Death by a thousand cuts?
A deal has been done on the law to restrict the carbon output of cars sold in Europe. But is it an "empty deal", a noble aspiration savaged by the short-sighted and selfish car industry and car-producing countries, as some environmentalists believe? Or is it "good for industry, good for the environment and good for jobs," as the Socialists say?
It's not yet written in stone. The European Parliament has to vote on it, and so do ministers from the EU's 27 countries. But the deal between senior MEPs and the French presidency is likely to hold because it has the backing of both big political groups in the parliament of left and right.
The Conservative MEP Martin Callanan, who was part of the negotiations, rejected one possible compromise last week but now says: "The deal we have struck represents the best of both worlds. We have shown we can encourage car manufacturers to go green by including incentives for investment in clean technology, but without driving them out of business".
So what has been agreed?
A target of reducing CO2 emissions to an average of 120 grams per kilometre driven by 2012 would be introduced in stages: for example only 65% of new cars need meet this target by 2012. The final target date is now 2015.
A sliding scale of fines that reaches the maximum penalty, 95 euros (£79) per gram over the limit, in 2019.
A long-term but non-binding target of cars producing no more that 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre travelled by 2020.
Environmentalists argue this is very much watered-down, compared to what was on the table at the start of the whole tortuous process.
The German Green MEP Rebecca Harms has told me that the European Union will end up with a 2012 target that is higher than the actual average produced today. "It is grossly misleading to suggest that these measures will address the impact of cars on the climate."
Should the big power blocs of left and right be proud of a rounded, balanced package - or ashamed of a sell-out?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~52~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Zzzzz.
Mark Mardell said when he became BBC Europe editor that the 2 stories he would most like to have covered in the 20th century were the Russian revolution and the rise of the 3rd-Reich. Yet since the Irish referendum he contents himself with blogging about fish and 95g of CO2! The BBC pro-EU bias is about which stories it buries.
Complain about this comment
This agreement is a cop out. More fuel efficient cars (which are also much less polluting) are possible now. Instead of encouraging manufacturers to produce and promote them, EU governments have forced through a deal to keep business-as-usual for the short-term.
Complain about this comment
PS moderators, can you moderate this blog, so it does not become yet another rant-fest between europhiles and europhobes and, rather, only comments that are on topic to the thread are published?
Please, just this once.
Complain about this comment
Richmof (2/3): The Irish Prime Minister is travelling around Europe arranging the terms by which the democratic verdict of his own people can be overthrown. The Belgian defence minister has just flown to New York and got drunk at tax-payer expense for a 'meeting' that he knew had been cancelled and returned to suggest that the bloggers who exposed him are the problem..
... And EU-supporters applaud the 'balance' of the BBC in reporting inane trivialities instead and ask that comments not directly related to the topic served up by friendly journalists be censored?
Complain about this comment
Richmof @3,
What about us EUrosceptics?
Are we allowed to 'rant'?
Complain about this comment
So in summary - the customer may pay more for their car based on the cars emissions.
The UK already do this with annual road tax - higher emissions, higer price.
Changing the level of road tax for each band would cost virtually nothing.
What have the EU added to what we already have?
How much has it cost the european tax payer for the EU to do this?
Why dress it up as a 'fine' and involve the manufactures in the actual decision?
Complain about this comment
The German and French Governments (who between them run the EU anyway) have done a good job. They've protected their massively important and very successful car industries. By implication, they've also secured the economic progress of their respective countries at the cost of the environment and us, the people who live in Europe.
Until recently the EU was pressing hard for a real pollution revolution, but Germany was already making serious noises against the proposals. Suddenly we have a compromise which is no compromise at all - by 2012 most cars will be LESS polluting than these so-called targets! The likes of BMW and Mercedes must be laughing up both sleeves at once! God save us from politicians.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @4 - You are quite right. This topic is political blancmange. I will therefore repeat my post of yesterday:
====
According to the BBC today, Barroso said:
"I know that the majority in Britain are still opposed [to adopting the Euro], but there is a period of consideration under way and the people who matter in Britain are currently thinking about it,"
Someone should tell him that in Britain the 'people who matter' are we, the people, who elect and depose our politicians.
No wonder the EU and its Commissars are so despised.
Complain about this comment
I have some questions to all EUphiles:
How do you measure emissions from someone who smokes?
And how do you tax that based on emission produced?
And *SMOKING - KILLS* but people still smoke.
CO2 emissions kill, do smokers care?
Complain about this comment
This is relevant both as regards cleaning up car emissions and as regards the increasing grip of the EU.
