EU meddling

[MGF]

The manufacturers are simply trying to reduce the impact of the meddling on them. Any commercial organisation would seek to do the same. That doesn't alter the fact that the meddling was initiated by a body of people that managed to get into their current positions by promising to make inter-country trade easier. The name changes from "European Common Market" through "European Community" to "European Union" tell the story fairly effectively.

P.

With respect, this last statement has no basis in fact.


This is an extract from the original text of the Treaty of Rome with a few of my highlights.

"HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS(2),

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvements of the living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,

DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,


HAVE DECIDED to create a EUROPEAN COMMUNITY and to this end have designated as their Plenipotentiaries:"

******************

Successive Governments may well have marketed the EC in different ways but as far as I can see it is all there in black and white, written 50 years ago.

For what it is worth the UK Government has supported and (consolidated this support) for the last 35 years so the term 'meddling' is perhaps misleading.

Personally, I am reluctant to doubt the learned research that supports the existance of global warming and the case for CO2 emissions causing this as I am reluctant to doubt the relationship between smoking and lung cancer even though arguments can be made against both.

I believe it is inevitable that motoring will become more controlled in the future and as suggested, the enthusiast will have to maintain a classic car in order to enjoy their driving.

What confuses me is the car manufacturers don't want to develop technology to continue to reduce emmissions but seem happy enough to put devices to control driving in their cars. Perhaps they are getting carried away with the likes of ABS and traction control etc and one day will produce a car that we don't actually need to drive.

[PeteG]

...and one day will produce a car that we don't actually need to drive.

VW, I believe, are now fitting an automatic parking system to their Touran range, if not more. And there was a test Golf which memorised the layout of a track, then drove it itself on the second lap, almost matching the human driver's time... scary stuff.

[Big Err]

and one day will produce a car that we don't actually need to drive.

The train?

[nuster100]

...and one day will produce a car that we don't actually need to drive.

VW, I believe, are now fitting an automatic parking system to their Touran range, if not more. And there was a test Golf which memorised the layout of a track, then drove it itself on the second lap, almost matching the human driver's time... scary stuff.

I think the golf was quicker. It knew what the grip level at each wheel were and was able to push right to the edge of grip all of the time.


Jay

[SLine]

The way the original article was written is intended to make good reading, and get people backs up:

Motorists are to be forced to change the way they drive to help car manufacturers to meet strict new emission targets, the European Union announced yesterday.
All new cars will be fitted with devices that tell drivers when to change gear, what speeds to drive at and even when to pump up their tyres.

could have been written:

The EU has announced new legislation to allow drivers to use less fuel, saving money and the environment. All new cars will be fitted with devices indicating the most efficient time to change gear and speed to drive.

The same facts, but not such a good headline.

I have a device in my car, added because of some law, that makes a noise and flashes a light if I don't have a seatbelt on - generally accepted as a good thing. I have another light and noise that tells me if I pull away with the handbrake on (only seen this once) - also a good thing. Both added some cost to the car, but they didn't make the headlines.

If I didn't have the understanding of my current current car and an IAM certificate, I might not know if I was driving innefficiently.

i) I do not believe that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is a genuine phenomenon, and hence I believe it wrong to make people do anything to combat a problem which does not exist.

Whether you belive that or not, we (as consumers) are using oil faster than it's being produced (by produced I mean "formed", not "extracted"), and it will run out eventually - sooner if you use more.

If the aim is to cut emissions of CO2 by modifying driving habits, surely the better way would be to just put up the price of petrol / diesel / not biofuels and provide lots of information for drivers on how to use less fuel?

This is by far the simplest and cheapest (administratively) solution, instead of road pricing, taxing , congestion charging etc. etc., but won't happen because that won't win votes.

Steps down from soap box, and off for a spin in my 2.0l Turbo Quattro, while I still can.

[Susie]

Whilst trying to remain calm over this increasingly alarming control of our lives and not wishing to enter the argument on climate change/global warming and a dwindling supply of fossil fuels...

One thing that has become frighteningly apparent is the indoctrination of newer drivers in the interpretation of 'eco' driving.

Setting aside my enthusiast's hat for a moment...

Hugh and I have recently spent several days in the company of some newly qualified drivers, filming a documentary for one of the terrestrial television channels. They were all filmed in situations where they felt their training had been insufficient for the real world.

Wherever they drove, regardless of road type, speed limit or volume of traffic, they were into top gear at the earliest moment. On a slip road to a reasonably busy motorway for examle, one person with a small-engined car was into 5th at 35mph. The person then joined the motorway, with a foreign lorry bearing down behind them (presumably with pedal to the metal and doing around 56mph) and was understandably rather frightened.

