Former Green minister regrets decision to promote diesel engines

n97 mini

http://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/motors/2017/0405/865457-former-green-minister-regrets-decision-to-promote-diesel-engines/

Stupid article!

Mr Ryan said he did not regret the decision by the then government to base car tax on emissions as they had fallen by one third. He did, however, regret relying on information from the car industry, which promised it could control emissions when it did not.

It was the right thing to do, but the wrong thing to do, because they made me do it??

KCross

I suppose hindsight is 20-20 vision. Personally I thought they were doing the right thing at the time but I didnt research it. I just assumed CO2 emissions were the right thing to base the taxes on. Of course we all know better now.

I cant imagine the Green party were hoodwinked any more than the rest of us.... VW dieselgate being the most high profile example of that.

The lesson is, dont trust vested interests!

punisher5112

For a person who is meant to be well educated he would be much better to come out and say I'm sorry I got it wrong don't blame the car industry as they will try anything.

This Ryan fella is a menace on his bike and cycles on footpaths and wrong way against traffic.

Just shows you you can not trust any of them.

Diesels are going to kill so many from the NOx emissions and other harmful particles.

Adblue is another thing I'm sure will cause problems down the line.

I had hoped the greens would never come back and can't believe he is back at the dail.

aliveandkicking

I don't buy the idea that in 2008 they didn't know that NOx and particulates from diesel engines caused health problems. As far as I'm concerned they made a calculated decision to reduce CO2 emissions in the name of climate change at the expense of the increased amounts of poisonous NOx and particulate matter. For them to turn around a decade later and claim they didn't know is a bit rich.

ELM327

They knew then the same as we knew now, that diesel was carcenogenic

the difference was, there were no viable EV's then!

KCross

aliveandkicking wrote: »

I don't buy the idea that in 2008 they didn't know that NOx and particulates from diesel engines caused health problems. As far as I'm concerned they made a calculated decision to reduce CO2 emissions in the name of climate change at the expense of the increased amounts of poisonous NOx and particulate matter. For them to turn around a decade later and claim they didn't know is a bit rich.

Yes, I think it was probably known that NOx was carcinogenic but did they know that cars were going to cheat emissions tests and risk our health. I dont think so. Their whole philosophy is to improve the environment (incuding air quality), it seems odd to me that they would knowingly pollute the air and cause health issues and somehow justify that to themselves via a pure CO2 argument. Thats doesnt add up for me. They got bad advice and made a bad decision based on bad advice.

The mistake was believing the manufacturers and in the emissions tech (DPF's etc). I just dont think the Greens on their own are entirely to blame.... and I'll add Im not a member and didnt vote for them in case you think I'm a supporter.

punisher5112

If they were to fix this I would love to see the promotion of EV and start putting in motorway charge points and more throughout the country.

I've noticed the go car have taken quite a few charge points over for themselves.


Make EV cars accessible to those driving killer diesels and those who are stuck driving high tax vehicles. Finance at good rates available to those who are stuck at the bottom end who end up paying more because they can't afford to change.

Calahonda52

The NOx stuff is more acid rain [ HNO3 nitric acid ]than carcinogenic, its the small particulates that get drawn down into the lungs and don't come back out are the carcinogenic incubators.
Don't forget the SOx also, to give H2SO4 sulfuric acid

n97 mini

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Don't forget the SOx also, to give H2SO4 sulfuric acid

Waiting for someone to mention JOx

n97 mini

aliveandkicking wrote: »

I don't buy the idea that in 2008 they didn't know that NOx and particulates from diesel engines caused health problems. As far as I'm concerned they made a calculated decision to reduce CO2 emissions in the name of climate change at the expense of the increased amounts of poisonous NOx and particulate matter. For them to turn around a decade later and claim they didn't know is a bit rich.

They had Google in 2008. If they had just looked up "are diesel exhaust fumes bad for me" they would have gotten all the right info.

cnocbui

So where is the government policy to address this situation and to stop using taxation measures to try and steer people away from petrol powered cars?

cnocbui

Calahonda52 wrote: »

The NOx stuff is more acid rain [ HNO3 nitric acid ]than carcinogenic, its the small particulates that get drawn down into the lungs and don't come back out are the carcinogenic incubators.
Don't forget the SOx also, to give H2SO4 sulfuric acid

He might have been referring to the the discovery of a compound produced in diesel combustion that is the the most carcinogenic substance known.

Fiskar

aliveandkicking wrote: »

I don't buy the idea that in 2008 they didn't know that NOx and particulates from diesel engines caused health problems. As far as I'm concerned they made a calculated decision to reduce CO2 emissions in the name of climate change at the expense of the increased amounts of poisonous NOx and particulate matter. For them to turn around a decade later and claim they didn't know is a bit rich.