Suppose one of the two following situations -
1) Increasing EU integration will lead to an increase in C02 emissions,
2) Increasing EU integration will lead to a reduction in C02 emissions,
Federalists, if (1) were provably the case, would you still support further EU integration?
Souverainistes, if (2) were provably the case, would you still oppose further EU integration?
I'm among the souverainistes, and my answer is 'Yes'. Freedom outranks the environment. Anyone else?
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic (8): To which might be added BBC non-reporting of the CAP 'health-check', for which British taxpayers permanently sacrificed billions per year but which has failed to reform the CAP in any signficant way.
How does Mark Mardell justify wasting BBC license payer money reporting and blogging about fish and other trivialities, while studiously ignoring the more politically sensitive issues? When Mark took up his current post he complained that the EU story was too dull saying he was "convinced this is a central editorial problem in British journalism"; a "journalist's problem, not the audience's problem". Yet as far I can see the BBC Europe editor has (since the Irish referendum) been doing his level best to make BBC reporting of the EU as dull as possible.
http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2005/no3_mardell
Complain about this comment
Richmof @ #3
Your sort of moderation = oppression!
Freedom of speech or writing means exactly that and the threads develop a conversation. As long as the Moderators feel that the comments follows along a line of conversation that Mark's blog has generated then that is freedom for the other commentators who are in the majority.
If you don't like the conversation then don't join in but stop trying to be Lord and Master of what is free speech and be oppression personified.
Complain about this comment
I think people are missing the point here- is not the deal between the MEP and the car manufacturers basically a deal pushed by two independant countries? And is this not exactly the same thing people have been arguing Britain should do- cooperate with EU but look after its own interests? Now it seems that staying just that little bit apart is not the best option after all (at least when Germany and France ar doing it).
Complain about this comment
Mark ? - yes, it is pure sell out
1. Freeborn-John
!!!!!
Yes, i agrree. Mark takes to littel time to develope themes that are of importance and interest to the majority.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @ #11
Perhaps Mark is seeking to stop the rant-fest between europhiles and europhobes and, rather, only [have acceptable] comments that are on topic to the thread ... published? ;=)
Complain about this comment
The modern cars that pollute the most tend not to be European...
Complain about this comment
So, the car makers want change, but not just yet, Lord? I've moaned before about the lack of strategic thinking shown by Western car makers. Toyota and Honda now offer third-generation hybrids: not the best solution but a step in the right direction (and certainly the result of some real strategic thinking).
History shows that when there's a real crisis (eg a war) inventiveness and creativity increases. EU governments, collectively and singularly, are said to be promoting more research as a way of increasing economic growth - and are offering funds.
We have a short and medium-term economic crisis which is hitting car makers hard. un-inventive solution: let them off the hook on CO2 emissions.
We have two medium to long-term crises looming. One, a lack of oil. Two environmental catastrophe (I'm assuming the scientific experts really do know what they're talking about). My view is that now is the right time to put the screws on the car makers. Let them get inventive. Let them get researching (if they haven't already done so). Let them even apply for aid for this research.
That solution would be a better compromise than the one now on the table.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus (15): But why would the BBC Europe editor want to steer public debate about the EU onto soporific topics? What interest could that serve?
-------
"If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson
Complain about this comment
Surely the rules of the game have changed ?
Why bother with draconian legislation, when one only has to look to America to see the impact of not adapting to the new world of environmental challenges.
Why bother with a stick of legislation, when the real carrot is avoiding the 'car-crash' which is now happening in Detroit, as the Big 3 get their 'begging bowls' out - surely that scene, combined with this 'watered-down' legislation will strongly push the car makers in the right direction ??
Certainly 'carrying on regardless' without any Research and Development spend into change for the future is no longer an option ?
Complain about this comment
Let the ranters rant, that's what I say. I was thinking of suggesting a special dedicated thread within Mark's blog to cater for the usual suspects (a sort of virtual padded cell) but I guess they'd eventually get bored with ranting at each other and find their way onto other threads. Perhaps they ought to reflect, though, that if they were stirring up discontent in the sort of dictatorship that some of them claim we are living in, they would have to expect a knock at the door, at the dead of night.
Returning to the topic of this thread, perhaps the car manufacturers should be grateful that they don't have to meet twenty seven different versions of emissions legislation.
Complain about this comment
Eco-fascist mafia is hard at work. Next step: criminalize meat eaters.
Complain about this comment
Motor manufacturers have been dragging their heels for years, mainly because petrol engines are relatively cheap to produce and of course many people benefit financialy from the use of petrol.
Me? I would love to drive a huge gas guzzling monster but because I live in Turkey I have to take a lot of factors into consideration. 1 is the price of fuel, relatively the most expensive in Europe if not the world. 2 the special new car tax jumps from 35% on small engined cars to 54% on engines over 2 litres. 3 road tax ranges from approx £150 per year for cars of 1,300cc or less to around £5,000 per year for cars with engines over 4,000cc. So I drive the best compromise a car with a high tech 1.3 diesel engine and average about 60 miles to the gallon.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John @ #18
For the same reason that the likes of Richmof wish to suppress the freedom to express ideas and thoughts of people in Mark's Blog.
The italicised text in my post at #15 were taken directly from Richmof's opinion at #3 and that comment is an example of just one individual who seeks to supress the ideas of others.
By eliminating discussion about the EU or by only allowing the discussion of soporific topics regarding Europe and its citizens one can easily see that ideas and thoughts for or against the EU and our collective future could easily be subject to suppression or controlled conversation used to bore us all into silence.
Complain about this comment
bbc to pro EU whats in it for them?
Complain about this comment
To usual pundits:
I think you are wrong. Richmof does have a point.
If we usual pundits jump from discussion to discussion hi-jacking it to talk about EU in general and about democracy in Europe, what we are indirectly doing is to prevent other discussions, those related to the topic at hand to take place: we draw the attention to our discussion. What we loss in doing so is other peoples comments and ideas about the subject.
Now I don't think that it would be a good idea for BBC moderators to start moderating by the subject. However I do think that there is some danger on that happening. What I myself think is that we should try to restrain ourself and see if other discussions more related to the topic takes place and after they have taken place or by nature they have evolved to discussion about the EU then we should give permission to ourself to make comments freely. Now where one draws the line of course is a good question, should one wait for a day or should one wait that 50 or 100 comments have been given before going to the usual topics. I don't know what you should do, but what I can tell you is that I myself am trying to restrain myself on going off topic at the start of a new thread and rather wait or make my comments in other threads that have went on for sometime.
What goes to Marks topic picks I think that the problem is that EU is just so big for one journalist to track all its movements. I think that Mark has intentionally chose to follow the issue of car industry and pollution restrictions: there has been many posts that somewhat sideline this subject. I also do think that this is a right issue to track as this issue touches the industrial and environmental sides of the Union, its about industrial, technology and environmental policies that are just massively more important to European economies than other topics like CAP.
I also think that Mark is doing the right thing on reporting on these issues and not concentrating on issue of legality or future visions. The thing is that the EU is working with these issues and these issues will impact Europe regardless of where the EU is going in next 5 or 10 years or will it break up or become a federation. These issues are handled now and if we want to discuss about them, we must do it now.
My own view about this topic is that the EU is doing more or less a right decision about emission restrictions. They could be more tougher, but then again setting too deep restrictions too quickly could harm European car makers in short time frame. The right think is to set up these emission restrictions and continuously work to decrease the emission standards. What the EU, car makers and environmentalist should do is to have continual dialog and try to make an common road-map based on what technology in the future can make happen, that is to line up what the emissions should be in 2015, in 2020, in 2025 etc.. We have to do more to safe guard our environment, but we can't just sacrifices our industries on doing so, we must both safe guard our environment and our industries.
What comes to European car manufacturers I think that they are doing the sensible thing. Many cheer for hybrids, but then again hybrids are not as efficient and eco-friendly as they are thought to be: i.e. Volkswagen bluemotion Golf is more frugal than Toyota Prius; BMW 3 -series, the small diesel engines, get very good emission figures; BMW is working with Mini-e and could introduce full electric mini in sometimes 2010 or 2011; BMW 7 -series is hybrid; Mercedes has introduces more efficient engines and they also have hybrids.
What I do know is that the European car industries will manage if we all work together and if they follow their best traditions. In the end its the engineering that saves the planet...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSD0CKgk_NE
There is nobody as wise as engineer, and there is nobody as good making cars than a German engineer. :-)
Complain about this comment
@ freeborn john and max sceptic -
You seem to willfully ignore the meaning of my post. I do not want to "suppress the freedom to express ideas". I merely think that you are abusing a forum.
You should be able to express your opinion (you only have one from what I have read). However, common decency and etiquette on most blogs implies that you stick to the topic of the thread. Clearly you have no respect for other users who couldn't care less about your opinion - or that of Jukkha - and who are actually interested in the subject of the thread.
It must be a terribly fulfilling way to spend your lives: in front of the computer all day, writing the same thing every day. Your parents must be so proud.
Complain about this comment
Richmof @26,
My parents are very proud.
