• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    German Legislators Want To Ban Gas and Diesel Powered Vehicles By 2030


    • Germany's legislative body has put a countdown clock on gas and diesel vehicles

    Members of Germany's government have passed a resolution that could mean the end of gas and diesel vehicles. German newspaper Der Spiegel reports that the Germany's legislative body, the Bundesrat (represents all sixteen states in the country) passed a resolution to ban the sale of gas and diesel engines in 2030. After that, only zero-emission vehicles will be allowed to be built. 

    The resolution also calls on the European Union to follow in their footsteps. But the Bundesrat doesn't have any direct authority over the EU. However, Forbes points out that Germany has the largest government and most powerful economy in the EU. This means any legislation that goes through Germany will in turn influence the EU.

    In the resolution, the Bundesrat requests the EU to "review the current practices of taxation and dues with regard to a stimulation of emission-free mobility." Forbes notes this would include possibly scrapping the lower taxes a number of member states employ for diesel. Higher taxes would likely cause people to avoid diesel vehicles.

    SourceDer Spiegel, Forbes

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


     

    Fools.  Someone(s) is clearly trying to get a leg-up in their political careers. I swear, politics will be the downfall of modern civilization.

     

    I won’t even bother to read the article, because a headline like that angers me.

    Banning ICE after they have become, so clean and will soon get cleaner yet, will mean literally squat in the global scenario.  And that must obviously include hybrids too.  Ban Diesel, perhaps, but not clean PZEV gas engines.  And what about motorsports and boats and……..So what’s left, EV and it’s many limitations?

    Pathetic.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, Wings4Life said:

     

     

    Fools.  Someone(s) is clearly trying to get a leg-up in their political careers. I swear, politics will be the downfall of modern civilization.

     

     

     

    I won’t even bother to read the article, because a headline like that angers me.

     

    Banning ICE after they have become, so clean and will soon get cleaner yet, will mean literally squat in the global scenario.  And that must obviously include hybrids too.  Ban Diesel, perhaps, but not clean PZEV gas engines.  And what about motorsports and boats and……..So what’s left, EV and it’s many limitations?

     

    Pathetic.

     

    I feel just the opposite.  Fossil fuels are inherently dirty and nasty, and Europe has a high population density.  This is infinitely rational.

    It would also be really nice if the Untied States would follow suit.  Allow older ICE cars to still roam, but everything sold from 2029 onward must be electric.

     

    Grandfathering in the older stuff would ensure no ones essential rights to drive their current car were violated, and it would also get us away from importing oil-a huge source of our trade deficit.

    Do not want this sent off to politics, but so very tired of personally supporting other countries every time I fill up.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, Wings4Life said:

    Fools.  Someone(s) is clearly trying to get a leg-up in their political careers. I swear, politics will be the downfall of modern civilization.

    I won’t even bother to read the article, because a headline like that angers me.

    Banning ICE after they have become, so clean and will soon get cleaner yet, will mean literally squat in the global scenario.  And that must obviously include hybrids too.  Ban Diesel, perhaps, but not clean PZEV gas engines.  And what about motorsports and boats and……..So what’s left, EV and it’s many limitations?

    Pathetic.

    Whether you like it or not, fossil fuel auto's and trucks are coming to the end of their life. I covered the MB Semi's and that Japan has medium duty EV trucks. This is a perfect solution for city delivery, no noise, no pollution in the face of people walking the streets. It will not end immediately, but even if they stop building fossil fuel auto's and trucks in 2030. they will still have them on the road for a while.

    Yet the future is coming and change is going to happen.

     

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    37 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Whether you like it or not, fossil fuel auto's and trucks are coming to the end of their life. I covered the MB Semi's and that Japan has medium duty EV trucks. This is a perfect solution for city delivery, no noise, no pollution in the face of people walking the streets. It will not end immediately, but even if they stop building fossil fuel auto's and trucks in 2030. they will still have them on the road for a while.

    Yet the future is coming and change is going to happen.

     

     

    Yeah, I recall hearing that we would run out of oil like 20 years ago too.

    And that we would all be in solar powered flying cars.

