“Mobility on the road to become elitist, luxury good!”
In November, 2022, the EU Commission presented its Euro 7 vehicle emissions standard proposal. The new directive would mandate new vehicles to become cleaner and apply to all newly registered vehicles as of July 2025.
“We cannot accept a society where exposure to air pollution is responsible for more than 300,000 premature deaths a year in the EU-27 alone,” said Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, responsible for competition policy, at the launch of the proposal. The new rules will help us breathe cleaner air and make the sector greener and more resilient. We must stick to the goal of the European Green Deal and set global standards.”
But critics warn Euro 7 will make cars far more expensive, turning them into a luxury good affordable only to the rich. The EU Commission is in fact striving to restrict general individual mass mobility under the guise of clean air and climate protection.
“In short, driving a car must become so expensive that some of the customers with smaller wallets will forego buying their own car. And they do so voluntarily,” explains Tichys Einblick.
Why will Euro 7 make cars more expensive?
Tichys Einblick reports that the Euro 7 standard “contains new exhaust gas requirements for future internal combustion engines that cannot be met using the current state of the art – or only with such high technical effort and costs that it only pays off for large high-priced vehicles, not for smaller cars for average earners.”
In other words, the EU Commission will make the standard so tough that it will price vehicles out of the market for many citizens.
According to engine expert Professor Thomas Koch of KIT Karlsruhe, “additional production costs of at least €500 and probably as much as €1000 can be expected, depending on the initial vehicle.”
“This means in the last consequence: Mobility on the road becomes elitist! Becomes a luxury good!” warns Tichys Einblick. Electric cars are not an alternative because they are even more expensive.
Previously, European car manufacturers went along with the EU’s demands for cleaner cars, but that cozy cooperation is now running thin as manufacturers no longer see benefits.
“For the first time, fierce opposition has been stirring in the European auto industry against the ideologically trimmed emissions plans of EU Commissioner Frans Timmermans,” writes Ticky Einblick. “The trade journal Automobilwoche speaks of an ‘uprising against the Euro 7 emissions standard’.”
The Euro 7 directive is still a draft, and opposition to it remains fierce, not only from the industry but from a number of parties and ministries as well. Whether or not it goes into affect in its current version remains questionable.
12 responses to “Critics: EU’s Euro 7 Vehicle Emissions Directive Will Make Automobiles A Luxury For The Rich!”
“… air pollution is responsible for more than 300,000 premature deaths a year in the EU-27 alone,”
The biggest cause of “air pollution” for an individual is personal smoking.
One wonders about the study that blames “premature” deaths on autos. Maybe every person that dies prior to their 85th birthday is added to the list. And how do these deaths get attributed to autos?
The 300,000 estimate is based on shoddy science using equally shoddy statistical extrapolations based largely on a set of studies whose underlying data and methodology has not been subjected to proper forensic and scientific cross examination on the excuse that sharing the data would violate medical privacy. My view on this is that if you can’t cross examine the data you, then, can’t use it for developing public policy either.
First, there is little relationship between indoor and outdoor air pollution. Second, given the large (bogus) estimates of the death toll associated with outdoor air pollution, one may have expected that air pollutants in combination with carbon dioxide would have reduced life expectancy during the period of high carbon dioxide growth for a nation, that is, from the late 1990s to the present. It has been estimated that in 2010, outdoor air pollution, mostly from PM2.5, led to 1.36 million deaths in China and 645,000 deaths in India.[Lelieveld et al., 2015.] If these estimates, which are based on statistical associations rather than hard cause-of-death data from death certificates, are accurate, then for 2010, 14.8% of all deaths in China and 7.0% in India were due to outdoor air pollution.[ WHO, 2018.] Nevertheless, there is no hint of any decline in life expectancy during the period when fossil fuel use and therefore presumably outdoor air pollution were growing rapidly (see Figures 7.5 and 7.6). Table 7.1 indicates that, despite substantial increases in PM2.5 exposures, life expectancies in both countries increased substantially. This indicates that deaths from outdoor air pollution do not substantially decrease life expectancy, are overestimated, or they are more than overwhelmed by all the factors associated with economic development and energy use that improve life expectancy, or some combination of these factors. For more details.
See:https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/02/Goklany-EmpiricalTrends.pdf. There are additional arguments, which I’ll skip for this post.
Agreed – based on policy-driven junk science.
Exactly as the climate and covid policies : all based on junk science.
The only plausible goal being to rudely harm the population.
Looks like Volkswagen Automotive Group will be history or something.
No more people’s car for you!
They’re just making up excuses to control you. They don’t do body counts until the body counts count.
All fake and all bovine excrement.
A good bum’s rush to the middle of the street will make a difference.
“We cannot accept a society where exposure to air pollution is responsible for more than 300,000 premature deaths a year”.
But no problem accepting far more deaths as long as it enriches pharmaceutical companies or the military industrial complex or the hybrid Communist/Fascist agenda or their own bank balances.
A classic case of a non-thinker and a non-arguer. Just mention the positives but completely disregard any negatives associated with the proposal.
The leftists have vilified CO2 and methane, but the real villains are the 6 major anthropogenic air pollutants, and that is what needs to be reduced.
It’s downright ignorant to believe trace gases like CO2 and methane can have a measurable effect on climate. If we’re responsible for the climate changes some areas are experiencing, it’s because we’ve stripped so much forest land to make room for buildings, roads, and crop fields. Wildfires may also have contributed. Nothing we do short of adopting an Amish lifestyle worldwide can have much of an impact on the climate. Spending billions in a vain attempt to reduce CO2 levels would have virtually no effect.
There’s good news related to transportation that I consider more important than EVs. We know FCEVs emit no pollutants, but both Porsche and Rolls-Royce have prototype hydrogen engines that emit so little NOx, they don’t need catalytic converters to pass Europe’s strict emissions tests.
It will only get better for vehicles that use hydrogen in the future. It has to because there will be a point at which lithium, nickel, graphite, and cobalt mining and refining operations will be limited due to unacceptable environmental damage. Perhaps Li-ion battery rationing will be in effect before 50% of all new vehicles being produced are EVs. Other vehicle types will be needed to fill that void.
I’ll stick with my gas guzzling 1979 F150 and I will just wave my middle finger at these fools as I pass them by emitting noxious ass gases…some NOT from the truck ya know. WHY?
Cuz I am an AMERICAN!
US Transport Secretary Pete Buttigeig has already stated that in the future Americans won’t own private vehicles, but will, instead, “subscribe” to car services. Indeed, EV rare earth components are insufficient to replace ICE in any time frame.
Just take it like you took the m[iracle]RNA toxic spew COVIDIUS jab…
A question: Can anyone tell me whether energy inputs from burning transportation fuels, heating and lighting homes, fans, clothes dryers, kitchen stoves, etc., are included in these urban effects calculations?
[…] From NoTricksZone […]