Jukka_Rohila @25,
My aim is not to diminish the importance of Mark's topics - or to 'disrespect' other commentators, but to draw attention to the fact that the selection of topic is in itself an editorial - and in effect political - choice.
The subject at hand may or may not be important. What cannot be denied, however, is that at a time when the democratic voice of Ireland is being ignored and insulted and the country subjected to pressure to vote again until they 'get it right', and at a time when Barroso is that the 'people who matter' in the UK are in agreement that the UK should join the Euro - even though the majority of the UK is against it - it is suspect that these subjects are not being discussed.
For many - possibly most - UK citizens the matter of UK membership of the EU and the nature of this membership and our relationship with the EU are of greater importance than most of the topic raised recently.
Why do we keep harking on about this? Because of the great democratic deficit and our government's duplicity that has, for example, denied Britons the opportunity to have a say on fundamental matters such as the Constitutional (aka Lisbon) Treaty.
Until these matters are sorted out all other matters are secondary and even trivial.
Complain about this comment
#26, Richmof,
and we thought Jukka was bad, where have you slipped out of as it seems you don't have a clue as to what blogging is all about. I would suggest you return to your neat sanitised world where you only hear what you want whilst the rest of us enjoy meaningful discussions about anything that crops up.
As for "It must be a terribly fulfilling way to spend your lives: in front of the computer all day, writing the same thing every day.", what you you do, spend your days listening to chairman Barroso or chairman Sarkozy, how sad.
Complain about this comment
Regarding the issue of whether people should be going off on random EU-rarr in every single comments thread... I'd cite an article by Jason Kottke about the application of the 'broken windows' policy to online spaces -
"Much of the tone of discourse online is governed by the level of moderation and to what extent people are encouraged to "own" their words. When forums, message boards, and blog comment threads with more than a handful of participants are unmoderated, bad behavior follows.
"The appearance of one troll encourages others. Undeleted hateful or ad hominem comments are an indication that that sort of thing is allowable behavior and encourages more of the same.
"Those commenters who are normally respectable participants are emboldened by the uptick in bad behavior and misbehave themselves. More likely, they're discouraged from helping with the community moderation process of keeping their peers in line with social pressure.
"Or they stop visiting the site altogether."
On a completely separate point, I have to disagree with the Sceptics - frankly, most people just don't care one way or the other.
On the actual subject of the post, it's always the way. I'm dreading what happens when codecision comes around. You have people like Berlusconi going round saying that the financial crisis is an excuse to backpedal on the climate change commitments the government before him made. These people just aren't thinking long-term, which is profoundly depressing.
But you can't say "this is more/less important than Britain's membership of the EU". It's possible to care about more than one thing at a time!
Complain about this comment
I don't know if I am one of the 'usual suspects' - but with anything from the EU, my first question is "what did the EU add?".
I don't think that is an unreasoinable question - and in truth should probably be covered in the main story - without me having to ask the question!
As it happens, I can't recall ever having had a worthwhile answer to that question on anything that the EU have ever done... But I will keep asking...
A response of "the EU add nothing, they just provide a platform for has-been politicians who are no longer welcome in their own country to pontificate on things about which they know nothing" would be perfectly adaquate...
Maybe if the BBC had two EU blogs - this one and one on the real issues, the 'usual suspects' could move to the 'real issues', leaving anyone who cares about banal detail of worthless EU 'make work' activities to continue here.
If Mark would like any help in creating the new blog - I woulde be pleased to help (and trouser some of that loverly licence payer money).
Complain about this comment
Look at those hideous little cars! So basically, the EU got together and decided to destry the Mercedes, BMW, Volvo and SAAB export market to the US.
Complain about this comment
@freeborn john,
this is the most recent development and pretty important. I don't see why Mark shouldnt report on it.
Anyways, I believe the compromise is a good deal for both industry and environmentalists that comes at a time, when the car industry is struggling globally. Putting extreme pressure on our European companies puts them at a disadvantage. Thus this compromise is more than fair.
Complain about this comment
216. At 09:35am on 02 Dec 2008, threnodio wrote:
" ...That's all we need - a Prime Minister who talks to himself!..."
To threnodio:
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself
To SuffolkBoy2:
There is nothing wrong with talking to yourself.
Complain about this comment
3. At 1:17pm on 02 Dec 2008, Richmof wrote:
" ... PS moderators, can you moderate this blog, so it does not become yet another rant-fest between europhiles and europhobes and, rather, only comments that are on topic to the thread are published?
Please, just this once. ... "
To Richmof: Did you read my suggestion about starting each of your postings wit the title of Mark's latest contribution in BIG LETTERS and encouraging others to do the same? Would that not partially solve your problem?
The problem that we "EU"-phobes have is that democracy has clearly been abolished in this country. This is our equivalent of the stuff the Chinese students used to stick on the walls in Peking.
Complain about this comment
#29, DAThomson,
Your last paragraph is very true, we all have a range of concerns and views about multiple subjects and which are more or less important is purely subjective and dependent on the person concerned.
However it is sad but true that often issues that are of concern to many never seem to appear as blog topics, indeed last week it was noticeable that it took a lot of adverse blog posts and a long time before the matter of the arrest of Damien Green became a topic on Nick Robinson's blog. It maybe also should have appeared here as were we to get the EU police force being proposed it is not inconceivable that it would be used to stifle whistle blowers who publicise the excesses and corruption of the EU. Consequently if some posts do stray off track from time to time, so what as long as they are not abusive or defamatory, sometimes it is pleasantries such like our Alice often posts, and sometimes it is off track but concerns legitimate issues not being blogged.
All of this is part of a balanced blog community, and I for one would hate for this blog to become a sanitised boring politically correct Socialist forum.
Complain about this comment
To get back to the subject, Iantownhill (20) was right - the car makers should be happy that they don't have 27 different standards to meet.
What many people don't seem to realise is that low CO2 emissions = low mileage, which means that car makers having been lobbying hard to make sure we pay more in fuel costs.
I am disappointed 2012 target and all the loopholes that allow the car makers to wriggle out of making change. And yes, there's a lot of technology already in existence (stop-start for example) that doesn't affect performance but will help keep our petrol costs down. So there is a lot they could do if they wanted to.
But right now people are choosing more efficient cars anyway, and if that keeps on we'll move in the right direction despite the legislation, rather than because of it.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/cars/
Complain about this comment
The bottom line is that, apart from fleet cars and company vehicles, the majority of motorists will buy what they can afford. For many that will be second hand. More fuel efficient and lower emission vehicle manufacture now, however it may be achieved and whatever formulae are applied, will not work through to a real reduction in emissions for some years. The only way in which you can accelerate the process is to go to the root of the problem and tackle driving habits directly. Painful though this may be, that means making driving more expensive so people do less of it. This will not be politically acceptable but, being honest, is there really any other way?
On moderation, there seem to be people who seriously believe that posts are read by real human beings. They are not. They are tracked by botts which contain a lexicon of words, phrases and characters which are proscribed. It is automated up to the point when someone complains. Only then are they checked by humans. To incorporate a lexicon which would test all posts by relevance would make the process so draconian that very little would get through. Also moderation is not done by auntie. It is sub-contracted out.
Personally, if it were possible, I would block all posts about what people may or may not post. As an exercise in futility, there is little to compare with that.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (37):
Are you sure that BBC moderates by using bots? I really don't think that you can do such a good job with just using lexicon approach. You can of course filter messages by course words and flag them straight out, but then again deciphering meaning out of messages is more harder. The other thing why I think that messages are moderated by people is that moderation takes times, if the BBC would use bots, be it lexicon, n-gram or neural network processing even then the moderation would take just seconds not minutes, tens of minutes or hours. My own estimate is that there are moderators, but they are skimming the comments instead of reading them.
The other thing that makes me to incline that there are actual people reading these comments is that in thread concerning Germany that went over 500 comments, the pre-moderation was taken of completely to save moderators time.
Complain about this comment
#37 threnodio
I had assumed that most of the moderation was automated, but what explains the moderation delays which regularly occur - sometimes over 3 hours?
Complain about this comment
#39, oldnat,
I think like all computer programs there are switches that can be altered ad-hoc. I suspect that moderation is event driven and that people monitor the stats from time to time to see if intervention is required. Certainly in a support centre I worked in stats were monitored all the time.
Complain about this comment
#40 Buzet23
That would make sense.
Probably, the delays will be increased where some thread is throwing up a lot of comments that might cause legal issues if the Beeb publishes them.
Complain about this comment
The way in which the system responds to certain typos and characters which might be misread as html suggests very strongly that the initial process is automated. I think you might be right that human intervention may be involved if something becomes controversial or when language is used which the automated process does not recognise. On the other hand (oldnat #39), sheer volume of traffic would be enough to slow down the process dramatically if the servers are not up to it.
Complain about this comment
Strange that those demanding EU-sceptics be silenced so that they can discuss 95g CO2 do not seem that interested in the topic of the thread after all...
Complain about this comment
I know that the discussion concerning this has gone on for a long time but I will allow myself to add one comment.
