These NOTES concern a single issue, one that you have probably never heard of – the proposed new EU regulation on reducing CO2 emissions from light commercial vehicles (vans). It’s a matter with which I am closely involved, and it highlights just how difficult it is to get governments to match their visionary words about the future with practical action here and now.

Chris Davies MEP

VANS – THE BATTLE TO RAISE STANDARDS

Even when you think you must be on a sure-fire winner a combination of commercial vested interests and short-sighted politicians can line up to defeat you. But in this case we’re not beaten yet!

The European Commission has proposed a regulation intended to reduce CO2 emissions from new vans and light commercial vehicles by 33% (to 135gCO2/km by 2020). I strongly support this. I’m confident that affordable technology exists to make it possible.

The protests from the vehicle manufacturers began as soon as the draft was published. They claim that they can’t do better than a 20% reduction over the next decade except at disproportionate cost.

Cynics might point out that these same manufacturers opposed measures requiring lead free petrol, catalytic converters, compulsory seat belts, rules for recycling end-of-life vehicles, and reductions in CO2 emissions from passenger cars, yet they comfortably met (or are meeting) the standards once introduced.

With such a track record you might think that the words “Cry Wolf!” would come to mind but alas not. The French and German governments have listened to the manufacturers and are challenging the Commission proposals. Major business organisations like the CBI, Confindustria and Business Europe are also calling for them to be diluted. The European Commission faces a tough fight.

The next round takes place in the European Parliament. The transport and industry committees have already voted, bowing in the direction of the vehicle makers, but it is my environment committee that leads on the issue and we don’t vote till mid-September. The result looks too close to call.

In charge of steering the legislation through the Parliament is North East Conservative MEP Martin Callanan (the rapporteur). His proposals were drawn up before the formation of the UK coalition government and describe the Commission’s 2020 target as “too ambitious.” To be fair, he is helpfully calling for the compulsory introduction of speed limiters on commercial vehicles, set at below 70 mph. (The manufacturers tend to install engines that are much more powerful than they need be; compulsory speed limiters will remove the incentive for this practice, reducing CO2 emissions at a stroke).

When we debated the subject in committee, German voices from the right were loud in attacking the Commission targets, but then found the tables turned when their most senior colleague broke ranks, declared that he was tired of the motor industry always opposing measures of this kind, and said that he knew perfectly well that the changes could be made. (He has been under pressure from colleagues since then to change his mind but I spoke to him last week and he told me that he was sticking to his position, so that should help break the ranks of the opposition).

The Commission’s plans have been taking a kicking. Part of the problem stems from its failure to present the proposals in a way best calculated to win political support.

The economic depression has forced the issue of global warming off the agenda of most politicians just at present; they are much more likely to want to defend jobs than insist that industry reduces CO2 emissions. But what has been missing from the discussion so far is that reducing CO2 and increasing fuel efficiency are one and the same thing. The Commission’s proposals will raise the fuel efficiency of vehicles by 33%. This will make them cheaper to operate and save scarce resources. Any increase in the purchase price should be offset within a couple of years by reductions in fuel costs.

Instead of gloom and more gloom, the Commisssion’s proposals should be regarded as ‘Win, Win, Win.’

This was the approach I took in the committee debate. I argued that far from the measures being a burden on industry they would prove a real benefit to it. They would reduce transport costs for business, promote competitiveness, and encourage innovation amongst vehicle manufacturers without which they will be lucky to survive the coming competitive threat from China.
Governments have been happy to sign up to the so-called EU2020 strategy which seeks to promote all of these things, yet the moment a measure is proposed that will give their words some practical effect they abandon the visionary approach and fall back into defensive mode.

I’ve been lending a helping hand to the Commission and doing some work to try and win backing for the proposals. I’ve managed to secure endorsements from the European Small Business Alliance and from the UK’s Federation of Small Businesses. In the run up to the votes in the European Parliament I shall use these to try and win support from MEPs and overturn the argument that the ‘pro-business’ position is to oppose the measures.

Meanwhile, in the Council of Ministers, the position of the UK government is likely to be crucial. Should it choose to do so, it could prevent the Commission proposals from being overturned. But as yet the coalition government hasn’t got an official position.

As Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne will have to represent the UK when the EU environment ministers meet, and I am told he is taking the same line as myself. But within government it is the Department for Transport that leads on the issue, and that is Conservative led. Civil servants there might be sympathetic but, as we have seen, the Conservative position in the European Parliament is less so. I have yet to hear what view is taken by Transport Secretary Philip Hammond, but I hope that Business Secretary Vince Cable can be encouraged to throw his weight behind the Commission position.

So that’s where we are as politics moves towards its summer hibernation. It’s frustrating that ‘the vision thing’ is so lacking, but there’s all to play for.

Chris Davies MEP

P.S. I’ve just read that the European Investment Bank has loaned £450m to Ford’s to help it develop a new petrol engine that will produce the same power as current models but will use 20% less fuel – enabling it to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% without downsizing or the use of any of the many technical improvements available on the market. Excellent. But is this the same Ford’s whose representatives told me in my office last week that the Commission’s proposals for 2020 van targets were simple not credible?!

(Chris Davies is the Liberal Democrat MEP for the North West of England)

   Leave a comment