The European Union may soon force automakers to include health/global warming warnings on their car advertisements, similar to the list of possible side effects required on US drug ads. MotorTrader (MT) reports that English MEP (Member European Parliament) Chris Davies has submitted a report on the proposal to EU chiefs, who will debate the idea in October. Davies' report also calls for a Euro-wide ban on any car ad that promotes a vehicle's high speed performance (as is currently in place in the UK) and ban the sale of cars that can drive faster than 101mph. According to MT, Davies "noted that the power of new cars increased by 28 per cent between 1994 and 2004, making them heavier and thus increasing the amount of CO2 output. This increase is completely unnecessary, the MEP said, as no country has raised its speed limit to allow cars to use this additional power."  

Who'd a thunk a car insurance company would have the stones to challenge the value of tomorrow's ever-so-PC International Car Free Day? And get this: the company in question is ibuyeco, the "eco-friendly UK car insurance company" [Customers' premiums include a carbon offsetting fee donated to The CarbonNeutral Company for eco-friendly projects]. The insurer's survey of 1500 Brits reveals that the anti-car (or pro non-automotive) event is flying well beneath the radar of the average UK motorist. Only 12 percent were aware of International Car Free Day (although they jolly well will be if and when they face the resulting traffic jams). When told of the global initiative, 72 percent of respondents said they wouldn't even "consider" taking part. When the survey takers asked recalcitrant motorists why they wouldn't give up their cars, work, shopping and visiting family topped the list. Three quarters of all respondents said public transport was not a viable alternative to using the car, citing time implications, delays, cost and lack of convenience.  

[Interview with Jim Hawker of ibuyeco below.] 

The major automakers are breathing a bit easier, thanks to a recent court ruling. The International Herald Tribune reports that the California federal district court has dismissed a claim against General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Nissan and Honda for damages caused by vehicle emissions. In its case, the State of California was demanding several billion dollars in court-ordered and civil damages on the basis that these emissions constituted a public nuisance that inflicted climate change and health-related costs. Judge Martin Jenkins, a Clinton appointee and San Francisco native, ruled against the Golden State, opining that emissions regulations were the domain of the legislature and not under the jurisdiction of the courts. The state has hinted that it may appeal the ruling. No word yet from Sacramento as to whether the state will also be filing suit against its own Department of Motor Vehicles for permitting millions of state residents to drive all of those cars, or its Department of Transportation for building the highways that they used. 

Which carmaker has cleaned-up their act the most? Toyota with its Synergy Drive? Honda with its industry-high average fuel economy? GM with their fuel-cell Equinoxes? Nope. According to a study by Environmental Defense (reported by CARSguide), BMW wins the "most improved" award for its average fuel efficiency and CO2 emission rate. From 1995 to 2005, The Boyz from Bavaria increased their fleet's average fuel economy by 14 percent and carbon emissions by 12.3 percent. Toyota only managed a three percent drop in carbon emissions during the same period. Kia was the worst offender; their vehicle's carbon emissions jumped by 30 percent. Oxymoronically, GM placed at the top of one category with a 6.5 percent reduction in "overall carbon burden" (derived from factors based on vehicle emissions and the total sold), yet increased their overall carbon emissions by three percent. As Miss Piggy's paramour said, it ain't easy being green.

Regular readers of this site will know we've been monitoring the UK government's anti-car stance closely. But we didn't see this coming. After an article in the medical journal Lancet concluded that London would need to be completely car-free to meet its CO2 reduction goals, the idea has started to gain traction amongst British environmental groups and politicians. The report's author, James Woodcock of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, says the numbers don't lie. "Aside from cutting transportation emissions across London by 72 percent, shunning car journeys would decrease the risk of premature death in certain people by as much as 40 percent." At a press conference attended by Bloomberg, Woodcock's colleague Andrew Prentice suggested extending the scope of London's congestion charge zone into outer boroughs. He also recommended upping the charge to 50 or 100 pounds ($100 or $200) "to show people what the city would be like without traffic.'' The BBC reports that London Green Party member Jenny Jones has another idea: "I have asked the London mayor to do a feasibility study into creating a car free pedestrian zone in central London linking all the main squares and parks." 

