German automakers denounce EU compromise on CO2 emissions

If all sides are equally unhappy they must be doing something right. Even if this isn't it...

German ecological groups, like their counterparts elsewhere in Europe, say meanwhile that the compromise is too favourable to the auto industry.

I thought it was about the emissions, not how the industry made out in the deal.

The auto industry is unhappy because the limits will be hard or impossible to meet. Why don't these people with voice that can be heard by everyone just tell the truth and say the whole lot is a scam? They would then not have to bother about the limits.

I think it's time that we start putting the people behind the global warming scam in jail for fraud against the world.

I think it's time that we start putting the people behind the global warming scam in jail for fraud against the world.

Wait a second... Didn't the Holy Hansen or his Apostle Gore say something like that? Or maybe it was Adolf, Benito, and Joseph...

This is a typical "the tradgedy of commons" dilemma.

Air is not a free resource and polluting it should cost.

Good something is done about it.

True, Geg, hovever, CO2 is plant food and your exhalations, it is not a pollutant.

True, Geg, hovever, CO2 is plant food and your exhalations, it is not a pollutant.

I disagree only to the extent that everything, in sufficient quantities, is a pollutant, including oxygen, salt, fresh water, etc.

Only in recent years has the definition of pollutant been expanded to cover virtually anything that some consider expedient. It used to mean, "Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water." Now "pollutant" can mean a trace, beneficial part of the atmosphere. CO2 has helped to create vast wealth from more abundant crops. "Pollutant" can also mean waste heat from a power plant. The warm water from power plant discharges are considered heat-enhanced by me since the best fishing is near these outflows. Old shipwrecks become artificial reefs. One person's "pollutant" (in the more modern sense) is often really a great help to plant and animal species.
Everyone has always agreed that too much of a good thing is a bad thing, however everyone always disagrees where that line should be drawn.

Note to car industry:

The knife of human survival is at your collective throats. No amount of alternative wrangling from your internal monkeys is going to change that. It has in the past--but it is far less likely these days.

It's a simple answer to the question.

Re-invent yourself---or die.

End of story.

Note to car industry:

The knife of human survival is at your collective throats. No amount of alternative wrangling from your internal monkeys is going to change that. It has in the past--but it is far less likely these days.

It's a simple answer to the question.

Re-invent yourself---or die.

End of story.

Balderdash!

Balderdash!

Humbuggerey

"German companies, which produce generally bigger cars that consume more fuel"

Well, maybe they should get their act together and start producing fuel-efficient vehicles that can comply with the new standards.

"German companies, which produce generally bigger cars that consume more fuel"

Well, maybe they should get their act together and start producing fuel-efficient vehicles that can comply with the new standards.

German manufactured automobiles are among the lowest emission vehicles you can buy. To create legislation that requires them to make such a significant cut in output isn't economically feasible for the manufacturers as to add that tight an engineering budget, the end price of the vehicle would make autos all but unpurchasable. Whether you think so or not, this is a horridly bad thing. If you restrict the ability to commute, then you hamstring the economy, as people now have a far smaller range in which they can become employed. Any business that isn't in a public transportation hub will fail. The employees won't have money to purchase products that are friendly to the environment as they typically have a slightly to significantly higher cost.

The rule would shoot what actual environmentalists are trying to do in the foot. You'd see health scares, rampant resource consumption and overall, death and the decline of quality of life, which would lead directly to a breakdown of society. Although the above is an extreme example, the extreme measures of this and other AGW spun legislations do not show any significant benefit to mankind.

Its quite simple: the car industry promised to reach certain levels of efficiency and emmissions. But during the good years they invested into adding more luxury that only made the cars heavier. The little advantages in efficiency were eaten up by the weight gains. So in the end, the cars are as bad as a couple of years ago, just equipped with with more buttons. Wasting the precious resource oil to move your a** and 3 tons of metal to pick up the newspaper. Improving the efficiency does not only improve our air but also enables to spend the saved monney within your own country. I guess we all agree that many oil producing countries are not worth to throw our money at them.

But during the good years they invested into adding more luxury that only made the cars heavier. The little advantages in efficiency were eaten up by the weight gains. So in the end, the cars are as bad as a couple of years ago, just equipped with with more buttons.

This is absolutely false. Cars today are averaging 26mpg highway. Light Duty trucks are averaging 18mpg. The German engineered vehicles in these classes are even higher.

The new Mercedez passenger cars are running upwards of 30 mpg highway in most cases.

Find me one car from 10 years ago that is even close to that efficiency.