These newer drivers have been brainwashed into thinking only about getting into a high gear and have no idea how to use 'acceleration sense' and choose a more flexible gear (even just momentarily) in situations where you need to use power to create space. There's not much point in driving around wearing a halo of righteousness, when you're actually likely to end up dead This whole policy is dangerous



I think I need a lie down

[Gareth]

Wherever they drove, regardless of road type, speed limit or volume of traffic, they were into top gear at the earliest moment.

I've seen this on some of the AD-UK Driving Days. I'm convinced a certain JL was completely right when he said the mandarins want a complacent and switched off population of drivers.

Many think to themselves that it's just not worth the effort these days, the road environment being what it is. Just sit back and follow the vehicle in front. Listen to the radio, think about the shopping, or getting home to the TV.

Some people think they are going too fast if the sound of the engine is too loud. Then they go and buy a more powerful car. Bonkers.

[manilva15b]

And my two-penn'th...

Putting aside the causes of global warming, the Commission have again missed the trick on being green.

Any environmental measure or legislation needs to take a holistic view of the impact of old technology vs new technology, and needs to demostrate a clear cost-benefit analysis before being adopted.

Example: Catalytic converters. The devices reduce the amount of carbon monoxide, NOx and VOCs emitted by the engine... At an enormous environmental cost of mining, refining and recycling very rare metals (rhodium, palladium, platinum etc.) which produces enormous amounts of persistent pollutiing waste (such as cyanides), not to mention the energy consumed in their extraction and production (high temperature smelting and furnaces etc.)

Would the Commission have made their introduction compulsory if all the facts had been known to the general public at the time?

The European car industry has paid a very high price for the very tough CO2 targets set by the Commission last time, not only in new technologies, but in lost market share in non-EU markets.

I would far rather see import controls of engines and cars into the EU based on emissions - Sorry Ford US, GM etc. - that would mean no gas-guzzling Hummers etc. However, under the current international arrangements (thanks WTO) that would be illegal under international treaty.

Is this a subject for ADUK? Well, possibly if we can get our message across that responsible (i.e. economic) motoring can also be safer and more fun.

PS: I am a former industrial chemist and have worked for both the oil and precious metal industries.

[martine]

i) I do not believe that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is a genuine phenomenon, and hence I believe it wrong to make people do anything to combat a problem which does not exist.

Well you're a brave person to hold onto that view. In a New Scientist report this week on the International Panel on Climate change, 600 scientists sent to represent their countries prounounced: "it is very likely the changes in global climate are the result of man-made influences".
They spent many hours debating the exact wording with "likely" and "extremely likely" being rejected in favour of the middle-groud "very likely" which was chosen to represent a 90% chance. Even the US coningent agreed to this statement.

The opening paragraphs are available here...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19325902.900-editorial-climate-consensus-us-not-enough.html

Even if it weren't the result of man-made influence, wouldn't it be sensible to try and combat the effect?

Please don't think I am a museli-weaving, new-age-ban-progress, hippy. I believe people should have a choice and if they choose to drive an uneconomical, C02 fountain of a car/bike (like I would if I could afford it!) then fine as long as they pay the true cost - which is used to balance their polution.

I'm as much of a petrol-head as anyone but I don't think it's sensible to try and bury your head in the sand and deny our influence on global climate change.

[Gareth]

600 scientists sent to represent their countries prounounced

Some of us remember when the next ice age was said to be just around the corner, and this complete about face has knocked our confidence in the utterances of scientists, especially when there is much government funding to be had by toeing the (non-political) party line.

There is extremely poor treatment of those with a dissenting opinion. The same can be seen in the US at the moment, just the other way round, where scientists who support the theories of man-made (or otherwise) global warming are likely to damage their careers if they speak out.

The fundamental problem in all this is that science is taking a back seat to beliefs, leaving no room for intellectual discussion. Not so different from the flat earth debate of years gone by.

The best I can do is to say that I do not have the knowledge to judge for myself, and won't take on faith what others pronounce.

[Gareth]

I believe people should have a choice and if they choose to drive an uneconomical, C02 fountain of a car/bike (like I would if I could afford it!) then fine as long as they pay the true cost - which is used to balance their polution.

I have trouble with this, because almost no-one pays the true cost ...

Should air passengers pay the true cost of their transport?
Should those who eat foods imported from other countries pay the true cost of its transport?
What does the true cost actually mean?
Is it different in any significant way from the economic cost?