     

    Oil will be around for many generations after you and I.  Like, many, many generations.  This is extreme and radical thinking.

     

     

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    28 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

    Yeah, I recall hearing that we would run out of oil like 20 years ago too.

    And that we would all be in solar powered flying cars.

    Oil will be around for many generations after you and I.  Like, many, many generations.  This is extreme and radical thinking.

    What is wrong with extreme and radical thinking? If it helps cool the planet and clean up the air, then why not change to a better way of transportation and help out the planet, help out those that have lung issues. Why not radically change to make things better?

    I was behind two semi's this morning and 4 school buses going off to pick up their kids. Amazing the amount of Diesel smell and pollution that was sent out when the light turned green.

    Why not remove this from the streets and have silent auto's that do not cause you to breath that toxic waste into your lungs?

    End result, is not all radical extreme thinking is bad, especially when it comes to the health of my fellow man and woman. Cleaner air for all.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    32 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    What is wrong with extreme and radical thinking? If it helps cool the planet and clean up the air, then why not change to a better way of transportation and help out the planet, help out those that have lung issues. Why not radically change to make things better?

    I was behind two semi's this morning and 4 school buses going off to pick up their kids. Amazing the amount of Diesel smell and pollution that was sent out when the light turned green.

    Why not remove this from the streets and have silent auto's that do not cause you to breath that toxic waste into your lungs?

    End result, is not all radical extreme thinking is bad, especially when it comes to the health of my fellow man and woman. Cleaner air for all.

    Cleaner air.  Sounds good.  That is not radical, at all.  The ways of going about it are and they also, more importantly, won’t work.

     

    I am also for curing or at least reducing the ill effects of the flu.  But not by cutting off someone’s head.

     

    You just complained of stinky Diesel, yet cheered their idea of killing gas ICE.  How about they offer gas for cheaper in Eu, so that people start buying more, instead of Diesel which is cheaper and far more harmful to health and air.  There is a simple start.  Air is quickly improved without tearing the heart out of the industry, which is what a radical move would do.  Then allow a slow migration into more hybrids and EV’s, rather than criminalize one or the other.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 minute ago, Wings4Life said:

    Cleaner air.  Sounds good.  That is not radical, at all.  The ways of going about it are and they also, more importantly, won’t work.

    I am also for curing or at least reducing the ill effects of the flu.  But not by cutting off someone’s head.

    You just complained of stinky Diesel, yet cheered their idea of killing gas ICE.  How about they offer gas for cheaper in Eu, so that people start buying more, instead of Diesel which is cheaper and far more harmful to health and air.  There is a simple start.  Air is quickly improved without tearing the heart out of the industry, which is what a radical move would do.  Then allow a slow migration into more hybrids and EV’s, rather than criminalize one or the other.

    Valid point well taken, cheaper Petro rather than diesel would do wonders. Also changing how they tax engine size would help too.

    Overall, I think they could come up with a much better tax solution than they currently have. But step in right direction would be to tax diesel higher and lower on petro.

    I understand your desire to move slowly as people choose to buy hybrids / ev's.

    2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, Frisky Dingo said:

    As long as I can keep my gas-powered cars and still drive them freely, I honestly couldn't care less.

     

    That said, it won't happen.

    It may not happen all the way but chances are good for a significant transition.

     

    1 hour ago, dfelt said:

    What is wrong with extreme and radical thinking? If it helps cool the planet and clean up the air, then why not change to a better way of transportation and help out the planet, help out those that have lung issues. Why not radically change to make things better?

    I was behind two semi's this morning and 4 school buses going off to pick up their kids. Amazing the amount of Diesel smell and pollution that was sent out when the light turned green.

    Why not remove this from the streets and have silent auto's that do not cause you to breath that toxic waste into your lungs?

    End result, is not all radical extreme thinking is bad, especially when it comes to the health of my fellow man and woman. Cleaner air for all.

    Agree completely with this!

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    28 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Valid point well taken, cheaper Petro rather than diesel would do wonders. Also changing how they tax engine size would help too.

    Overall, I think they could come up with a much better tax solution than they currently have. But step in right direction would be to tax diesel higher and lower on petro.