One peculiarity of the British media (or a great majority if it) is it's inability to talk about anything but the existence of the EU in European affairs. In 90% of our press, the only articles ever written about the EU is to bash it, and certainly not to discuss what it does, I'll coMe back to this.
The remaining 10% of the media that manage to report about what the EU does tend to be on the left of the political scale, which causes right-leaning voters to associate the EU with a left-wing Trojan, and the conservative party has then nothing to do but reap the votes. A very effective Murdoch system to effectively keep Britain as europhobic as possible. (why an Aussie - sorry, an american now isn't he?- would be interested in European integration and hate it as much as Murdoch does is the part that defeats me, but be sure of one thing: it's not out of love for the British people.)
The lack of British centre-right papers that talk sensibly about Europe in the way that the FAZ or le Figaro does is what keeps Britain so Europhobic and that is why the euro-bashing commentators on this topic would like only to talk about the existence of the EU, so they can continue what they have been saying and stay in their EU-bashing comfort zone.
The fact is that the EU is an institutional construction like any other and that, like any other, it can use the meagre powers it has been given (1% of Europe's GDP annually isn't exactly toppling over our nation states yet, happily for some of you and unhappily for me) to make either good or bad decisions. And in order to talk about these decisions, to discuss them and to see how the best solution can be reached, well we need to stop for 5 minutes arguing that the EU shouldn't exist and focus on the matter at hand: but that's what the 'sceptics' would not want to do in any case.
The fact is that this isn't simply a discussion about whether the topic is boring or not, it's a political discussion where sceptics would say under the cover of objecivity that the BBC needs to always discuss the raison d'etre of the EU and never what it does.
Well I don't share this opinion and I hope that Mark will the first of many reporters in the UK finally to discuss actual decisions taken in the EU and that are the real news topics. Such as the environment, which god forbid might even make some of countrymen realise that the EU isn't all about French farmers and bureaucrats like they thought but also deals with actual problems.
I hope the BBC take the only editorial line that makes sense and stop discussing in every article the legitimacy or very existence of a Union built over half a century, using 8 treaties ratified by 27 states, that 80% of the public supports the UK's membership in, and that looks here to stay, and rather starts reporting like their professional continental counterparts do. This is a good step by Mark and I hope that he carries on with his good work.
Complain about this comment
Oops. I would like to apologise for the number of typos in my previous comment: I am writing this from my phone and it has the bad habbit of automatically turning perfectly correct words into something else (i.e. 'like' was just turned into 'Luke' in the first line of this comment, go figure out why...)
Complain about this comment
Tailindil (44): You misunderstand my comment to Mark. I am not asking him to stop making posts on topics favourable to the EU, or even complaining about the balance of the individual reports. I am querying the absence of reports that might show the EU in a less flattering light. When Mark Mardell took up the post of BBC Europe editor he said (see link from post 11) that one of the problems with his new brief could be the dullness of the subject matter. However he also said this was an editorial issue (i.e. one he could do something about as BBC Europe editor) rather than an audience problem.
Then consider two possible stories he could have covered recently; one about Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform and another about the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The UK agreed in 2005 to sacrifice a significant portion of its budget rebate (worth hundreds of millions per year, every year) for a one-off CAP 'health check'. This culminated on November 20 with a decision that the CAP is pretty much OK such that all the high hopes (and UK taxpayer money) invested by Tony Bair in the 'health check' have come to nought. One might think that the BBC man in Brussels would be leaping on this as a politically-salient EU story that would excite the interest on his British audience. How then to explain that Mark Mardell flew to Scotland instead to broadcast November 18 and 19 in glowing terms about some little-heralded reform to the Common Fisheries Policy instead with no financial implications?
Those who depend on the BBC for an understanding of what is going on in Brussels should remember that excess consumption of CO2 leads to drowsiness, and possibly to long-term impotency problems for your vote.
Complain about this comment
I believe I have read that if the BBC does not report favourably of the EU and European Parliament , they will not be allowed in to the European Parliament to report on policies and proceedings .
Complain about this comment
#47 Huaimek
'I believe I have read that if the BBC does not report favourably of the EU and European Parliament , they will not be allowed in to the European Parliament to report on policies and proceedings '
So how come they allow in the rest of the British press then?
Complain about this comment
Huaimek (47): I do not think the EU Parliament could ever complain about the gushing style with which Shirin Wheeler covers their activities on BBC Record Europe. Mark Mardell at least seems to be aware (in his British Journalism Review article) that there is question of the legitimacy of the EU institutions. He also does a far better job than Shirin Wheeler in presenting the topics he does cover in a neutral way. I only question the selection of topics.