[martine]

Some of us remember when the next ice age was said to be just around the corner, and this complete about face has knocked our confidence in the utterances of scientists,

Oh no...my understanding is that there could still be another ice-age (for different reasons). The more we understand about our climate the more we appreciate how finely balanced it is and it could swing either way. That doesn't mean we just lie-down and accept our fate does it? The worst-case would be a run-away green house effect whereby it's not just rising sea-levels it's scorching temperatures across the globe (like Mars) making nearly all life non-existent.

There is extremely poor treatment of those with a dissenting opinion. The same can be seen in the US at the moment, just the other way round, where scientists who support the theories of man-made (or otherwise) global warming are likely to damage their careers if they speak out.

Of course that's absolutely wrong and I would always fight for the right for freedom of speech. Scientific theories only gain weight by convincing many experts from different backgrounds of their validity.

As non-experts in the field you and I surely have to accept the majority scientific view - and the vast majority of experts now accept the main causes of global climate change. It's not about blindly following a few crackpots with a popular view, it's about respecting views from people who's job it is to study the data and come to a concensus on our behalf.

How would you feel if someone who hadn't studied advanced driving like you, dimissed your view from a standpoint of ignorance?

[Nigel]

Global warming ?..........really ?

How can the people that can't predict the weather tomorrow be so sure were all going to fry in "X" years ?

If car emmisions are less than 1% of the overall problem....why are we even bothering to look at them ?

What are our beloved masters going to do with any tax raised ?

Is dropping bombs on Iraq and Afganistan green ?.........no ?....then why are they so keen on taxing us for using cars ?

[Ludd]

What is not clear in the available introduction to the New Scientist article is who actually produced this lastest report. In fact what was published on 2 Feb was the Summary for Policy Makers. This is a brief document produced through negotiation by government bureaucrats. It is neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community and has been criticised for its promotional tone and failure to adequately communicate the complexity and uncertainty of the underlying science around climate change. The latest scientific report by the IPCC is due in May after "it has been adjusted to relect the Summary for Policy Makers".

If that isn't a case of the tail wagging the dog I don't know what is.

We shouldn't forget that the IPCC was set up specifically to assess the risk of human induced climate change. The scientists involved are largely government funded in one way of another so their findings are perhaps biased to some degree. Furthermore their scientific reviewing peers are from the same general group. Bearing in mind the influence of governments and bureaucrats it is hardly surprising that many other scientists take opposing views.

A different perspective by some emminently qualified scientists can be found at www.fraserinstitute.ca (just look under environment and risk).

Of course our human activities produce pollution and too much CO2 is probably not a good thing. On the other hand well over 90% of greenhouse gas is water vapour and the complexities and mechanisms governing its effect are barely understood even at a basic level.

One final point. The world's per capita output of CO2 has been constant since 1980. Any further increase in total CO2 output since then can only have been caused by population increase. If one believes the highly unlikely premise that climate change is almost certainly caused by human activity the why does our Government continue to encourage reckless childbirth?

Ludd

PS If my car was running I'd be out with Stressed Dave instead of writing this.

[martine]

What is not clear in the available introduction to the New Scientist article is who actually produced this lastest report.

This was a '2007 IPCC special report - endorsed by "300 government appointed delegates". "Some 600 scientists wrote the summary of the fourth assessment by the IPCC". The focus of the New scientist article was how the IPCC review process had rejected some of the more controversial research thus leaving "little room for sceptics".

I will pm you with a logon to get full access to the report.

I don't believe many scientists in the climate field now dispute the main arguments. They do however disagree about the scale.

A different perspective by some emminently qualified scientists can be found at www.fraserinstitute.ca (just look under environment and risk).

Interesting and I guess there will always be disenting voices...my point is that they are becoming increasingly feint and personally as a non-expert in the field, it seems only sensible to listen to the majoirity view - would you not agree?

On the other hand well over 90% of greenhouse gas is water vapour and the complexities and mechanisms governing its effect are barely understood even at a basic level.

For sure...we have much to learn about the global climate but are you suggesting we ignore what we do understand? As our knowledge improves we can make more focussed (and perhaps subtle) changes but is it not sensible to start reacting now?

One final point. The world's per capita output of CO2 has been constant since 1980. Any further increase in total CO2 output since then can only have been caused by population increase. If one believes the highly unlikely premise that climate change is almost certainly caused by human activity the why does our Government continue to encourage reckless childbirth?

Well may be but that is a seperate argument. The UK's population is growing slowly. The population in much of Europe is static or declining. China is expected to stabilise in the next 50 years. Many other '3rd world' countries have population explosion and that should be tackled for all sorts of reasons but if we can offset the increase in CO2 in the world by changing some of our lifestyle/industry etc then it would seem sensible to me.

What is your main point Mr. Ludd? Do you deny climate change or is it just that it's beyond our control?