    I understand your desire to move slowly as people choose to buy hybrids / ev's.

    Thanks dfelt, and I too understand your desire to fix global problems quickly.  But they have to be carefully thought out, and before we take giant steps that impact so many people and industry, costing them untold billions to adopt and certainly hardships along the way…..why evaluate and try simple ideas.  It’s not like we have not done plenty in the last 20 years alone.  Who knows where we will be in another 20,

    2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    7 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

    Thanks dfelt, and I too understand your desire to fix global problems quickly.  But they have to be carefully thought out, and before we take giant steps that impact so many people and industry, costing them untold billions to adopt and certainly hardships along the way…..why evaluate and try simple ideas.  It’s not like we have not done plenty in the last 20 years alone.  Who knows where we will be in another 20,

     

    And this is excellent, rational thinking. I wish I could up vote it ten times rather than just once. We need rational debate and thoughtful interaction.

     

    That being said, with Britain out of the EU and Germany as the most powerful member, i do wonder how much impact this will have on the other countries and on EU policy as a whole.

    2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As Germany goes, so will go the EU.  They have so much influence, they hold up the EU economy.  Sweden and Norway were looking at gas powered car sales bans around 2025, so other countries are on board.  I think 2025 is too soon, but 2030 is still 13+ years away, by then electric cars will be much more viable and affordable.  Eventually all cars will be EV, they are just pushing the envelop faster.

    The other thing to consider is they can say by 2030 they will ban gas cars, then in 2025, they can say we'll push it back to 2032 to give automakers more time, but you have to put that deadline out there, you can always push back, but you can't pull a deadline ahead.

     

    I am fine with an all EV car fleet, less pollution is great, less noise is great, less buying oil of all the corrupt governments and terrorists of the Middle East is great too.   It will be a big win all around when we all have EV cars.  The EV cars just have to be affordable, you have to have $20,000 EV cars for people.

    2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

    As Germany goes, so will go the EU.  They have so much influence, they hold up the EU economy.  Sweden and Norway were looking at gas powered car sales bans around 2025, so other countries are on board.  I think 2025 is too soon, but 2030 is still 13+ years away, by then electric cars will be much more viable and affordable.  Eventually all cars will be EV, they are just pushing the envelop faster.

    The other thing to consider is they can say by 2030 they will ban gas cars, then in 2025, they can say we'll push it back to 2032 to give automakers more time, but you have to put that deadline out there, you can always push back, but you can't pull a deadline ahead.

     

    I am fine with an all EV car fleet, less pollution is great, less noise is great, less buying oil of all the corrupt governments and terrorists of the Middle East is great too.   It will be a big win all around when we all have EV cars.  The EV cars just have to be affordable, you have to have $20,000 EV cars for people.

    Agreed!

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    automakers are currently working on 2020 and beyond. So basically, they would have less than 10 years to prepare.  It's ridiculous to push it so fast.  Nothing will change in 10 years. Nothing will likely change in 100 and I would bet, if possible, very little in 500.  So again, why 10 years.  That is just economic suicide, for absolutely nothing.

    -1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Issue is battery technology, Lithium is not a renewable resource nor is it environmentally friendly to mine. The batteries themselves degrade over time and need replacement after 5 yrs. I know 13 years is a long time but long strides need to be made if we want to sustain our current standard expectations from our vehicles.

     

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, Cremazie said:

    The Issue is battery technology, Lithium is not a renewable resource nor is it environmentally friendly to mine. The batteries themselves degrade over time and need replacement after 5 yrs. I know 13 years is a long time but long strides need to be made if we want to sustain our current standard expectations from our vehicles.