They should have poured their energy into infrastructure projects such as a train link from the Airport to Dublin City centre, would have taken those diesel taxis and buses of the road. Must be the only major city with no train link.

Would never trust Ryan in government ever again.

Special Circumstances

n97 mini wrote: »

They had Google in 2008. If they had just looked up "are diesel exhaust fumes bad for me" they would have gotten all the right info.

There's only 2 options really IMHO.

They are not capable of grown up scientific analysis of the impact of their policies. There's no reason to believe future policies will be any better researcheds than the "derv is good" one.

Or

Happy to take orders from the countries that have a vested interest pushing diesel technology that gave them an edge over manufacturers from markets with stricter air quality standards. What would make them happy to go along with it? Childlike naivety? Something else?

punisher5112

Special Circumstances wrote: »

There's only 2 options really IMHO.

They are not capable of grown up scientific analysis of the impact of their policies. There's no reason to believe future policies will be any better researcheds than the "derv is good" one.

Or

Happy to take orders from the countries that have a vested interest pushing diesel technology that gave them an edge over manufacturers from markets with stricter air quality standards. What would make them happy to go along with it? Childlike naivety? Something else?

What worked was increase in sales so vrt, vat and so on.

TheRiverman

Eamon Ryan was,is and always will be a spoofer.

Special Circumstances

punisher5112 wrote: »

What worked was increase in sales so vrt, vat and so on.

Wat?

Donal55

Not surprised one bit by the Greens. Tied at the waist (waste) to FF.

Sabre Man

FF and the Greens may be to blame, but what has FG and Labour done to rectify this? Nothing really. High polluting diesels need to be taxed more, in line with high CO2 petrols. Diesel emissions need to be checked during NCTs.

Also introduce some incentives to get rid of the oldest and most polluting vehicles.

Special Circumstances

What really cracks me up though...


All the palaver about new vehicles tax, vrt, import vehicles vrt... "oh it's all about the CO2, not just subsidising diesel for the sake of it"


Fuel taxes and duties.... let's change it so a petrol car with the same consumption as a diesel car, but less emissions of every type INCLUDING CO2 pays more per litre.
Because dirty petrol???

If it was all about the CO2 you'd at least have expected them to levy the correct fuel!

The same muppets who promoted wind energy which the ESB won't say publicly is greatly reducing the efficiency of the thermal plants !

Also the tax payer has to support wind energy investors which I am against, unless it was for micro generation, we were promised cheaper bills too back in the 90's when all this Green energy started.

I'd say the Greens thought lowering Co2 emissions was a good thing, instead of replanting some of our forests with actual real hard wood trees they decided To increase diesel pollution. Pure ignorant but it doesn't make it right, it's their responsibility to ensure the information they receive is accurate.

There are absolutely no experts who will tell you diesel exhaust has ever been good for the environment or human health.

Why has diesel never succeeded in the U.S ? Well for one , they've had far stricter emissions limits for decades.

unkel

Our first ever emissions limit in Europe were in 1993. They were similar to the ones in California from 1979. Massive, massive difference

Couldn't believe how many cars were hybrids in New York city when I was there last month. I'd say of all the newish cars it might be close to half of them. And no diesels of course. Tesla went past Ford last week in market cap. Today they have gone past GM and are now the most valuable US car maker. Some of that is stock market hype of course, but it is an indicator of where the financial world sees the future of cars.

Interesting times we live in

Special Circumstances

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why has diesel never succeeded in the U.S ? Well for one , they've had far stricter emissions limits for decades.

Japan likewise.
Diesel emissions really shouldn't have been news to anyone in 2008. Diesel is a necessary evil for some applications but civilised cities should be (and have been for a long time tbh) finding ways to reduce urban diesel use rather encouraging a doubling of it.

n97 mini

unkel wrote: »

Our first ever emissions limit in Europe were in 1993. They were similar to the ones in California from 1979. Massive, massive ddifferenc
I

More importantly the US apply the same standards to all vehicles. In Europe the standards for petrol and diesel have the same name (Euro V etc) but they're not the same standards. Diesel requirements are considerably behind petrol. This is the single biggest con inflicted on citizens of the EU imho. I lay the blame at the door of the French and German automakers primarily and it's one if the reasons I will never but a car from either.

I pointed this out on the motors forum in 2008 to much derision from the TDI fanboy brigade... which is why I gave boards.ie a break until we got an EV. I have to say that this forum is a breath of fresh (clean) air. Such a shame motors was (maybe still is, I dunno) so full of garbage tho.

Special Circumstances

n97 mini wrote: »

More importantly the US apply the same standards to all vehicles. In Europe the standards for petrol and diesel have the same name (Euro V etc) but they're not the same standards. Diesel requirements are considerably behind petrol. This is the single biggest con inflicted on citizens of the EU imho. I lay the blame at the door of the French and German automakers .

