As they do with fashion and culinary wonders, the Europeans are continuing to take the lead in tightening fuel-economy standards as well.

The European Commission (EC) has proposed fleetwide greenhouse-gas emissions standards for cars that are about 30 percent stricter by the end of the decade than they were last year. Van emissions standards would be tightened by about 20 percent, Green Car Congress reports.

Automakers would need to cut average new-car emissions to 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer by 2020, down from the 135.7-gram standard for 2011, according to the publication. Van emissions would be reduced to 147 grams per kilometer in 2020, down from 181.4 grams in 2010.

Unsurprisingly, the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) secretary general says it'll be tough for vehicle makers to reach these mandates by the end of the decade. But the EC says it's worth it, because, over the next two decades, consumers would cut their annual fuel costs by about $37 billion per year while oil use would decrease by 420 million tonnes, should such standards be put in place.

To put the European proposal in perspective, the 2020 mandate would be slightly stricter than the U.S. emissions standards the Obama Administration proposed last year for 2025. That proposal, which would require automakers to boost fleetwide fuel economy by about 70 percent to a real-world average of about 40 miles per gallon, is expected to be ratified later this year.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 10 Comments
      Rick
      • 2 Years Ago
      Most auto makers are already there in Europe, new legislation will mean 999cc Gasoline & 1,500cc Diesels will be the norm. That's what most folk are buying now. It about time Obama put some legislation in place to stop Califonia consuming more oil than China, Californians must but be the least green place to live on earth and will go down in history books as the biggest wasters of finite fossil fuel resource of all time on planet earth, shame on California who could help cut the huge US trade deficit buy just by cutting their massive consumption of Arab oil.
        dr61
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Rick
        Not correct Rick: California uses 1.7 mbd compared to 8.3 mbd for China (2010). And it is NOT "Arab" oil. California uses less energy per capita than any US state, and leads in renewable energy. In the US system the President cannot put legislation "in place"; it must be passed by Congress.
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @dr61
          dr61 Thank you ! Ol' Rick, lives in a virtual reality world of his own making ! So much easier than actually researching anything.....
      paulwesterberg
      • 2 Years Ago
      Those crazy europeans, always planning for the future, all these new rules will do is cause businesses to spend more to newfangled technology and drag down quarterly profits. We don't need to reduce our oil use, there is probably plenty of oil in Greenland - once those pesky glaciers melt out of the way we can frack the heck out of it and the good old days of $30 oil will be back!
      Baldur Norddahl
      • 2 Years Ago
      I just put in an order for a Toyota Yaris H2 hybrid. Compact car at a good price with CO2 emissions of 79 g CO/km. Toyota Auris Hybrid and Toyota Prius+ can also meet the 2020 emissions already. Electric cars count as having zero CO2 emissions in the EU system. Not to put in a plug for Toyota but just pointing out that car producers can already do this today. They just need to push out more green cars if they want to keep selling the gas guzzlers to the rich people. For every super car sell three electric cars, problem solved.
      Marcopolo
      • 2 Years Ago
      Brussels is a very strange place. While these emissions regulations sound terrific and everyone applauds sanctimoniously, the reality is very different as 'dreadcthu01' points out. But while the Euro-politicians and officials bask in the praise of these minor adjustments to the pollution ratings of mice, nothing is being done about the giant rat growing ever larger in the room next door ! The bio-sphere's major source of transport generated toxic, carcinogenic pollution, is not automobiles, but shipping ! The pollution created by one large container vessel using marine grade no.6 fuel (bunker oil) is fifty million times greater than an automobile ! (That right, up to, 50 million x) But because this occurs out at sea, it becomes a question of 'out of sight, out of mind' ! But the planet doesn't operate that way. In the Northern hemisphere, as many deaths will be recorded as a direct result of bunker oil pollution as from smoking tobacco. The main difference is tobacco use is a voluntary practice. The 'regulatory controls' placed on maritime fleets by the EU are deliberately ineffective, and purely for show. Restricting the use of bunker oil only while the vessel is in port, is the equivalent of regulating heavy trucking to only engage emission controls when driving through city limits ! A huge fuss is made of deaths by cigarettes (and quite rightly). Tobacco companies are sued, legislation imposed etc etc. Look at the vast sums that have been spent on road transport emission reductions. Aircraft pollution, is a subject of much green angst. Oil companies are castigated daily for contributing to every sort of pollution and misbehavior. The mice are getting cleaner. Yet, right next door sits the giant rat wallowing in filth ! The largest polluter, is ignored ! Why ? Not because of a lack of alternatives, or technology, but because of public ignorance and apathy, and hypocrisy by policy makers. So where are all the class actions against the Oil companies who sell bunker oil ? What about suing the shipping companies ? Why not punish those whose cargo's travel by this death dealing method ? Well, partly because the use of bunker oil is indemnified by governments, but mostly because of public apathy. "out of sight, out of mind" ! (end of rant)
        Marco Polo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Marcopolo
        @ Ezee, Thank you ! Curious isn't it that I see no post from PR or his mate Electron about me being a paid oil company shrill.! Could it be that despite their hatred of oil companies, the continuing support by the Obama administration for this type of pollution, is something they wish to keep as quiet as possible ? !
        EZEE
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Marcopolo
        I appreciate the education...l
      dreadcthulhu01
      • 2 Years Ago
      It is tricky to directly compare US and European fuel economy standards. First of all, the Euro standards take into account that burning diesel fuel produces more CO2 per gallon than gasoline, since they are technically emissions standards. 95 grams CO2 per kilometer equals 65 mpg for diesel vehicles, and 57 mpg for gasoline vehicles. AFAIK, the US test doesn't differentiate between gasoline and diesel, gives credits for flex-fuel vehicles, rates electrical vehicles by their MPG-E score (which is usually quite high; the Leaf has a CAFE score of 142 MPG, for example). I don't know how either systems handle natural gas vehicles, or how the Euro system handles electric cars. Secondly, the US and Europe use different methods to test fuel economy, and for that matter the US has two sets of fuel economy numbers, the CAFE score (whose numbers appeared on cars from 1979 to 2007, and still is used for, well, CAFE purposes) and the revised, lower and more realistic numbers which has appeared on cars since 2008. The Euro test for the same car usually falls in between the two scores; for example the Prius has a CAFE score of 71 MPG. gets 61 MPG on the Euro tests, and gets 50 MPG on the revised American tests.