Lethal Heating: 09/19/16

19/09/2016

Many Car Brands Emit More Pollution Than Volkswagen, Report Finds

The Guardian - Zoe Wood

Diesel cars by Fiat, Suzuki and Renault among makers emitting up to fifteen times European standard for nitrogen oxide

Land Rover, Nissan, Opel/Vauxhall, Hyundai and Mercedes-Benz were also named among some of the worst for NOx emissions. Photograph: PA

A year on from the "Dieselgate" scandal that engulfed Volkswagen, damning new research reveals that all major diesel car brands, including Fiat, Vauxhall and Suzuki, are selling models that emit far higher levels of pollution than the shamed German carmaker.
The car industry has faced fierce scrutiny since the US government ordered Volkswagen to recall almost 500,000 cars in 2015 after discovering it had installed illegal software on its diesel vehicles to cheat emissions tests. But a new in-depth study by campaign group Transport & Environment (T&E) found not one brand complies with the latest "Euro 6" air pollution limits when driven on the road and that Volkswagen is far from being the worst offender.
"We've had this focus on Volkswagen as a 'dirty carmaker' but when you look at the emissions of other manufacturers you find there are no really clean carmakers," says Greg Archer, clean vehicles director at T&E. "Volkswagen is not the carmaker producing the diesel cars with highest nitrogen oxides emissions and the failure to investigate other companies brings disgrace on the European regulatory system."
T&E analysed emissions test data from around 230 diesel car models to rank the worst performing car brands based on their emissions in real-world driving conditions. Fiat and Suzuki (which use Fiat engines) top the list with their newest diesels, designed to meet Euro 6 requirements, spewing out 15 times the NOx limit; while Renault-Nissan vehicle emissions were judged to be more than 14 times higher. General Motors' brands Opel-Vauxhall also fared badly with emissions found to be 10 times higher than permitted levels.
The new models are not breaking the law and the manufacturers say they comply with all current regulations. But cars are are able to be on the road because of the difference between emissions produced in lab tests and real on-road driving situations.

The dirtiest manufacturer of Euro 6 vehicles: Average breach as a multiple

Brands with an asterisk have been counted with their parent company to get a big enough sample. This comment concerns Alfa Romeo, Dacia, DS, Fiat, Infiniti, Land Rover and Nissan. Suzuki is counted with Alfa Romeo and Fiat because the Japanese car maker users Fiat's Diesel engines for its models. The tested Infiniti model uses Renault's Diesel engine and not one from Mercedes- Benz, hence Infiniti is counted with its parent company, Nissan. Euro 6: permitted level of NOx is maximum of 0.08g/km. Guardian graphic | Source: Transport & Environment.

Since September 2015 new diesel cars have had to comply with a new European exhaust emissions standard called Euro 6 which set a limit of 0.08g per km. The new rules heralded a significant reduction from the previous "Euro 5" standard which allowed 0.18g per km. NOx pollution is considered to be a serious public health risk, causing the early deaths of 23,500 people a year in the UK alone.
The report – which also drew on data from investigations conducted by the British, French and German governments, as well as a large public database – surprisingly found Volkswagen to be selling among the cleanest diesel vehicles under the Euro 6 rules. Archer says this was not, however, evidence of the carmaker "learning its lesson" as these models were available before last year's scandal broke. The Dieselgate engines were mostly of the previous Euro 5 era which were sold between 2011 and 2015.

Non-compliance with Euro 5 NOx emission limits: Average breach as a multiple

Brands with an asterisk have been counted with their parent company to get a big enough sample. Euro 5: permitted level of NOx is maximum of 0.18g/km. Guardian graphic | Source: Transport & Environment.

