Australian Conservation Fund Calls for Mandatory Efficiency

[mikmak]

Australian Conservation Foundation Calling For Mandatory Fuel Efficiency Standards

The Motor Report

THE AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION Fund (ACF) is calling for the Federal Government to make fuel efficiency standards mandatory for all new cars sold in Australia.

Seeking standards equivalent "at least" to those in Europe, ACF representative Gail Broadbent said the Government’s current requirement that all new cars bear a sticker outlining the vehicle’s economy and emissions figures is not enough.

“Australian cars should meet at least the European standard and should meet mandatory targets for alternative fuels on a greenhouse weighted basis, without favouring particular technologies or fuels," Ms Broadbent said.
Ms Broadbent described the Australian car industry’s failure to meet voluntary efficiency targets in 1983, 1987 and 2000 as concerning, and said that the industry is again unlikely to meet a 2010 agreement to achieve an average fuel efficiency of 6.8 l/100km.

Link

[Beau]

Uh oh, here we go.
You just read the death of cars in Austrailia because their government wants to be like Obama. A moran. Yes, breathe in the ironing. :]

[fp115]

Say bye to all the nice cars that have been coming out of Aussieland lately.

[Suziebob]

Or maybe the Australians could strive to improve the fuel economy of their cars to meet their own governments regulations without taking the easy way out and making them all front wheel drive penalty boxes?

[BBDOS CV8]

They're right to an extent. But market forces are driving that anyway. The majority of Australians are in favour of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And smaller-engined more-economical vehicles are voluntarily being sought.

The ACF do good work protecting endangered species and habtats and raising environmental awareness but they are a voluntary organisation and do not mandate anything. Most people here would be all for not wasting fuel or creating unnecessary emissions. Like I'm sure they would be in the US.

It's government policy to foster green tech and that's one reason Holden is getting government funds to build a small car here.

[V8GMT360 Guy]

Originally Posted by Beau

Uh oh, here we go.
You just read the death of cars in Austrailia because their government wants to be like Obama. A moran. Yes, breathe in the ironing. :]

Moran? Ironing? Go back to 4chan with that crap...

[AMERICA 123]

Why oh why is everyone beating around the bush on the underlying issue ?

Clearly the root solution involves altering the effects of gravity - that is what is keeping all the undesirable stuff 'in' and I'll bet if you were to check, it is also keeping the "evil doers' on the face of this planet as well.

[mattyman1010]

Boo the ACF! - that is all I have to say on this matter.

[redTT]

Originally Posted by mikmak

Australian Conservation Foundation Calling For Mandatory Fuel Efficiency Standards

“Australian cars should meet at least the European standard and should meet mandatory targets for alternative fuels on a greenhouse weighted basis, without favouring particular technologies or fuels," Ms Broadbent said.

Ms Broadbent described the Australian car industry’s failure to meet voluntary efficiency targets in 1983, 1987 and 2000 as concerning, and said that the industry is again unlikely to meet a 2010 agreement to achieve an average fuel efficiency of 6.8 l/100km.

Link

What do they want a car with little green house footprint or a car that is frugal on fuel?

If they want a car with a good footprint then they should at least do their studies properly and look at the whole vehicle life cycle, taking into account material extraction, parts creation and transportation of overseas vehicles etc. They MUST also assess the environmental hazards caused by battery/electric cars, including the carbon footprint of coal power generation in Australia.

In my view the best car and that have the least footprint would be an Australian made LPG powered car like the LPG dedicated Ford Falcon or even a similar Holden.

[Brenie]

Originally Posted by redTT

What do they want a car with little green house footprint or a car that is frugal on fuel?

If they want a car with a good footprint then they should at least do their studies properly and look at the whole vehicle life cycle, taking into account material extraction, parts creation and transportation of overseas vehicles etc. They MUST also assess the environmental hazards caused by battery/electric cars, including the carbon footprint of coal power generation in Australia.

In my view the best car and that have the least footprint would be an Australian made LPG powered car like the LPG dedicated Ford Falcon or even a similar Holden.

You are so right, but people like Ms Broadbent thinks Hybrids grow in rainforests and are completely ignorant of what goes into thier manufacture, now they are proposing Hybrid only lanes and carparks !

[msitter]

This is all part of the libs one world order. If you can't get everyone to behave like you want then give them a penalty or take something away. Obviously the new car buyer is not all that enthralled with the ecobox choices available or they would be flying out of dealers lots. So, instead of making them better, they will just remove those "improper, uninformed" choices. Just as in America, Australia will now see the heavy hand of the ecoweanies. Kind of sad. The idea is that if you can get the US and Australia to fall into the failed ecopolicies of the EU, then it removes the competitive edge over the EU that we now enjoy. Canada is almost there. America is trying hard but just can't get all those pesky conservatives to fall into line. People wonder why all the factories are moving to China and India. Look to your elected officials, they are the ones who are making it possible with all these restrictive policies and laws.

[jbernie]

It should not be the responsability of government to in effect legislate what car we as a consumer buy or as an automotive manufacturer build. Government should encourage people to buy more efficent vehicles through means such as higher gas taxes, lower registration fees, lower taxes/higher rebates and the like where by the consumer is financially encouraged but not required to buy the more efficent car.

If companies were not interested in improving efficency then Holden certainly would not have made the upgrades they just did to the Commodore where by they reduced the power in some models to improve fuel economy.

Reality says that Special Interest Groups can mouth off all they like about how industries should do things to meet the desires of said SIG, but when it comes to paying for the required changes few people are willing to do it. Unless you move the whole industry as one (i.e. new CAFE numbers) few if any manufacturers will be willing to make the first move as they will need to price their product higher than the competitors which automatically makes their product less desirable.

[johnstarnes]

Originally Posted by V8GMT360 Guy

Moran? Ironing? Go back to 4chan with that crap...

Thank you! "Moran" was priceless.

[chinamonty]

The auto industry here set its own voluntary standards. They haven't met them so they will only have themselves to blame anyway. They had a chance but failed.I don't particularly agree with the ACF on this but having a standard of some type makes sense. I personally think we should not have bio-fuels in Australia. We have LPG and LNG we can use without diverting precious water in to growing fuel.

[mang01]

Originally Posted by jbernie

It should not be the responsability of government to in effect legislate what car we as a consumer buy or as an automotive manufacturer build. Government should encourage people to buy more efficent vehicles through means such as higher gas taxes, lower registration fees, lower taxes/higher rebates and the like where by the consumer is financially encouraged but not required to buy the more efficent car.

Tha Australian government has certainly taken this approach - "world parity oil pricing" for example. In South Australia where I live the Registration is
more expensive depending on the number of cylinders under the bonnet.
The US government chose CAFE and similar measures instead. Somewhat similar outcomes achieved but from the supply side rather than demand side. It means big investments by the makers but at least the lines are drawn in the sand far enough away for them to plan for them.
The Oz manner (demand side) entrusts more of "our money" to the government they claim to give us better roads etc. Debatable that that's really happened but that's the theory. And it's susceptible to the swings and roundabouts of the oil market i.e. every day it can change.
Supply side risks the outrage Americans feel when they are restricted in their choices but, again in theory, should promote the suppliers to improve the efficiency of their product at the risk of fines.
Something positive certainly happened between 1978 and now as far as vehicle efficiency goes but it's likely that much of the technology to achieve that (e.g. fuel injection, small turbos, space efficient design) came from Europe and Japan and I think they also had demand side (running costs naturally or artificially inflated) and supply side (CAFE style regulations) approachs respectively so probably neither side is proven better than the other by that.
The trouble comes IMO when they want both demand sides and supply side and essentially the ACF are asking for the latter on top of the former we already have.