seen one apologized and admit they got it wrong ? Just one?

 

[scavengerspc]

A few decades ago the alarm bells were ringing how Florida would be underwater by 2020.......oh wait.

Who said that? I remember it was predicted it was possible by the end of the 21st century.
Although some went so far as to say by 2050.

OH WAIT!

 

[scavengerspc]

I was not going to post my usual rebuttal - as people that post these claims - just do endless hit and runs .
If does matter the argument whether global warming has a significant man made element is over.
The arguments now are just what we need to do and if we care enough - plus I want to get voted back in by politicians.

They are not interested in the truth - every hero scientist the oil companies have backed have been rebutted big time .
Ha lots of them made predictions - it's just a nature cycle - we will be in cooling phase in in a couple of years - said over 10 years ago etc.

Were are in one of the fastest and longest warming periods ever known

with extreme weather events becoming very common - the next 30 years will be very interesting .
Those saying it is all rubbish are mostly old , in well off countries and have benefitted through most of their life time - cheap gas in the 60s, 70s etc . They don't want to pay any cost so others in poorer countries , or their own grandchildren will have a better life - sure as little green apples they will beg for govt assistance if their property gets hit .

Weird thing is people are pretty good at handling changes - and soon forget why they were so bothered.

You won't see a rebuttal ever by them = I never have - hit and run same BS again and again
They are exactly the same people saying for over a decade all the evidence that the world is getting warmer is a complete lie - Scientists lying , making up and massaging data . Have you ever seen one apologized and admit they got it wrong ? Just one?

I'm pretty much there too, although occasionally I will take bits from the hit-and-run caucus and quote it and ask questions.

Responding to lies and fabrications never leads to much progress. But they will repeat it next chance they get.

 

[scavengerspc]

Were are in one of the fastest and longest warming periods ever known

From NASA:

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Who said that? I remember it was predicted it was possible by the end of the 21st century.
Although some went so far as to say by 2050.

OH WAIT!

Climate scientists of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. It was in those science textbooks you were supposed to be paying attention to.

I'm pretty much there too, although occasionally I will take bits from the hit-and-run caucus and quote it and ask questions.

Responding to lies and fabrications never leads to much progress. But they will repeat it next chance they get.

Funny, that's the feeling I get every time an EV warrior refutes the need for nuclear power in their magical dream future of everything being electric. Somehow "solar does not work at night" just doesnt seem to click.

But you know, I'm sure that places like disney florida bulldozing acres of wildlife habitat to put up some solar panes to raise their ESG scores is really environmental, right?

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Not by any serious climate scientists, although the risk of increased flooding was understood.

Oh, so they wern't serious now, since their prediction didn't come true?

But NOW they are super serious and totally not screaming about the sky falling yet again.

Gotcha. And in 2050 when none of the current predictions come true and they scream about florida being underwater by 2070 so you need to stop eating meat and get in the pod, I'm sure you'll believe them again.

What you are referring to was a study done by a group of 100 climate scientists on what the predicted outcome of increasing CO2 emissions would be. Of those, THREE predicted cooling, sixty something predicted warming, with the rest unsure pending new data.

When you have to go back to a time before we even had weather satellites to argue the predictions were wrong you know you have a bad argument. And experiment after experiment, plus our own measurements confirm a warming trend, as well as a direct historical link between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

Despite all that technology these "climate scientists" still cant seem to get a single prediction right. Mogadishu was supposed to be underwater 20 years ago.

Therefore, "do nothing". Your just repeating the "do nothing" argument we've had for the past 50 years.

No, I'm not. I am pointing out that replacing co2 emitting gas vehicles in 15 years, which account for less then 1% of total CO2 (were talking just west europe and some parts of america here) isnt going to be a magic band aid on these issues. Especially as the west continues to decommission nuclear power in favor of coal LMFAO.

As for China, while they do output the most CO2, on a per capita basis they produce about three times less per person then the United States does. China surprisingly has a lot of people living in it; I certainly didn't know that before looking that up. [Sarcasm is implied] Blaming China is yet another "do nothing" argument made by people who don't want to actually do anything about solving the problem.

And it is also one of the fastest growing CO2 emitters globally. You casually forget that part, that if said "climate scientists" are accurate, china will overtake the USE in emission per capita by 2040, and will offset all these EV mandates within 2 years.

But anything to stop actual progress is good I guess. We wouldnt want to hurt xi's feelings after all.

Because the relatively low volume necessitates higher prices. Coincidentally, forcing EV adoption directly addresses this particular aspect, and would drive down prices in short order.

The volume of EVs today is far higher then it was 15 years ago.

The prices are going up.

Your math doesnt check out. Batteries are EXPENSIVE. We already make them at large scale. Making them at larger scale is not going to address this major issue anytime soon.

As for batteries, there's a number of alternative chemistries out there, the issue is they are theoretical until someone (at this point, likely the automotive industry or a major government) invests in their R&D into a real product. I've been advocating for the US government to directly invest in this area for some time now, since throwing money at development is the fastest surefire way to eventually get a working product. But once again: Once the issue is forced, the problem will naturally address itself (because Capitalism works; some auto company will do the investment because it would give them a market edge).

OR, everything is going to go downhill. Somebody didnt see the carnage that the EPA's clean air laws wrought on the 1970s. It took until the 2000s to reach similar output to 1969.

As I said before: We could have started this transition 50 years ago when the problem was first identified. Now we're starting to see the first climate effects (already totaling hundreds of billions per year) and we still haven't really done anything. The issue is now being forced, and suddenly the same people who argued to "do nothing; there's no problem" are coming out and saying "wait, your changing too fast". Well, thats what you do when you ignore problems and have to rush a solution out.

The same eco people screaming about EVs today are the same ones that have opposed using nuclear power since the 1960s, the same ones that insisted on safety tech that reduced MPG and stilld oes today, the same green supporters that supported shutting down those dirty factories, thereby moving them to china and dramatically increasing CO2 output.

Sorry if my empathy for the biggest hypocrites on the planet has run dry. There is plenty that could be done, and still needs done, if you want to truly reduce CO2. Using coal to charge disposable electric SUVs is not the answer.

 

[scavengerspc]

Climate scientists of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. It was in those science textbooks you were supposed to be paying attention to.

I can find predictions of 2050 to the end of the century.

But if what you claim was that common, it should be easy to find. So find them.

 

[scavengerspc]

Using coal to charge disposable electric SUVs is not the answer.

I'm quite sure you read that about planet wide usage, not realizing, of course, that here in the US we get less than 20% of our power from coal.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I think that 2035 isn't soon enough. They should implement this no later than 2030.