Complain about this comment
All these little cuts sounds more like politicians acting to appease the environmental lobby rather than any real concern over the environment. I would thing, that if our leaders really believed that global warming were a real threat, they'd enact more concrete legislation countering it.
But then, in the 1930s they should have clearly seen the threat posed by Nazi Germany, but didn't do anything about that either, until push really did come to shove.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
It is a death by 1000 cuts and
when it should stop....Probably, should have been stop by now.
Complain about this comment
This is another typical knee-jerk reaction by politicians who want to be seen to be doing something, even if it is meaningless, irrelevant and misguided in the extreme.
The EU acknowledges that all the cars in the world combined produce only 6% of global warming gases, and that shipping and airlines produce much much more - but the holy cow of taxation is easiest applied to cars, you MUST NOT hit the airlines and shipping companies, oh no Sir, that is not allowed.
Hypocrits one and all for such short sighted measures that do not address the root cause of polution - the corporate need and greed for huge profits at any cost - and damm the environment.
Complain about this comment
Just for kicks and a change of pace, lets look at the issues behind this topic. No, not the issues of big bussiness or big goverment, but the issues involved with the root of the problem.
Gasoline engines produce carbondioxide as part of their exhaust. There are lots of other tings in that exhaust, but we are concerned for the moment with carbondioxide.
But gasoline engines work just fine. Okey, they aren't very efficent, but they produce reliable levels of torque and are fit for use. We don't have anything to replace them with, anyway. So we need to make them more efficent, if we can, but looking down the road a few decades it's clear we will have to come up with something else.
But what? Right now it looks like an electric plug-in is the leading contender. But the drawbacks are pretty daunting.
We can produce electricty in central plants. But if those plants use coal or oil for their fuel we aren't reducing our output of CO2, just moved the point of production from our car to the plant.
Or we can produce electricity from atomic fueled plants. No CO2 emissions, but other problems, such as used fuel rods and radioactive waste and its storage are very real.
But basically the problem with electricity is that we can't store it. We can make it but it must be used as soon as it's made or it's gone. The only storage system is the battery, and no battery can store any significent ammount of energy.
The best we can do is not very good. Sure, we are working on the problem, and some research is quite encouraging (fuel cells and supercapicitors and all) but I doubt any groundshaking breakthrough is on the horizon. Rather I expect it will be incremential improvements, rather than one big one.
So we see the gasoline engine as the only viable alternative in the near future. It must be improved, yes, and if that is to be done some pain is to be expected. The Ford Model T engine ran on just about any fuel, from whiskey to kerosene to gasoline and passes modern emissions tests, for example, and I think that design could be revived and improved upon. There would be a patent fight, but so be it.
To require an industry to improve its' product is a good (no, great) idea, but to do that without understanding the science and law behind it all is far and away over the dumb line.
As an aside, the export market for Europian cars is dying a natural death. But then so are the American big three car makers. The Asian ones (Toyota, Honda et al) won't be far behind, even though they offer a better product; nobodiy is buying new cars at the moment. They may survive, if they can adapt; that is yet to be seen.
This may lead to a new era of smaller companies taking up the slack. It is to be expected, I think. Companies grow and prosper, but that growth over time leads to them making dire decissions. They become complacient, thinking they control the markets they used to compete in, an illusion that is comforting, perhaps, until reality comes knocking and they are consigned to the dustbin. But then, in the wake of their passing, new companies come on the scene, doing new things, and responding to the market.
What, I wonder, will I be driving in twenty years time? An electric, a fuel cell, or a team of horses?
Complain about this comment
Love it or hate but for many reasons that prevail I hope that EU will survive and become ever more united. So I hope that the Lisbon Treaty is not dead, buried it may be. The EU will have to move forward or it will wither away. It is in a transitional state which is perhaps lasting longer than most would wish but it must overcome its bureaucratic bias and become one of the leaders in the world of tomorrow which is grim reading for future generations.
Looking at the make up of 27 or 26 or whatever the final or eventual number of member states is one cannot but feel that it is doomed to failure. How on Earth can one reconcile all the differences?
It is a long and winding road with its journey already started albeit at a slow progress.
One hopes it will develop into the EU protecting its citizens from the individual state apparatuses and the individual states affording the same protection against ever more powerful EU. This may work.
First and foremost the EU will not work until it solves the communication problems. Related to this is an education of greater excellence to all its citizens.
Here are some ideas:
1. Introduce compulsory learning of at least three major European languages starting with primary education. (It is creation of new jobs instead of dishing out money in unemployment benefits); put the education on top of its agenda.
