Australia introduces its first exhaust rule but makes all the mistakes the US did
Australia will introduce a bill to parliament this week containing its first-ever vehicle emissions rule, a huge step forward for the country. But the rules make the same mistakes that have caused ballooning vehicle sizes in the US over the last decades.
Australia doesn’t have its own fuel efficiency standards, making it one of only two advanced countries without such a rule, alongside Russia. Australia has seen some state-level efforts to expand EVs, some better than others, but the federal government has been somewhat hands-off in this respect until now.
As a result, the average new car in Australia consumes 6.9L/100km, compared to 4.2L in the US and 3.5L in Europe. Automakers often bring their dirtiest cars to Australia, and don’t offer better and cleaner electric models in the country.
The new emissions rules intend to change that, and to increase availability of EV options for the country.
The rules will cut new vehicle emissions by more than half by 2029 and will save Australians $95 billion in fuel costs by 2050. This will result in 321 million fewer tons of carbon emissions in Australia by 2050.
While both of these numbers are a lot less than the US’ new EPA rules, the US also has 13x as many people as Australia.
The numbers are also lower than they would have been in the original proposal, which would have cut 369 million tons of carbon emissions. But that proposal was watered down by automaker lobbying (which we’ve seen a lot of recently), primarily through exceptions added for huge SUVs.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because it is. The US EPA has long had what is referred to as a “footprint rule,” which allows larger vehicles to pollute more. This has been credited with causing ballooning vehicle sizes in the US. And giant SUVs have, in turn, eliminated the auto emissions gains we could have had if cars had remained normal sized.
Thankfully, the EPA’s new rules – which the Albanese government modeled its rules after, including the softening of them after EPA finalized a softer version of its own rules last week – have actually acknowledged this mistake, and say that they will “narrow the numerical stringency difference between the car and truck curves” over time in order to reduce this favor given to huge vehicles. The Albanese government’s rules, however, do not seem to include a similar realization.
The Australia rule classifies several large SUVs as “light commercial vehicles,” despite that they are typically used for non-commercial purposes. These include the Toyota LandCruiser, Ford Everest, Isuzu MUX, Nissan Patrol and Mitsubishi Pajero Sport – all mid- or full-size SUVs.
Commercial vehicles get a higher emissions limit than passenger cars – 210g/km in 2025 and 110g/km in 2029, instead of 141g/km and 58g/km respectively for passenger cars. Higher limits would make sense for vehicles that are doing commercial work, like last-mile delivery, but picking the kids up from footy practice isn’t really a “commercial” task.
Further, the commercial vehicle limits were raised compared to the original plan. They were originally going to be 199 and 81 grams, instead of 210 and 110. This watering-down echoes similar recent developments in both US and EU regulatory schemes.
These changes were pushed for by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, Australia’s primary automaker lobbyist. Tesla and Polestar used to be members of FCAI, but both quit due to the misinformation that FCAI spread in the process of lobbying against these emissions standards.
As you might expect, Toyota was one of the main proponents of watering down the standards, in keeping with its general global stance of spreading misinformation about electrification.
However, Toyota does seem reasonably satisfied with the compromised rules – though characterized it as “a very big challenge” and called the numbers “ambitious” (which recalls what the US’ main auto lobbyist said about the EPA’s new rules – calling them “a stretch goal”).
Other automakers had a similar take, including Tesla, whose head of policy in Australia, Sam McLean, said the rules are a “moderate standard that takes Australia from being really last place in this transition to the middle of the pack.”
The rules were a priority for Anthony Albanese, Australia’s center-left Labor party prime minister. Albanese succeeded a string of right-wing Liberal prime ministers, including most recently Scott Morrison, who was criticized for, among other things, taking a vacation to Hawaii while his country was on fire due to a climate change-exacerbated brush fire.
A bill containing the new auto emissions rules will be introduced in parliament this week. The bill is expected to pass over objections of the opposition, which has not seen the rules but said that it plans to vote against them.
Electrek’s Take
Like with the new EPA rules, we obviously think that a huge step forward in auto emissions is a positive step.