     

    We will continue to make progress.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. IDJosh
      IDJosh
      (38 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      It was an exciting day when Ford announced that the Ranger and Bronco would be coming back. But then disappointment arrived as an alleged Ford employee said on Reddit that the Bronco would be a slightly re-worked Everest SUV (cue sad trombone). A Ford executive has cleared the air somewhat on the Bronco, and it is good news.
      Ford's Chief Technical Officer Raj Nair told Autoline in an interview that while the Bronco would be based on the Ranger/Everest platform, it would be its own vehicle.
      “No, it’s a separate vehicle. It will be an incremental vehicle from the Everest. The Everest kind of serves a lot of off-road capability; maybe the space of the Explorer serves here in the U.S., but with a body-on-frame construction with a lot more off-road capability for the rest of the world. This Bronco is completely unique from that Everest. It is body-on-frame and so again, focusing on that off-road capability.”
      Nair also revealed that the Bronco would be somewhere in between the small Bronco (1966-1977) and big Bronco (1992-1996).
      “This new Bronco will be based off the Ranger platform and so it’s going to be a similarly sized vehicle to what you see in the Ranger. Now, for our American customers who have never seen that global Ranger, it’s a bit bigger than the Ranger we used to have here in the U.S., so I would say it’s kind of in-between in what you saw with that really big Bronco and then the smaller Bronco,” said Nair.
      So everyone, take a deep breath. It seems that it is going to be ok.
      Source: Autoline
       

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      It was an exciting day when Ford announced that the Ranger and Bronco would be coming back. But then disappointment arrived as an alleged Ford employee said on Reddit that the Bronco would be a slightly re-worked Everest SUV (cue sad trombone). A Ford executive has cleared the air somewhat on the Bronco, and it is good news.
      Ford's Chief Technical Officer Raj Nair told Autoline in an interview that while the Bronco would be based on the Ranger/Everest platform, it would be its own vehicle.
      “No, it’s a separate vehicle. It will be an incremental vehicle from the Everest. The Everest kind of serves a lot of off-road capability; maybe the space of the Explorer serves here in the U.S., but with a body-on-frame construction with a lot more off-road capability for the rest of the world. This Bronco is completely unique from that Everest. It is body-on-frame and so again, focusing on that off-road capability.”
      Nair also revealed that the Bronco would be somewhere in between the small Bronco (1966-1977) and big Bronco (1992-1996).
      “This new Bronco will be based off the Ranger platform and so it’s going to be a similarly sized vehicle to what you see in the Ranger. Now, for our American customers who have never seen that global Ranger, it’s a bit bigger than the Ranger we used to have here in the U.S., so I would say it’s kind of in-between in what you saw with that really big Bronco and then the smaller Bronco,” said Nair.
      So everyone, take a deep breath. It seems that it is going to be ok.
      Source: Autoline
       
    • By William Maley
      It is no secret that Bentley is working on a plug-in hybrid variant of the Bentayga SUV due out next year. But Bentley CEO Wolfgang Duerheimer revealed that all of their models would have the option of a plug-in hybrid in the coming years. Speaking at the Automotive News World Conference, Duerheimer said this powertrain provides the best of two worlds - allowing owners to drive their vehicles on electric power only in cities where gas engines might be restricted and traveling for long distances without having to recharge the battery.
      “To cover long distances and to make it from one city to another -- and you travel long distances in the U.S. -- I think the combustion engine will follow us for a long time,” Duerheimer said.
      Following the Bentayga, the next-generation Continental GT will be the next model to get a plug-in hybrid option.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      It is no secret that Bentley is working on a plug-in hybrid variant of the Bentayga SUV due out next year. But Bentley CEO Wolfgang Duerheimer revealed that all of their models would have the option of a plug-in hybrid in the coming years. Speaking at the Automotive News World Conference, Duerheimer said this powertrain provides the best of two worlds - allowing owners to drive their vehicles on electric power only in cities where gas engines might be restricted and traveling for long distances without having to recharge the battery.
      “To cover long distances and to make it from one city to another -- and you travel long distances in the U.S. -- I think the combustion engine will follow us for a long time,” Duerheimer said.
      Following the Bentayga, the next-generation Continental GT will be the next model to get a plug-in hybrid option.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      Fiat Chrysler Automobiles finds itself in hot water, this time with the EPA. During a conference call this morning, the agency accused FCA of violating diesel emission standards on 104,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0L EcoDiesel from 2014 to 2016. They are also accused of failing to disclose eight different software programs. The EPA alleges the software used on these models allowed them to produce excess pollution. At the moment, the EPA isn't calling the software a defeat device as FCA haven't explained the purpose of this software.
      “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe. We continue to investigate the nature and impact of these devices,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in a statement. 
      In lab tests done by the EPA, the 3.0L EcoDiesel meet emission standards. But at high speeds or driving for extended periods, the effectiveness of the emission's system was reduced by the software.
      This possibly explains why the 2017 Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 EcoDiesel haven't been given the ok by the EPA as we reported last year.
      The EPA says there is no immediate action for owners to take as the vehicles are safe and legal to drive while the investigation continues. FCA could be fined as much $44,539 per vehicle if they are found to be violating the Clean Air Act (about $4.6 billion).
      In a statement obtained by Bloomberg, FCA said it “intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company's diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements."
      FCA's stock price dropped 16 percent to $9.30 after the news broke. Soon after, trading on the stock was halted.
      We'll be watching this and update this story as more information comes in.
      Source: Reuters, Bloomberg , USA Today , EPA, FCA
      Press Releases are on Page 2


      EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations
      FCA allegedly installed and failed to disclose software that increases air pollution from vehicles WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued a notice of violation to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC (collectively FCA) for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act for installing and failing to disclose engine management software in light-duty model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0 liter diesel engines sold in the United States. The undisclosed software results in increased emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the vehicles. The allegations cover roughly 104,000 vehicles. EPA is working in coordination with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which has also issued a notice of violation to FCA. EPA and CARB have both initiated investigations based on FCA’s alleged actions.
      “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe,” said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “We continue to investigate the nature and impact of these devices. All automakers must play by the same rules, and we will continue to hold companies accountable that gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage.”

      “Once again, a major automaker made the business decision to skirt the rules and got caught,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols. “CARB and U.S. EPA made a commitment to enhanced testing as the Volkswagen case developed, and this is a result of that collaboration.”

      The Clean Air Act requires vehicle manufacturers to demonstrate to EPA through a certification process that their products meet applicable federal emission standards to control air pollution. As part of the certification process, automakers are required to disclose and explain any software, known as auxiliary emission control devices, that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution. FCA did not disclose the existence of certain auxiliary emission control devices to EPA in its applications for certificates of conformity for model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks, despite being aware that such a disclosure was mandatory. By failing to disclose this software and then selling vehicles that contained it, FCA violated important provisions of the Clean Air Act. 
      FCA may be liable for civil penalties and injunctive relief for the violations alleged in the NOV. EPA is also investigating whether the auxiliary emission control devices constitute “defeat devices,” which are illegal.

      In September 2015, EPA instituted an expanded testing program to screen for defeat devices on light duty vehicles. This testing revealed that the FCA vehicle models in question produce increased NOx emissions under conditions that would be encountered in normal operation and use. As part of the investigation, EPA has found at least eight undisclosed pieces of software that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution.
      FCA US Response to EPA

      January 12, 2017 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - FCA US is disappointed that the EPA has chosen to issue a notice of violation with respect to the emissions control technology employed in the company’s 2014-16 model year light duty 3.0-liter diesel engines.
      FCA US intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company’s diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements.
      FCA US diesel engines are equipped with state-of-the-art emission control systems hardware, including selective catalytic reduction (SCR).  Every auto manufacturer must employ various strategies to control tailpipe emissions in order to balance EPA’s regulatory requirements for low nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and requirements for engine durability and performance, safety and fuel efficiency. FCA US believes that its emission control systems meet the applicable requirements.
      FCA US has spent months providing voluminous information in response to requests from EPA  and other governmental authorities and has sought to explain its emissions control technology to EPA representatives.  FCA US has proposed a number of actions to address EPA’s concerns, including developing extensive software changes to our emissions control strategies that could be implemented in these vehicles immediately to further improve emissions performance.
      FCA US looks forward to the opportunity to meet with the EPA’s enforcement division and representatives of the new administration to demonstrate that FCA US’s emissions control strategies are properly justified and thus are not “defeat devices” under applicable regulations and to resolve this matter expeditiously.

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)