2. Reduce the number of official languages of the EU institutions to preferably one- but this is probably impossible to agree- then perhaps three languages.
3. Creation of anti-terror; anti crime and corruption; peace keeping forces
4. Universal health care and other social security benefits.
5. Democratise the EU institutions with direct elections; creation of pan European media; political parties; football league and so on
6. Create European embassies where each member state could have its section if so wished. (again a money saving move with increased protection coverage for its citizens)
7. Introduce Euro across the board
8. Eliminate internal borders completely; introduce voluntary EU passports; abolish naturalisation of other member state’s citizens within the EU.
9. Connect all capital cities with TGV and motorways in next five years.
10. Research and use of alternative energy
The list is not exclusive but a thought-provoking exercise.
And please before anyone tells me off for not sticking to the topic in hand note that this was intended for Lisbon Treaty blog, but such are the whims of that particular blog that it will not let me post the comment. So here I am, but do get bashing anyway.
Complain about this comment
" I have some questions to all EUphiles:
How do you measure emissions from someone who smokes?
And how do you tax that based on emission produced?
And *SMOKING - KILLS* but people still smoke.
CO2 emissions kill, do smokers care? "
Perhaps you can quote some peer reviewed literature stating that CO2 emissions from cars kill?
It would be very easy to work out a smokers emisions- burn a cigarrette down to the filter in a controlled enviroment (like a glass jar) and use a mass spec to work out all the products of combustion. Why you'd want to I don't know but its easy enough to do......
Complain about this comment
Does anyone know how much CO2 is released upon producing a CO2-saving car? If the aim is to lower *total* CO2 emissions as a car's footprint this has to be taken into account (including all the parts produced and shipped from Asia). The problem with politicians, is that many (if not most of them) were a total failure at maths.
Complain about this comment
Cars that are more efficient encourage owners to do more mileage. There's no point in reducing CO2/km if you're going to increase the kms on the other hand... Again, politicians, today's geniuses.
Complain about this comment
Obviously it would be stupid to increase Co2 emissions by artificially increasing the production of cars, but nobody's suggesting that. All that's being suggested is that all new cars (and in the longer term buses and lorries) which are produced should be designed to use less fuel (which not only causes less CO2 emission but also prevents us using fossil fuels and saves consumers money in the process). Of course, if you feel that this encourages people to use their cars too much you should lobby your government to increase taxes on fuel for private use, and use the revenue gained to subsidise public transport.
Complain about this comment
Re 58: But decreasing the production of new cars may help reduce even more CO2 than producing more efficient cars. And given that the downturn is doing that, it could be our chance to put a smile in front of so much "bad luck" :-)
We should not forget that cars that are dismissed off European roads and that are not so old as to be unusable are usually traded to poorer countries (Eastern Mediterranean, Western Asia and Africa). So they will keep on producing CO2. The real problem is our consumer habits of throwing away a perfectly good car for the sake of having a newer one.
You may argue that producing new cars is good for the economy and that we need to keep production as high as possible. But then we need to acknowledge that we can't have it all: an indefinitely expanding economy *and* a reduction in CO2.
Complain about this comment
The EU says, worldwide, cars produce only 6% of greenhouse gases, and that Britain has 8% of the cars, but to hear the environmentalists and the govenment talk, it seems UK cars are producing 99% of the poluting gases, cars must be firmly stamped on with punitive taxes for ownership and use.
All this at a time when the UK government is starving the transport infrastructure of money and raising rail fares to discourage people from travelling because the mainline trains are too crowded!
The London Underground is a dinosaur, a claustrophobic dingy dismal relic built 100 years ago and left to quietly rot, compared to modern systems like that of Singapore it is a benchmark of the UK goverments transport policy's abject failures.
Our road network is festooned with speed cameras serving only the interest of HM Treasury with not one proven benefit to improving road safety, loved only by the fundamentalist lame-brain greens who want Britain to revert to horses and carts.
Really serious poluters like the shipping industry and the airlines are quietly passed over for the easy target of people forced into cars by a grossly inefficient ineffectual public transport system.
Complain about this comment
I read somewhere that to produce one new car required 20,000 litres of water and many kilowatts of electricity, and that to be environmentally friendly we should run old cars longer rather than buy new ones.
But if that happened, not only the Big 3 dinosaurs in the US would go belly-up.
Complain about this comment
It appears that the EU is genuinely making an effort to reduce the carbon output in European cars. However it is arguable that the Eu should first help the environment in alternative ways such as making the bus and train fairs affordable for everyone. Consequently people would be encouraged to utilize their cars less.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS