They are in fact just financial incentives and in that regard well understood with companies long prepared to work within that system. Everything else is just the usual loud PR bullshit for morons.
The fleet limit was the product of successful lobbying: instead of looking at each vehicle model separately, the CO2 consumption was calculated using arbitrarily determined average values, as it was clear from the outset that the respective vehicle models that were most popular with customers would not be able to comply with the CO2 limit.
For years, it was therefore possible to register vehicles that individually exceeded the limit values by a wide margin, but because the small car (which could just as easily comply with the specified limit values due to its weak engine) could then be offset in the vehicle fleet, the bottom line was that it worked out.
Things got even better for car manufacturers when electric hybrid vehicles were added: The electric car is by definition CO2-neutral (i.e. emits no CO2), and when offset against the combustion portion of such a hybrid vehicle, the result is very low CO2 emissions, thus improving the calculation for the fleet consumption and limit.
In addition, these plug-in hybrids have been subsidized, even though they do not have a decent range. Basically, a fully-fledged combustion engine has been subsidized.
These types of plug-in hybrids have a downright ridiculous range of 50 km and were only introduced in order to calculate the fleet consumption so that the vehicles that have sold best so far (because they are overpowered) can continue to be produced and registered.
If the aim was really to reduce CO2 emissions, then this fleet limit - and therefore also the fleet consumption - should not have been introduced in the first place. The CO2 emissions of each individual model should have been adjusted individually. This would have revealed much earlier that the vehicle manufacturers were not really willing to work on this.
Just call them “finacial incentive” instead of fees.
They are in fact just financial incentives and in that regard well understood with companies long prepared to work within that system. Everything else is just the usual loud PR bullshit for morons.
See: this German article from about a week ago for example…
The fleet limit was the product of successful lobbying: instead of looking at each vehicle model separately, the CO2 consumption was calculated using arbitrarily determined average values, as it was clear from the outset that the respective vehicle models that were most popular with customers would not be able to comply with the CO2 limit.
For years, it was therefore possible to register vehicles that individually exceeded the limit values by a wide margin, but because the small car (which could just as easily comply with the specified limit values due to its weak engine) could then be offset in the vehicle fleet, the bottom line was that it worked out.
Things got even better for car manufacturers when electric hybrid vehicles were added: The electric car is by definition CO2-neutral (i.e. emits no CO2), and when offset against the combustion portion of such a hybrid vehicle, the result is very low CO2 emissions, thus improving the calculation for the fleet consumption and limit.
In addition, these plug-in hybrids have been subsidized, even though they do not have a decent range. Basically, a fully-fledged combustion engine has been subsidized.
These types of plug-in hybrids have a downright ridiculous range of 50 km and were only introduced in order to calculate the fleet consumption so that the vehicles that have sold best so far (because they are overpowered) can continue to be produced and registered.
If the aim was really to reduce CO2 emissions, then this fleet limit - and therefore also the fleet consumption - should not have been introduced in the first place. The CO2 emissions of each individual model should have been adjusted individually. This would have revealed much earlier that the vehicle manufacturers were not really willing to work on this.