T&E estimates that there are 29m "dirty" diesel cars and vans on Europe's roads – a number that is still growing – with 4.3m of them being driven in the UK. The group classify a car as "dirty" if emissions are more than three times over the relevant NOx limit. Archer argues that a mass recall of dirty Euro 5 and 6 vehicles is required given the average lifetime of a car is 17 years. "Software upgrades could easily be implemented to ensure the exhaust systems operate in normal driving conditions as the law clearly states," he argues.
For Euro 5 vehicles, the five worst performing companies were, in order of the highest emissions: Renault (including Dacia), Land Rover, Hyundai, Opel/Vauxhall (including Chevrolet) and Nissan. For current Euro 6 cars a different pattern emerges. The worst performers are: Fiat (including Alfa Romeo) and Suzuki (to whom Fiat supply engines), Renault (including Nissan, Dacia and Infiniti), Opel/Vauxhall, Hyundai and Mercedes-Benz.
Last month French investigators said they had found that a large number of diesel cars emitted much higher levels of pollution than their European manufacturers claim. According to the independent committee's report, around a third of the 86 diesel vehicles tested produced levels of NOx well above European limits. The results echo similar findings in tests by the UK's Department for Transport.
In a statement Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) said an internal review had confirmed that its diesel engine applications complied with emissions regulation. It added: "The EU is working towards the adoption of a new testing procedure to bring it closer to what one would expect under real driving conditions. FCA supports these efforts and welcomes the introduction of new regulations which should provide clarity for customers and the industry."
Mike Hawes, chief executive of the UK trade body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said the tests conducted by various governments had consistently shown the tested vehicles to be legal. "The differences between official laboratory tests and those performed in the 'real world' are well known, and industry acknowledges the need for fundamental reform," he added.
A spokesperson for Hyndai said the company meets all current regulatory standards: "New Euro 6 cars are built using the best available technology to comply with these regulations and they produce less NOx emissions than their predecessors. Hyundai Motor takes environmental compliance extremely seriously and is committed to meeting forthcoming new targets and to significantly improving the environmental performance of its vehicles."
Renault, Opel/Vauxhall, Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover and Nissan did not respond to requests for comment on the report.
The EU has tightened emissions regulations and from September 2017 diesels that emit more than double the lab limit for NOx on the road will be banned from sale. Hawes added that next year's introduction of an on-road Real Driving Emissions (RDE) test, as well as tougher lab tests, would help to provide consumers with the "reassurance that manufacturers are delivering on air quality".

Links

Interminable Climate Argument Is Costing Us Solutions For Our Future

Climate Institute - John Connor*

It is fair to say that people are getting fairly tired of the climate change debate in Australia.
Whenever the issue emerges, all you see and hear is heated disagreement. Usually name calling then ensues - "environment evangelists", "big polluters" and political "sell outs" become all too common catch phrases. These are points that avoid addressing the fundamentals of what we are trying to achieve.
That is, to make effective, pragmatic decisions and to take action now that will address the economic and safety challenges climate change is confronting us with. It's not a difficult concept. And we have to play a credible part in assisting the rest of the world to do this.
Yet, over the last week, we have seen tiresome name calling return after the Climate Change Authority - the Parliament's climate change advisory group - released a report that suggested a fresh approach to these decisions and actions.
It was asked to outline a pathway for the current Parliament to agree on a policy framework that would actually stop Australia's emissions from continuing to increase, so they would start to fall, in line with the international commitments Australia has made under the Paris climate agreement last year. This is an agreement around 180 countries of the world have entered into in an historic attempt to deliver economic prosperity and safety to all of us.
This report was quickly followed by a dissenting report from two of the Authority's own members, which stated that the Climate Change Authority had not gone far enough and had made compromises for political expediency. They said it had failed in its own mandate to provide rigorous independent science-based advice to the Australian community.
The merry go round continued. Once again we fell into discussing the merits of "emissions intensity schemes" and other arcane policy solutions.
Once again, the real discussion about the fundamentals we are trying to achieve, and the ability of the Climate Change Authority's proposals to achieve them, was drowned out by contentious debate.
Where was the discussion about their effectiveness in helping us deliver the future we would all like to see come to fruition? Does the proposal allow for us to reduce emissions in line with avoiding the very severe climate impacts on our families, communities and economies? Did it set a clear and timely direction for replacing our aging coal-burning electricity generators with clean energy? Does it allow us to stand up proudly with the rest of the international community and do what we said we would do at the Paris conference last year? These are the fundamentals.
We have failed to learn the mistakes of the past. People want to understand the outcomes of the policy, not its details. This was a major undoing of the previous carbon mechanism. Yes, people had concerns about its impact on the cost of living, but they also did not understand what they were paying for - lower emissions and more renewable energy that would help us stop temperatures from continuing to climb so we can limit global warming. To do this, the world has agreed we need to get to net zero emissions.
The Climate Institute did raise concerns about the Climate Change Authority's report. The reality is that, despite some useful suggestions, its proposals do not deal with these fundamental issues.
In just over a few years time the government, on our behalf, will be asked to stand with the USA, China, and the rest of international community, to demonstrate how we are on a path to zero net emissions. Yet, the Authority has ignored this. It does not put forward proposals that give us the option of boosting greater renewable energy, combined with other climate change solutions, that would mean we could meet this goal.
Similarly, the dissenting report may be based in science, but many of the policy proposals it puts forward are not realistic in the short-term.
We must stop acting as if there has to be a trade-off between being science-based and developing policies that can address the political and economic constraints we know exist in tackling climate change.
Power companies, local communities, environmental groups and unions all want a clear plan to replace our aging coal-burning power stations. The shift to clean energy is now unstoppable but we can't plan for the future unless we have clarity on the path we are going down. The market, by itself, is not fit to deal with this challenge and the changes required for workers and the community.
So here we are yet again. The release of the reports over the last week has been another great missed opportunity to bring the debate into the space of principled pragmatism. People are understandably fed up with it all. Unfortunately, while we shake our heads and argue, our emissions continue to rise, and we continue to miss out on the economic opportunities that effective action would bring while the rest of the world is getting on with it.

*John Connor is CEO of The Climate Institute. Whilst qualified as a lawyer, John has spent over twenty years working in a variety of policy and advocacy roles with organisations including World Vision, Make Poverty History, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the NSW Nature Conservation Council.

Adani Carmichael Coalmine Faces New Legal Challenge From Conservation Foundation

The Guardian - Joshua Robertson

Foundation appeals against ruling that endorsed mine's approval by the commonwealth

An Adani plant in India. The president of the Australian Conservation Foundation said Australia's national environment protection laws were 'broken' if the minister could approve the mine. Photograph: Sam Panthaky/AFP/Getty Images

The Australian Conservation Foundation has renewed its legal challenge to Adani's Carmichael mine, appealing against a federal court ruling that endorsed its approval by the commonwealth.
The ACF on Monday lodged an appeal against last month's decision, which found the then federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, was entitled to find the impact on global warming and the Great Barrier Reef from the Queensland mine's 4.6bn tonnes of carbon emissions "speculative".
The president of the ACF, Geoff Cousins, said Australia's national environment protection laws were "broken" if the minister could approve "a mega-polluting coalmine – the biggest in Australia's history – and claim it will have no impact on the global warming and the reef".
"If our environment laws are too weak to actually protect Australia's unique species and places, they effectively give companies like Adani a licence to kill," Cousins said.
"Be in no doubt, Adani's Carmichael proposal is massive and will lock in decades of damaging climate pollution if it goes ahead, further wrecking the reef.
"The science is clear that we can have coal or the reef – but we can't have both."The Queensland Resources Council applauded the court's rejection of the original ACF challenge, saying it was a "nonsense case" akin to holding the Saudi Arabian government responsible for emissions from Australian cars running on their oil.
The ACF argued Hunt had made an "error of law" by not factoring in the impact of overseas "combustion" of the coal over the 60-year life of the mine.
Hunt had found it was "not possible to draw robust conclusions on the likely contribution of the project to a specific increase in global temperature".
It was therefore "difficult to identify the necessary relationship between the taking of the action and any possible impacts on relevant matters of national environmental significance".
Justice John Griffiths ruled it was "plain that the minister did give consideration to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the combustion emissions and made an express finding that the proposed action would not have an unacceptable impact on the world heritage values of the reef".
Cousins said Griffiths had acknowledged "considerable public interest" in the case and ACF was "in no doubt that we represent the concerns of the majority of Australians".
He referred to a ReachTel survey of 2,600 Australians around the same time as the federal court ruling showing 81% backed stronger national environment laws and 75% backed environment groups' right to bring legal challenges to mining projects.
"And 75% support environment groups' right to use legal avenues to uphold existing environmental laws.
"It comes down to this. The planet-warming pollution from Adani's coalmine threatens the reef and all living things. The [ACF] does not accept this future – and we will take all reasonable steps we can to stop this mine."
The ACF awaits a hearing date.

Links