But, also like with the new EPA rules, we recognize that watering down these standards is an incredibly dumb idea. The EPA rules shouldn’t have been watered down, and following the US’ dumb decision is not a good move. Especially since Australia’s rule implements a large-car exception that the EPA’s own rules acknowledge was a devastatingly bad influence on US auto emissions, road safety, and general sprawl over the course of the last few decades.
Take it from someone in the US: don’t make the same mistakes we did. It won’t make your cities nicer, it won’t make your population healthier, and it won’t save you money.
And in general, there are no emissions schemes in the world currently that are ambitious enough to confront the climate crisis we find ourselves in. According to Climate Action Tracker, no countries have made commitments compatible with keeping global temperatures under +1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels, and only a scant few are rated as “almost sufficient.” Australia’s commitments are currently rated as “insufficient.” So it is apparent that there is still action to be had, and that Australia needs to do better.
The other threat is possible future Chinese dominance in the auto industry. While this is less of a threat in Australia’s case (it doesn’t have a domestic auto industry to speak of), the recent pattern of automakers lobbying governments for looser emissions rules will only harm those automakers, as weaker rules will lull them into a false sense of security that is not shared by the rapidly growing Chinese auto industry.
Read More: Big Auto is begging governments to let them go bankrupt as Chinese EVs loom
China is ramping EVs, and will fill gaps in consumer demand that are left by intransigent Western automakers who fall into their pathological compulsion of opposing any reasonable regulation just for the sake of opposing it. And while EU and USA may try to throw their weight around and oppose this shift (which I believe will be an impotent effort), Australia is not likely to, given its proximity to China, history as a large trading partner with the nation, and relatively smaller size and therefore ability to call the shots globally.
But, we must also celebrate progress wherever we can. Going from no commitment at all, to one that ramps as a pretty good rate before the end of this decade, is praiseworthy.
Photo by Marcus Reubenstein on Unsplash
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Elon Musk went on an all-day Tesla self-driving propaganda spree ahead of the company’s earnings, which are expected to be rough.
It’s well known these days that Musk doesn’t often comment on Tesla as he is busy with his government work, buying elections, and running several private companies.
Some Tesla shareholders argue that the CEO is neglecting the public company, which saw its stock tumble this year.
That wasn’t the case today.
Musk went on a tweeting spree about Tesla, specifically about Tesla’s self-driving effort.
Here are some of the highlights:
Tesla posted that “one day” its vehicles will drive themselves from the factory to new customers and Musk couldn’t stop himself and had to say that it will happen “this year”:
Like most of Musk’s self-driving comments, this one is hard to take seriously since he said the exact same thing in 2018 and claimed it would happen in 2019.
The tweet he was responding to has been deleted by the author, but it asked when Tesla vehicles would drive themselves to customers:
Spoiler alert: regulators are not the bottleneck here.
Musk then claimed that “Tesla self-driving will be far safer than human driving”:
The problem here is that Musk has claimed on many occasions that Tesla’s FSD is already safer than humans, like in 2023: “Supervised FSD is vastly safer than human driving.”
There’s no data that supports that. Tesla refuses to share any data regarding its self-driving program and instead, the company shares a very misleading quarterly “safety report.”
Considering Tesla’s FSD requires supervision from a driver at all times, the driver’s supervision and attention help reduce accidents that the self-driving system wouldn’t necessarily prevent.
Musk also shared positive experiences of a few Tesla owners, including a Tesla engineer and Joe Rogan:
As we often highlight, Tesla’s FSD can be impressive to use, but the problem is when you compare it to its promise, which is in the name: full self-driving.
Under its current form, FSD is still a level 2 advanced driver assist system, and not self-driving, but Musk said that it would become truly “unsupervised” self-driving every year for the last 8 years.
Therefore, it’s not what Musk has been promising buyers for years and as for when it is coming, he has been consistently wrong and has asked owners to rely on anecdotal experiences as Tesla refuses to release any data.
We previously reported that Musk has twice positively referred to a crowdsourced Tesla FSD dataset that shows Tesla’s FSD v13 on HW4 is achieving fewer than 500 miles between critical disengagements.
Tesla has previously stated that FSD must achieve 700,000 miles between critical disengagements to be safer than humans.
The spree of Tesla FSD tweets comes as Tesla is preparing to report its Q1 2025 earnings next week, which should be difficult after the automaker reported its lowest delivery results in three years.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Texas is No. 1 in the US for wind and solar capacity, but the Texas Senate just passed a bill that aims to kneecap clean energy with an industry-killing review process. Will the Texas House pass it, too?
The Texas Senate today passed SB 819, which creates new restrictions on the development of wind and solar energy under the guise of “protecting” wildlife. The restrictions don’t apply to any other forms of energy.
Texas uses an extraordinary amount of power, and renewables play a big part in supplying that power. The Texas Tribune reported in March that “ERCOT [the Texas grid] predicts that Texas’ energy demand will nearly double by 2030, with power supply projected to fall short of peak demand in a worst-case scenario beginning in summer 2026.” That’s because of extreme weather, population growth, and crypto-mining facilities.
As of February, Texas increased its energy supply by 35% over the last four years, and 92% of that supply came from solar, wind, and battery storage.
Solar is the largest source of energy generating capacity that has been added to the Texas grid. That’s because it’s cost-effective and it can be deployed quickly. So if new solar projects are kneecapped, power demand will outstrip supply in the Lone Star State.
Daniel Giese, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)’s Texas director of state affairs, stated after the Senate’s vote, “With energy demand rising fast, Texas needs every megawatt it can generate to keep the lights on and our economy strong. We cannot afford to turn away from the pro-energy and pro-business policies that made the Lone Star State the energy capital, but that’s exactly what SB 819 does. We urge the Texas House to reject this bill.”
Less clean energy would also jack up electricity bills for Texans, and rural areas would lose billions in landowner revenue and tax payments. Every time a wind farm or solar farm is installed on rural land, it brings a lot of money to the community that surrounds it. A January report estimated that existing and planned solar, wind, and battery storage projects will contribute $20 billion in local tax revenue and $29.5 billion in landowner payments.
What’s especially baffling about this bill is that it flies in the face of a core Texas value – keeping the government out of private property decisions – yet it does precisely the opposite.
Environment Texas executive director Luke Metzger issued the following response: ‘By making it much more difficult to build wind and solar energy in Texas, this bill threatens to increase pollution, increase blackouts and increase our electric bills.
“Under the guise of helping land and wildlife, SB 819 would create a discriminatory and capricious permitting standard that could grind renewable energy development to a halt.
“We urge the House of Representatives to reject this bill and instead support policies that promote a cleaner, more sustainable energy future for all Texans.”
It will come as no surprise to regular readers that I find this bill ludicrously masochistic. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, and please keep it civil.
Read more: A vast 600 MW Texas solar farm just hit a major milestone [update]
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Blink Charging’s (Nasdaq: BLNK) new partnership with Eco-Movement will make Blink’s EV chargers a lot easier to find across multiple platforms.
Eco-Movement is a global platform that collects, refines, and maintains a massive real-time database of public and semi-public EV charging locations and pricing data. That info is used by some of the biggest names in the industry. Now, Blink is tapping into Eco-Movement’s platform to make its chargers way easier to find – whether you’re searching on Google Maps, asking your voice assistant, using a charging app, or navigating from your car’s dashboard.
As new Blink chargers come online, Eco-Movement updates its database of EV charging locations in real-time, and that information is incorporated by mapping and charger-finder apps. That way, EV drivers are kept up to date.
Mike Battaglia, president and CEO at Blink, said, “The leading mapping apps trust Eco-Movement and its state-of-the-art, quality-checked, and constantly updated data. We are excited to be teaming with them to ensure drivers worldwide can easily find our chargers and receive up-to-the-minute updates on charger availability.”
Eco-Movement’s global database includes detailed charging point info – like addresses, operators, pricing, accessibility, truck compatibility, and real-time availability – along with roaming partners, membership rates, and payment options.
“Ultimately, this data will help EV drivers all over the world to find their next charging stop, which is a mission we share with Blink,” said Roderick van den Berg, CEO of Eco-Movement.
Read more: Blink Charging will more than triple EV charger production with a new factory
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway