Tuesday, 26 February 2008

Climate Change Part 22 (daytime running lamps).

The next time Gordon Brown spouts his usual rubbish about how signing the Lisbon Treaty will enable the EU to reduce climate change, remember this:

From Hansard written answers:

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate her Department has made of the likely increase in annual fuel consumption resulting from the requirement to have daytime running lamps on motor vehicles.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Research undertaken for the Department for Transport indicated that the requirement for new types of motor vehicle to be equipped with dedicated daytime running lamps would result in an increase of about 5 per cent. in fuel consumption.

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 4 February 2008, Official Report, on motor vehicles: safety, what provisions have been agreed with her EU counterparts on the exemption of vehicles registered for road use before the commencement of the relevant European directive from the mandatory use of daytime running lights or their equivalent.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Following EU decisions on daytime running lights (DRL) issues, a European Directive will require new vehicle types to be equipped with dedicated DRLs from early 2011 (cars, vans) and summer 2012 (other vehicles). Vehicles registered before these dates will not be required to be retro-fitted with DRLs or to use existing lights as an equivalent.
Luckily this only applies to new vehicles registered from 2011 onwards. However, we have 32,897,000 vehicles registered for use on UK roads including cars, vans, taxis, buses and trucks, and each year we are seeing approximately 5 million new vehicles registered (and growing) to use our roads. So this EU policy of fitting daytime running lamps to all new vehicles will see an increase in fuel consumption (5% of 5 million) the equivalent of adding a further 250,000 cars to our roads. This is of course the low end figure, and is for the UK only. I dread to think what the total number of additional vehicles would be for the entire EU.

This is the problem with the EU, one hand passes regulation for one reason, without realising that it conflicts with what the other hand is trying to achieve. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified we can only expect more of these ridiculous rules to come our way.


Jonathan Sheppard said...

Not just an EU issue - but all Government seems to work in silos.

Phil Woolas tells everyone its immoral to buy water in plastic bottles - its bad for the environment - yet there have been schemes encouraged by the DoH which have had bottles of water introduced in schools!

Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

In an otherwise sane and politically sound man, you do persist in this ludicrous heading, Steve. :)

Pablo the Scot said...

Bretwalda, it is not ludricous. Man-made Climate Change is the biggest scam on the planet. Back in the early 70s we were all told that we were entering an ice age and going to freeze to death. Today we are entering an era of super-heating according to the same scientists.

Can any believer in Global Warmer please explain how it has been significantly warmer in previous eras without our internal combustion engines and electricity generation stations? It was 3 degress warmer in the period 1000-1300AD without any help from mankind. When the dinosaurs walked the earth it was even hotter and not a car or plane in sight.

Each year we get wilder and wilder predictions of the possible outcomes of the global warming scenario. What these don't report is the probabilities. In order to generate the nightmare scenario they use the least likely sequence of events that has the maximum impact. The report last year was the most outrageous yet but hidden within it was a probable range of outcomes from 0.3 degree Celsius rise over the Century, to a 6 degree rise. The 6 degree rise (probability of occurance less than 1%) was the one that got all the attention and hot air.

Of course, this makes sense as they are being funded to do research into the harmful effects of global warming. Producing a report saying 'No Impact' would lose them their funding; they have a vested interest in ensuring that the scare continues.

Pablo the Scot said...

Just came across this absolutely brilliant video clip that puts things in perspective.



Daily Referendum said...


Sorry, but we all take in information and come to our own conclusions. I'm not alone.

Daily Referendum said...


Cheers for the link.

Daily Referendum said...


Nice of you to drop in. I think we need to make a list of these two-faced rules.