I doubt that coincidence or chance is behind the fact that diesel emissions "testing" at NCT (or any other country's equivalent) is more like a ball park guide for tuning a victorian steam engine than anything useful for preventing pollution.

"If it still be possible to make out the uncouth countenance of a street urchin standing behind the horseless carriage through the exhaust plume, one may be satisfied that combustion is proceeding more or less satisfactorily"

ELM327

The sooner we move away from oil as a transportation method, the better for all concerned.
I think all of us non-sheeple in here will agree that.

That cuts away this alternating between "Diesel is green" and "petrol is green".
I saw the other day an old ad for unleaded petrol during the change and it was described as green. FFS.

Special Circumstances

The less power and money we give to the House of Saud etc the better for sure, even without any environmental benefits!

ELM327

Careful there, I said that in a UK based EV group and was told I was racist.

Special Circumstances

ELM327 wrote: »

Careful there, I said that in a UK based EV group and was told I was racist.

Then, by extension, driving an EV is racist? I knew pretty much everything was something-ist but wow.
I better purchase an antifa hoody and pummel the next Leaf driver I see.

Villain

I think keeping a lying Bertie in power was a slightly bigger issue!

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Careful there, I said that in a UK based EV group and was told I was racist.

You're automatically a racist today if you're a White Christian Male..........

jimmycrackcorm

Fiskar wrote:

They should have poured their energy into infrastructure projects such as a train link from the Airport to Dublin City centre, would have taken those diesel taxis and buses of the road. Must be the only major city with no train link.

One rail link wouldn't make any difference. Plenty of people use the airport that don't travel via the city centre.

Fiskar wrote:

Would never trust Ryan in government ever again.

The greens only have a couple of percentage points. So I'd hardly view them as the bane of the country.

Deleted User wrote:

Why has diesel never succeeded in the U.S ? Well for one , they've had far stricter emissions limits for decades.

Let's not forget the massive prevalence of unnecessary large engine sizes also.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Let's not forget the massive prevalence of unnecessary large engine sizes also.

At least they're not diesels and at least Americans weren't forced to drive box cars with underpowered engines and have to pay huge taxes just for the privilege of driving an underpowered box.

Lets not forget also the farcical NEDC test designed to suit the car manufacturers.......

Special Circumstances

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Let's not forget the massive prevalence of unnecessary large engine sizes also.

Ah. So diesel didn't take off in the states because the average engine sizes were too big?

Wanderer78

ELM327 wrote:

The sooner we move away from oil as a transportation method, the better for all concerned. I think all of us non-sheeple in here will agree that.

Thank God we 're moving on to 'clean coal' next!

Special Circumstances

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Thank God we 're moving on to 'clean coal' next!

I'd say the Ruhr isnt economic so we won't be told that coal is clean.

n97 mini

Deleted User wrote: »

At least they're not diesels and at least Americans weren't forced to drive box cars with underpowered engines and have to pay huge taxes just for the privilege of driving an underpowered box.

Americans wouldn't put up with that. There'd be riots if they had the same levels of punitive taxation that we do.

Wanderer78

Special Circumstances wrote:

I'd say the Ruhr isnt economic so we won't be told that coal is clean.

What, so coal isn't clean! I'm confused, the Donald wouldn't lie, would he?

To be honest, Im not sure we 'll ever move away from fossil fuels, global elites simply don't care about us or our planet

zilog_jones

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Let's not forget the massive prevalence of unnecessary large engine sizes also.

You could argue that a lot of engines sold in Europe are unnecessarily small. On the old pre-2008 tax system here it was fairly common for people to drive pathetic underpowered cars (with mediocre fuel consumption due to lack of power), and now there are these tiny 3-cylinder turbocharged direct injection petrols which are not necessarily a step in the right direction either - direct injection petrol can be even worse than diesel in terms of NOx emissions.

You'd be surprised how efficient modern engines can be, regardless of size. I drove a Chrysler 300 in the US a couple of years ago, with a 3.6 V6 (that's the "small" engine!) and averaged around 45 MPG (imperial). For a car that weighs nearly 2 tonnes that's pretty damn good.

TheRiverman

Huge problem,still no easily accessible alternatives to diesel and petrol,especially in rural areas.Electric cars and hybrids are rubbish and very expensive.I live in rural Ireland and I can never see anything other diesel or petrol to run my car.
Look at the monumental cock up that getting fast Broadband to rural areas has become.Imagine what It would be like with electric and alternative fuel cars.
I remember Eamon Ryan spoofing in an interview when he was in Government about some crop or crops that could be turned into low emission clean fuel and my first thought was "yeah tomorrow morning I'll be able to drive to my local filling station and fill my car up with that and keep Eamon happy":D:mad:

Ash.J.Williams

I'm not a scientist but.... Everyone knew this was wrong and it took persuasion by the greens to get this tax change through at the time. I took Boyle to task on it and he boasted that car sales increased (bank credit was still available when the tax changed)

goz83

TheRiverman wrote: »

Huge problem,still no easily accessible alternatives to diesel and petrol,especially in rural areas.Electric cars and hybrids are rubbish and very expensive.I live in rural Ireland and I can never see anything other diesel or petrol to run my car.
Look at the monumental cock up that getting fast Broadband to rural areas has become.Imagine what It would be like with electric and alternative fuel cars.
I remember Eamon Ryan spoofing in an interview when he was in Government about some crop or crops that could be turned into low emission clean fuel and my first thought was "yeah tomorrow morning I'll be able to drive to my local filling station and fill my car up with that and keep Eamon happy":D:mad:

Electric Vehicles have come a very long way in a relatively short period of time. Can you explain what you think is rubbish about EVs and hybrids? Or can you not see past your own cynicism?

I do agree with you one point. Ryan is a tool and the only power he should have is a solar powered calculator.

zilog_jones

EVs may not be ready for mass market yet but they make a lot of sense as a second car. Modern hybrids are as good as, if not better than diesels in terms of fuel efficiency - they may be more expensive new, but you're likely to save in the long run with lower maintenance costs and the "chape tax". There's a lot more choice in this market than there used to be.

Special Circumstances

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What, so coal isn't clean! I'm confused, the Donald wouldn't lie, would he?

We're in Europe. The Germans tell us what to do, not the Donald.

Wanderer78

Special Circumstances wrote: »

We're in Europe. The Germans tell us what to do, not the Donald.

'cleaner coal' then:D

n97 mini

TheRiverman wrote: »

Huge problem,still no easily accessible alternatives to diesel and petrol,especially in rural areas.

Realistically the answer is to put less people in rural Ireland. Lax planning laws, a few quid in the economy, and everyone wants a McMansion. Last year in some counties 100% of new builds were one-offs. In most cases you can't deliver services in a cost-effective manner to one-offs. (The cost of a stamp is going up to a whopping €1 tomorrow)

TheRiverman wrote: »

Electric cars and hybrids are rubbish

Wrong forum!

Special Circumstances

Wanderer78 wrote: »

'cleaner coal' then:D

Can we call you Helmet Coal?

The One Doctor

I get annoyed when I see people buying a new diesel. They're no idea what they're letting themselves and others in for the long run. Seems to be mainly down to ignorance and lack of interest in car technology. That said, for the government to promote diesel ofver petrol is mystifying. They basically looked up a few typical car brochures, compared diesel and petrol CO2 emissions and said 'Right lads, petrol's more polluting!'

And yet not one move to tax the fcuk out of diesel owners yet (motor tax, VRT, fuel etc).

My brother recently bought a 2012 Mondeo diesel. I was a bit surprised as he'd only owned a diesel once before and didn't like it. His reasoning? 'I couldn't find a petrol for the same price.' My mother in law changed to diesel recently as well after years with petrol cars. The reason? Cheaper tax, apparently.

A few changes will make a world of difference:

- Base motor tax on NOx
- Decrease VRT on petrol cars
- Eliminate VRT on hybrids (yes, I'm biased as I drive a Prius)
- Educate people about the pollution that both petrol and diesel vehicles emit.
- Crush every single diesel car in a cube. Especially the beautiful cars (mainly BMWs and Mercs) that become ugly as soon as they're started.
- Increase the subsidies on EVs.

And the most important point:
- Show people how much money they're wasting every month running non-EV/hybrid cars!

cnocbui

n97 mini wrote: »

Realistically the answer is to put less people in rural Ireland. Lax planning laws, a few quid in the economy, and everyone wants a McMansion. Last year in some counties 100% of new builds were one-offs. In most cases you can't deliver services in a cost-effective manner to one-offs. (The cost of a stamp is going up to a whopping €1 tomorrow)



Wrong forum!

Where do you live and in what type of dwelling?

Calahonda52

Subsidies get passed back to the manufacturers and other middle men along the trough and never, ever, in the long run economic models, benefit the the hard pressed car owner.
Look at the Help to buy a house nonsense....
Same happened with the grants for pellet boilers several years ago, the Italians and Austrians and Germany just ramped up the prices.

Same with EWI: 16k with out the 5k grant, 21K with....

Back in 1981 when the first HBG of 1,000 quid came out on a Thursday, the house prices went up that Saturday: I know because I surveyed a house in Mullhuddart, when it was just an idea on a map, on the Wednesday for a couple.
Went out Saturday with her parents, 1,000 quid dearer.

So price the polluting rigs and polluting fuels out of the market: while not a perfect analogy, take the tobacco approach, did the Gov subsidise the alternatives: no, just priced the fags higher and higher, not enough mind but the right idea. Keep it simple and let price drive behaviour