The Detroit News reports that U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III rejected automakers' attempt to keep Vermont and 10 other states from adopting California's stricter emission standards. Vermont's brief argued that the Mountain State needs the new standards to protect their maple syrup and skiing industries from the environmental impact of auto-related greenhouse gases. (No mention was made of the environmental impact of these two industries.) The automakers countered that meeting the standards would too costly, if not impossible. Sessions' ruling stated "The court remains unconvinced automakers cannot meet the challenge of Vermont and California's [greenhouse gas] regulations" because they "fail to demonstrate that the regulation is not feasible, given the flawed assumptions and overly conservative selection of technologies documented." Sierra Club lawyer David Bookbinder hailed the decision as a triumph over "another example of Detroit crying wolf." Incidentally, the court's decision was 240 pages long. One wonders how many trees were cut down to publish this ruling.

Speaking to the Detroit Free Press, Saturn brand manager Jill Lajdziak's threw down the gauntlet to Toyota (again), promising a "2009-ish" debut for a plug-in hybrid Vue. The new Vue's drivetrain will differ from the "mild hybrid" Vue currently on offer; it'll be based on the two-mode hybrid system debuting on the Tahoe. And guess what? She's [smack] talking lithium-ion batteries! The plug-in Vue will be limited to a 10-mile range in purely electric mode. In other news, Lajdziak hinted that Saturn may also offer some of the diesel engines found in the Rethink American brand's Opel doppelgängers. Referencing the engineering connection between the two brands, Lajdziak said "it's a natural for us to consider diesel." OK Toyota, time to talk about your Isuzu oil burners.

Take that Toyota! Not only is GM going to bring us a lithium-ion-powered plug-in hybrid by 2010, but they're going to produce an entire family of electric vehicles. So sayeth GM Car Czar "Maximum" Bob Lutz in Frankfurt. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) described Lutz' remarks as "the latest salvo in a combined product-development and public-relations campaign… to dispel the image that it has its corporate head in the sand when it comes to advanced vehicle technology, oil prices and concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions." Lutz also said GM wants to build its E-Flex vehicles alongside mainstream models; a common chassis would accommodate either a conventional or alternative-propulsion powertrain. The WSJ cautions that the Volt– and any other electric vehicles in GM's future– depend on battery suppliers, and "it isn't yet certain the suppliers will come through." OK, Toyota– your turn!

According to Italy’s DueMotori, converting cars to run on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is not only “for tree-hugging, penny pinching, slow driving, woolly jumper wearing motorists with a guilty conscience.” Drivers fortunate enough to be left off that list are advised to consider an LPG conversion package from the UK’s Future Power, which is “ideal for high performance cars and luxury vehicles.” On September 22nd, Future Power will be showing a 300hp LPG-powered Subaru WRX on “Rally Day” at the Castle Combe circuit in Wiltshire. Future Power’s managing director Malcolm Douglas is gassed about LPG’s potential. “It is now quite possible for the executive and the enthusiast to have their sporty car and also combat critics by running on LPG, making their cars much more environmentally friendly than many alternative petrol or diesel ‘city’ cars." Proof positive, if proof were needed, that the greens have pistonheads on the defensive.

The gloves are off; GM's Vice Chairman Bob Lutz and Toyota's U.S. VP for Communications, Irv Miller, are having an alternative powerplant smackdown. On a company web site today, Miller wrote "the advanced lithium-ion batteries that the Volt would use, batteries suitable for the long-term rigors of everyday automotive use, don't exist" while pointing out the Prius uses "market-ready" technology. Lutz, never one to let facts come between him and his opinions, still insists the Volt will be ready for the market in 2010. He countered Miller's remarks in an interview with Bloomberg at the Frankfurt Auto Show: "People have a very simplistic [view]: Toyota … are saving the planet from certain destruction, whereas General Motors … is the anti-Christ that's trying to plunge us into the abyss. The only way we can get out of that is by being more environmental and leading with more environmental technology than Toyota." Uh, hello? Bob? It's hard to lead when you're relying on technology that doesn't exist yet– and that the competition has publicly stated they'll also adopt, you know, as soon as someone invents it.

What do you do if you're a politician heading to a news conference where you intend to tell citizens to leave their cars at home– and your staff car is a Lincoln Navigator? That was the dilemma facing Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty. The Metro (subway) couldn't get him there on time. Riding his bicycle would make him sweaty. Taking one of the city's fleet hybrids would look too contrived. So Mayor Fenty did what shocked a lot of people: he took the bus, minus his security detail. Hizzhonor stated to the Washington Post, "You don't need a car to get around. That's what makes us different than the suburbs." After the conference, he took the subway back to his office. Then he hopped into his personal Ford Expedition to drive across town to a pair of meetings.

A Dubai-based company called Fleethorse is designing an environmentally-responsible hybrid, partially powered by a horse walking on a treadmill behind the driver. (No, I haven't ingested hallucinogenic substances this morning. Yet.) An electric motor gets the treadmill moving. And then "the reserved energy, which is fully obtained by movement of the animal and saved in the battery is sufficient enough, to have the vehicle run for a fairly long distance, without having to have the animal running." Lest animal activists get concerned, "the gloss [sic] partition which forms the animal cabin is fitted with an air condition system, and this is to keep the animal safe, from that of unjust weather conditions like, rain, snow, heat or the cold conditions." They don't discuss the environmental quality on the other side of that partition, but it can't be that pleasant being cooped up in an enclosed vehicle with a horse and its associated natural emissions.  What's next… a subcompact powered by two hamsters in a exercise wheel?

Speaking to Handelsblatt magazine (via Forbes), Porsche's CEO set the stage for his company's on-again/off-again VW takeover. Wendelin Wiedeking claimed the fiercely independent sports car maker's products can't meet the EU's proposed 2012 carbon dioxide emissions regulations. While Wiedeking did include the qualifier "in their current form," he clearly stated that Stuttgart's finest couldn't satisfy Brussels regulators. "Realistically, emissions requirements can only be graded by vehicle segment. A common limit for everyone is a business generation plan for compact car makers." Which is what Porsche would be if when it assumes control of VW. Which Wiedeking will address no sooner that November, or whenever the European Court of Justice gets around to strking down the "VW law" that prohibits a change of controlling ownership. Hmmm. Sounds like a lock to us. Still…

Jim Miller over at The Flint Journal wants to dispel all those safety concerns surrounding hydrogen fuel cells. No, not the worry that your car will Hindenberg or that your hands will freeze and shatter into a million pieces during refueling. He's talking about giant vapor clouds over big cities and/or dripping water causing roads to freeze in winter. After dispelling these not-so-common misconceptions, Miller shows his inner Andy Rooney: "For every alternative fuel proposed, there are people looking for problems." (Hey that's us!) "Ethanol? It'll lead to higher food prices, and delivery is a problem. It takes a lot of fuel to produce it. Hydrogen? It costs money to produce, and there's no delivery system. Electricity? Batteries are expensive, recycling them is a problem, and most electrics have a short range. Enough already." Actually, not. Miller rags on gasoline ("Those supertankers aren't solar-powered") and finishes by chiding petrochemical recidivists. "Just remember, using oil is not the perfect answer either." True dat. 

Reuters reports that Norway is banning manufacturers from advertising a car's green credentials. As far Norways's Department of Truth (a.k.a. Consumer Ombudsman) is concerned, "cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others." By that, state censor Bente Oeverli means that certain cars can be less harmful than others, but they're ALL bad for the planet. But don't try and claim your car is less harmful than the other guys, 'cause that's banned too. "If someone says their car is more 'green' or 'environmentally friendly' than others then they would have to be able to document it in every aspect from production, to emissions, to energy use, to recycling," she said. "In practice that can't be done." Meanwhile, in the UK, Volvo was told not to repeat a claim that the C30 car was "designed with the utmost respect for the environment in mind." Now that we can understand. Respect in mind? Tsk tsk.