So; do we all feel dirty?

[aussiblue]

https://www.sciencealert.com/cars-in...than-elsewhere

Cars in One Country Are Emitting Way More CO2 Than Elsewhere
Society
25 February 2024
By Robin Smit, The Conversation
Cars In Tunnel Appear In Red Light (Christian Adams/Getty Images)

Australian passenger vehicles are emitting 50% more carbon dioxide (CO₂) than the average of the world's major markets. And the real-world situation is even worse than official figures show.

That's the finding of a new study comparing the CO₂ emissions performance of cars, SUVs and light commercial vehicles in Australia and overseas.

The comparison suggests Australia will probably fall well short of the economy-wide 2050 net-zero emission target for road transport. To hit the target, policies to cut vehicle emissions have to be intensified and supported by a range of other policies.

This month, the Australian government announced options for a New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) – not to be confused with the National Electric Vehicle Strategy (NEVS). Each option would set a national limit on grams of CO₂ that can be emitted for each kilometre driven, averaged across all new cars sold.

Mandatory CO₂ emission or fuel-efficiency standards are internationally recognised as a fundamental building block to cut transport emissions.

To provide further context and input to the development of an Australian standard, Australia-based Transport Energy/Emission Research (TER) and the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) collaborated on a newly published briefing paper.

The independent analysis shows the urgent need for Australia to adopt a stringent, well-designed and mandatory fuel-efficiency standard. This standard and additional policies are essential to keep up with technological advances and decarbonisation in other developed countries.
How did we fall so far behind?

Both fuel efficiency and emission standards aim for roughly the same thing: cutting fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, they also cut fuel costs for consumers and improve energy security.

About 85% of the global light vehicle market has adopted these standards over time, in some cases decades ago. The United States, European Union, Canada, United Kingdom, Japan, China, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, New Zealand, Chile and India all have them. Australia and Russia are the two exceptions in the developed world.

Australia has a long history of debate about making such standards mandatory for passenger and light commercial vehicles. The federal government has released six public consultation documents since 2008, without achieving mandatory standards. This is about to change.

Australia has had voluntary standards since 1978. These targets have not always been met due to lack of enforcement. They have been criticised for lacking both ambition and effectiveness in reducing real-world emissions.

It appears the government's current proposal will be more ambitious. It potentially aims to converge with US targets in 2027 – though falling short of what is being done in Europe. The Australian standard's effectiveness in achieving genuine emission reductions and net zero emissions in 2050 will still need to be examined once the design and details are clearer.
How does Australia compare using official figures?

The new study compared the officially reported CO₂ emissions performance of passenger and light commercial vehicles in Australia, China, the EU, Japan and the US. We found CO₂ emissions from the Australian passenger vehicles were 53% higher than the average of these major markets in 2021.
Officially reported fleet average emissions performance for new passenger vehicles, comparing Australia with four major markets. (TER and ICCT, 2024)

Importantly, without effective action, this performance gap is expected to grow in future years. That's because these other markets are moving to aggressively adopt standards that drive the transition to a low-or-zero-emissions vehicle fleet.
How does Australia compare in reality?

The official Australian figures are based on a test protocol called the New European Drive Cycle (NEDC). It was developed in the early 1970s.

The main problem is that the difference between NEDC test results and actual on-road emissions has steadily increased. Actual on-road emissions were estimated to be about 10% higher in 2007, growing to over 45% in 2021.

Indeed, the EU no longer uses the outdated NEDC protocol. It has adopted a more realistic test procedure, the Worldwide Harmonised Light-Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP).

The briefing paper used previous research into Australian and international real-world emissions performance to create a more accurate comparison. Whereas the official figures suggest newly sold Australian passenger vehicles have relatively high emissions, at least they appear to have improved each year. The picture is very different when we look at on-road emissions.
Estimated real-world fleet average emissions for new passenger vehicles, comparing Australia with four major markets. (TER and ICCT 2024)

Our estimates suggest emissions from newly sold Australian passenger vehicles have actually been rising since 2015. This trend is a result of increasing vehicle size and weight, a shift towards more four-wheel-drive SUVs and large utes, and a lack of mandatory standards or targets.

The Australian real-world emissions performance is also much worse than in the four major markets. Before 2016 the average difference was around 20% higher on average. By 2021, Australian emissions were almost 50% higher for passenger vehicles.
What does this mean for policy?

Our analysis shows both officially reported and actual on-road CO₂ emissions from new Australian light-duty vehicles are much higher than in other developed nations. The available evidence suggests this poor performance will get worse without stringent mandatory standards in place.

The good news is that the government is acting on the lack of an effective standard. Mandatory standards will likely be adopted this year. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard is due to take effect in 2025.

However, the standard must be carefully designed to achieve genuine emission reductions for new vehicles.

For instance, the official Australian test protocol (NEDC) is outdated and increasingly underestimates on-road emissions. It provides an unrealistic and skewed picture, undermining effective emission reduction. The government says it intends to adopt a more realistic test protocol.

The standards should also include on-board monitoring of fuel consumption – as the EU is now doing. It's vital to measure real-world fuel efficiency and emissions of new vehicles and to make this information public to ensure standards are achieving their goals. But the latest government report didn't mention it.

A mandatory fuel-efficiency standard is long overdue in Australia. It can help close the performance gap between Australia and the rest of the world. So we'd better make sure it works.

Robin Smit, Adjunct Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney

[Franco Cozzo]

Who cares, it's our country and we'll do what we see fit for our own people.

You know what's a huge driver for environmental damage and climate change? Overpopulation of the planet.

But I haven't seen anyone address that huge elephant in the room?

I reckon if we stop pulling in 500,000+ migrants into Australia every year we'll reduce our environmental impact as a country by having sustainable population growth.

[None-ya]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Who cares, it's our country and we'll do what we see fit for our own people.

You know what's a huge driver for environmental damage and climate change? Overpopulation of the planet.

But I haven't seen anyone address that huge elephant in the room?

I reckon if we stop pulling in 500,000+ migrants into Australia every year we'll reduce our environmental impact as a country by having sustainable population growth.

[DELETED].

Just make some A.I. self learning bot Android thingys and just DONT code them to not hurt humans. Won't take them long to realise the greatest treat to humanity. . . . Is humanity.

[Citroënbender]

We’re not fostering practical infrastructure or initiatives that mitigate single-occupant use of cars.

Reducing migration could allow transport infrastructure to catch up with housing spread, and genuine decentralisation would also work wonders (it always fails because the top dogs want an office at the perceived big end of town). Snobbery against regional Australia is a real impediment. Firm steps to globalise our trading economy by committing to genuine, mandated “24/7 precincts” could also work - many people’s tasks are not needed to be bound by the clock or working week. That could take a huge bite out of traffic jams.

[T3rminator]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

You know what's a huge driver for environmental damage and climate change? Overpopulation of the planet.

But I haven't seen anyone address that huge elephant in the room?

Bill, is that you?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Who cares, it's our country and we'll do what we see fit for our own people.

You know what's a huge driver for environmental damage and climate change? Overpopulation of the planet.

But I haven't seen anyone address that huge elephant in the room?

I reckon if we stop pulling in 500,000+ migrants into Australia every year we'll reduce our environmental impact as a country by having sustainable population growth.

A few facts on that net migration figure:

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/pe...ecords%20began.

Temporary visa holders were the largest contributors to arrivals in 2022-23.
Of the temporary visa holders, the largest group was international students (283,000).
Other temporary visa holders include working holiday makers (70,000) and temporary skilled (49,000).

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by jpd80

A few facts on that net migration figure:

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/pe...ecords%20began.

Temporary visa holders were the largest contributors to arrivals in 2022-23.
Of the temporary visa holders, the largest group was international students (283,000).
Other temporary visa holders include working holiday makers (70,000) and temporary skilled (49,000).

They all eat, shit, use power and have to live somewhere regardless what the piece of paper says, so your point is irrelevant

[aussiblue]

Who cares, it's our country and we'll do what we see fit for our own people.

You know what's a huge driver for environmental damage and climate change? Overpopulation of the planet.

But I haven't seen anyone address that huge elephant in the room?

I reckon if we stop pulling in 500,000+

Some might argue that's it's not our country but something stolen from the people here before the Europeans arrived. And there is no question that we are all immigrants if we go back just a few generations and in many cases less

[None-ya]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Some might argue that's it's not our country but something stolen from the people here before the Europeans arrived. And there is no question that we are all immigrants if we go back just a few generations and in many cases less

Really wanna say something but I'm already in trouble

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Some might argue that's it's not our country but something stolen from the people here before the Europeans arrived. And there is no question that we are all immigrants if we go back just a few generations and in many cases less

And we all got to vote on that a couple months ago and the country told them to **** off - good riddance.

Originally Posted by kypez

No, I don't feel dirty living in Australia but we'd be wise not to let it get to that point before we think we need to act.

Go for a walk through Melbourne CBD and you'll change your mind, unless you enjoy the smell of **** and homeless junkies

Originally Posted by roKWiz

As for sugarcane do we use it for much ethanol production in Oz ?

We use some sort of grain I believe, thats what united used to advertise on their website.

[fatgas]

Dirty... not in the slightest.

Let's deal with China and India first, what they put into the atmosphere and their soils (type and quantity) make what Australia does look like one of my morning farts after a night on the turps. Vast swathes of both China and India are so heavily polluted (both atmospheric and soil), it would take an act of god/Buddha/Krishna/Dave from accounting, to clean it up.

Fecal matter like that "story" serves one purpose, to guilt people into swallowing the green agenda without giving a second thought, hell any thought, to the tripe they are pushing on the world.

[PG2]

WOW!

How people refer to other people that have the appearance of another nationality when in private is their business, however, AFF will not tolerate that sort of behaviour. As aussieblue alluded to in now a deleted post, it is not just an AFF rule it is the law.

[None-ya]

Originally Posted by PG2

WOW!

How people refer to other people that have the appearance of another nationality when in private is their business, however, AFF will not tolerate that sort of behaviour. As aussieblue alluded to in now a deleted post, it is not just an AFF rule it is the law.

I tried to edit it. And apologise in advance for the term

[kypez]

Before we get all high and mighty about India and China, they actually pollute quite low per capita. It is that they have huge populations from being older civilisations. Australia and especially USA have grown much more rapidly. Who knows how India and China would've fared today had the Brits not stuffed the places.

The focus on CO2 is also only part of the pie as well.

No, I don't feel dirty living in Australia but we'd be wise not to let it get to that point before we think we need to act.

[fatgas]

Originally Posted by kypez

Before we get all high and mighty about India and China, they actually pollute quite low per capita. It is that they have huge populations from being older civilisations. Australia and especially USA have grown much more rapidly. Who knows how India and China would've fared today had the Brits not stuffed the places.

The focus on CO2 is also only part of the pie as well.

No, I don't feel dirty living in Australia but we'd be wise not to let it get to that point before we think we need to act.

First, I don't consider carbon dioxide to be a pollutant/hazard. Without it, there would be no life on Earth.

Whilst their per capita numbers appear to be low, even if they are accurate they are very quickly catching up to the US and Europe. When that happens (and with the actual nasties they emit like it was going out of fashion), Australia won't even be a statistical margin of error entry.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by fatgas

First, I don't consider carbon dioxide to be a pollutant/hazard. Without it, there would be no life on Earth.

Whilst their per capita numbers appear to be low, even if they are accurate they are very quickly catching up to the US and Europe. When that happens (and with the actual nasties they emit like it was going out of fashion), Australia won't even be a statistical margin of error entry.

To be fair, they are pushing to EV/CNG and trying to phase out diesel in a hurry. Just on their food habits (especially India) and China putting in policies around how much meat they consume (God bless their communism), they're putting the brakes on hard. Europe has some sick fetish with diesel (much like we do) and the US just consumes like crazy.

We are tiny on the global scale but I'd hate to see our air quality even remotely get to the levels of US cities or many European cities.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by fatgas

First, I don't consider carbon dioxide to be a pollutant/hazard. Without it, there would be no life on Earth.

Whilst their per capita numbers appear to be low, even if they are accurate they are very quickly catching up to the US and Europe. When that happens (and with the actual nasties they emit like it was going out of fashion), Australia won't even be a statistical margin of error entry.

Spot on. CO2 is plant food, it's not a pollutant/hazard.

HCs & Oxides of Nitrogen, along with Diesel particulates are a hazard to humans.

Dr Terry

[kypez]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

Spot on. CO2 is plant food, it's not a pollutant/hazard.



HCs & Oxides of Nitrogen, along with Diesel particulates are a hazard to humans.



Dr Terry

Yep. That's what I was alluding to with my comment as well about CO2 being only part of the story. But building a world for plants might be at the exclusion of us.

[roKWiz]

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

Spot on. CO2 is plant food, it's not a pollutant/hazard.

HCs & Oxides of Nitrogen, along with Diesel particulates are a hazard to humans.

Dr Terry

It becomes a greenhouse gas when there is far too much of it in the atmosphere and cannot be absorbed.

[roKWiz]

I know no one reads the truck threads on this forums...
but here are my thoughts on diesel and where it all went wrong.

The post was showing a large old simply diesel engine which can easily run on Coconut oil or many other variants against another picture showing a complicated electronically controlled diesel bogged down with all the modern emission systems of today.

My whole point about the simplicity of the diesel engine and what the man (Rudoph Diesel) who designed and built it for was to run on coconut oil and veggie oil.

Once the petroleum industry got hold of it and ruined the original concept, we now have this problem which really didn't exist until we made it up.

Imagine if manufacturers and governments followed the principle of developing these natural farmed oils as the engine was intended for, instead of going down this route of completely stuffing up its designed efficiencies and smothering it in electronic BS it didn't need.

Its a well proven fact bio fuels and natural oils can run these engines well and economically but no we had to go down the stupid human path of over complication to fit an agenda.

Seems most of society will just follow what governments, big pharma and corporations, to tell them how to live, what they think they need to know and nothing more.
I'm sticking with mechanical injection and bio fuels thanks.
Euro 5 6 7 can blow.

It's just another case of going down the wrong path imo.

We had plenty of chances to build a strong biodiesel economy in the country by growing the fuel here and becoming fuel independent of imports.

Yes but this will take away valuable food land to grow it
Other countries have successfully grown Jatropha, sunflower and Rape seed crop on infertile farm lands away from coastal rain fall regions using pumped waste water inland to supply the crops.
Yes but it still takes away land for food
Last time I checked 100s of millions of acres of valuable farming land was destroyed under the guise of growing a product which is p*ssed up against the wall every weekend and only serves one purpose, getting drunk. Somehow this became a necessary industry and not a secure fuel source for Australia.

As for sugarcane do we use it for much ethanol production in Oz ?

So personally I don't feel dirty.

[Dr Terry]

Originally Posted by Wretched

It becomes a greenhouse gas when there is far too much of it in the atmosphere and cannot be absorbed.

Without getting too political, most of the greenhouse crap is just that. Is the supposed warming due to an increase in CO2, or is the CO2 level rising because of a slight increase in global temperatures, show me a pic of anywhere on the globe where there has the sea level has risen noticeably.

I'm all for reducing real air & water pollution, but all this "Climate Change Emergency" rubbish has got way out of hand.

The whole Al Gore Climate Change fiasco just keeps the climate nazis in employment & the working population poor.

Dr Terry

[ivorya]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

Spot on. CO2 is plant food, it's not a pollutant/hazard.

HCs & Oxides of Nitrogen, along with Diesel particulates are a hazard to humans.

Dr Terry

Yes it is a plant food but has shown to stunt tree growth when levels do get to high and even kill them, A CSIRO study in the 90's showed this.

It's like saying water is needed to keep you alive. Yes it is but if you drink to much, you can/will die.

[Franco Cozzo]

Bring back lead in paint and asbestos

[smoo]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Bring back lead in paint and asbestos

Yeah, follow the science.

[CyberWasp]

Yes we have a big problem with air quality in Australia.

One of these photos shows Australia's largest and dirtiest city compared to another countries largest and dirtiest city.

I can see the problem.

[Tonz]

years ago Adelaide university 'proved by research' that meat pies where the most nutrisonal thing that any human could eat.
prooving that any research can be biased towards the benefactor. Id suggest the same goes for the first statement.
Who promoted it? who financed the 'research'?

[aussiblue]

I don’t think that anybody who has even a rudimentary understanding of science can really believe that climate change is not happening and that it’s not and issue for all humanity. See https://www.inverse.com/science/6143...change-deniers and https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1019082702.htm etc for more.

I do feel guilty and a little dirty about my petrol driven cars. But EV's are not the answer in terms of the being “green” either https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ev-e...rint-1.5394126 etc.

It would be nice if we could a better way to use hydrogen from water as our planet has plenty of that and it doesn't have to clean or salt free to make hydrogen. Of course getting hydrogen from water by electrolysis is a trivial exercise; the problem is that in most applications the energy used for the electrolysis exceeds the energy that can be generated by a motor using the hydrogen so produced. In my view, solar powered bulk hydrogen generation would seem the best option for Australia. Certainly there is yet no (and in my view never likely to be) any practical and efficient way to produce hydrogen in a car to be used to power its’ own ICC engine.

The big problem I think is that both of our major political parties are captured by the sponsorships they receive from the coal, oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers and their associated polluting plastics industry.

If some of billions being spent on ineffective defence strategies that will just enrich foreign aircraft, submarines and other ineffective defence strategies (see /listen to today’s 7am podcast https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...g-the-military ) was spent on a National solar/hydrogen green energy strategy I think we could turn things around. Yes we need a new defence strategy but I don't think either parties proposal are what is needed.

We also need to tighten up on the existing rules and clamp down on those who modify their vehicles making them dirtier by removing catalytic converters, ERG and DPF systems etc. I have never seen WA EPA or WA Police do a roadside test of cars yet.

Yes, I know the fossil fuel industry is a big employer (especially here in WA) and export earner but there is a bigger picture we need to address.

[Cav]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I don’t think that anybody who has even a rudimentary understanding of science can really believe that climate change is not happening and that it’s not and issue for all humanity. See https://www.inverse.com/science/6143...change-deniers and https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1019082702.htm etc for more.

I do feel guilty and a little dirty about my petrol driven cars. But EV's are not the answer in terms of the being “green” either https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ev-e...rint-1.5394126 etc.

It would be nice if we could a better way to use hydrogen from water as our planet has plenty of that and it doesn't have to clean or salt free to make hydrogen. Of course getting hydrogen from water by electrolysis is a trivial exercise; the problem is that in most applications the energy used for the electrolysis exceeds the energy that can be generated by a motor using the hydrogen so produced. In my view, solar powered bulk hydrogen generation would seem the best option for Australia. Certainly there is yet no (and in my view never likely to be) any practical and efficient way to produce hydrogen in a car to be used to power its’ own ICC engine.

The big problem I think is that both of our major political parties are captured by the sponsorships they receive from the coal, oil, gas and other fossil fuel producers and their associated polluting plastics industry.

If some of billions being spent on ineffective defence strategies that will just enrich foreign aircraft, submarines and other ineffective defence strategies (see /listen to today’s 7am podcast https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...g-the-military ) was spent on a National solar/hydrogen green energy strategy I think we could turn things around. Yes we need a new defence strategy but I don't think either parties proposal are what is needed.

We also need to tighten up on the existing rules and clamp down on those who modify their vehicles making them dirtier by removing catalytic converters, ERG and DPF systems etc. I have never seen WA EPA or WA Police do a roadside test of cars yet.

Yes, I know the fossil fuel industry is a big employer (especially here in WA) and export earner but there is a bigger picture we need to address.

I know I'm going to regret this

But

There is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is the cause of a warming planet.

It is only a theory.

Let's not confuse carbon with pollution.

100 years ago every scientist on the planet agreed with Eugenics until they were mugged by reality.

The same will happen with global warming/climate change/global boiling.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Cav

I know I'm going to regret this

But

There is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is the cause of a warming planet.

It is only a theory.

Let's not confuse carbon with pollution.

100 years ago every scientist on the planet agreed with Eugenics until they were mugged by reality.

The same will happen with global warming/climate change/global boiling.

ah huh, what's your point? 2000 years ago humans believed the earth was the centre of the universe, until, you know, science and facts proved otherwise.
Science evolves as facts are discovered. Things like satellites have helped significantly measure the changes in the atmosphere.

Here's a good link, will help many forum members here at a level they will understand