By Jo Nova
Labor wants the poor to subsidize the rich EV car buyers
Good news: The conservative opposition has promised to reduce the fines to zero for car manufacturers who sell “too many” diesel and petrol cars. This effectively negates the New Vehicle Emissions Standards (NVES), even though the Coalition says they will keep the standards (whatever that means).
As standards were ratcheted up the fines could be as much as $25,000 on the largest utes and 4WDs.
For a nation of petrol-heads, it’s amazing this diabolical policy hasn’t sparked outrage, probably only because it was buried in complexity. An honest government would have added a fee or a tax directly onto the kinds of cars they didn’t want sold — they could call it a pollution tax to cover the cost of the damage. The reason the Labor Government didn’t do that is because the unwashed masses would be revolting in the streets. So they make a rule that manufacturers have to sell a certain percentage of “good cars” that make future weather nicer (in theory), and then they can tell abject lies to the public like “it’s up to the car companies” and “manufacturers don’t have to pass the costs on” — as if any profit making entity can absorb fines of millions without raising prices.
The sole point of the NVES was to punish petrol and diesel car buyers and subsidize EV manufacturers, and pretend the government was not doing the taxing and subsidizing because the money didn’t pass through any bureaucrats hands, even though the sole cause of the money flow was indeed the government.
Election 2025: Liberals to drop fines on car emissions
By Greg Brown, Sarah Elks, and Joanne Panagopoulis, The Australian
The Coalition will abolish fines for car companies who breach targets under Australia’s first vehicle emissions standards scheme, in a major election commitment aimed at taking down the Albanese government’s claim that the price of petrol cars will not increase under Labor’s policy.
The Australian can reveal the Coalition will retain the New Vehicle Emissions Standards, but will not punish companies financially that do not meet the tough carbon goals. Coalition sources said the policy, to be announced during the campaign, has the backing of the sector.
Companies that miss the yearly target need to pay heavy fines or buy credits from suppliers that overperform, with industry modelling predicting car suppliers will be on the hook for $2.7bn of fines by the end of the decade.
The effect of the pseudo car tax would be to limit sales of petrol and diesel cars by raising their prices, or taking them off the market, while reducing EV car prices — a policy that takes money from the poor in the outer suburbs and country areas in order to subsidize cars bought by inner city rich people. As petrol and diesel cars became more expensive, obviously their second hand price would increase as well.
These people are professional liars:
Chris Bowen (Energy Minister) implies the Labor policy has reduced the cost of EVs in Australia already (even before it started).
Mr Bowen said. “When we came to office there were no models available under $45,000; now there’s eight. That is our policy starting to work with a lot more to do.”
Somehow fines and penalties “increase the options” — as if stupid companies overseas were making cheap electric cars but forgot to send them to Australia:
Jim Chalmers said the NVES was about introducing more options. “That will put downward pressure on prices over time,” the Treasurer said.
Peter Dutton needs to find short one-liner ways to sell this policy because it’s a vote winner.
The neutered NVES would be barely an aspirational fantasy goal without the fines. Presumably the opposition decided to keep it anyway just so the Labor Party couldn’t hit them easily with one-liners that “Liberals don’t care about pollution”. Where is our honest national conversation? Gone with the billion-dollar biased ABC, and government regulations that stop new competition arising in free-to-air media.
In fact the NVES is purely about CO2 emissions, not about pollution. Carbon dioxide is an asset to a dry agricultural nation. The Coalition should axe the NVES entirely. Petrol and diesel drivers help feed the poor.
In the UK, the same sort of rules were already in place, and due to the awful consequences on the car industry, even the untouchable Keir Starmer Government, years away from the next election, is already cutting fines by 20% and exempting British manufacturers like McLaren, Aston Martin and Bentley. Fines in the UK were as high as £15,000 per car, and set to get worse. The UK government has also added in all kinds of what they call “flexibilities” to keep the illusion that they are not back-tracking, while finding excuses to reduce the penalties. But of course, flexibilities are Soviet style complexities that means everyone needs more lawyers and accountants and more bureaucrats. It still feeds The Blob. It’s not the free market that brought the mass production of cheap cars to the unwashed masses in mere decades.
Complexity helps the rich and punishes the poor, it just hides it better. The opposition should wage a war against these deceptive schemes. All the same outcomes could be achieved through honest simpler tax plans. Only liars and cheats want to dupe the voters with hidden subsidies that help the rich.
80
A few years ago Toyota Australia was reported for advising the Australian Government to ignore European Standards for vehicles and adopt North American.
I believe the reasoning was the politics of Electric Vehicles in European Standards.
My diesel 4WD Isuzu purchased new in 2017 complies with Euro-5 but I understand that later diesel engine manufacturers are struggling to meet European Standard for diesel engines emissions.
130
Toyota may have had an ulterior motive (since they are all-in on hybrids rather than EVs), but they are correct. It makes way more sense for a continent-spanning low population density country with lots of wide open spaces to adopt vehicle standards from low population density continent-spanning countries in North America than it does for them to adopt vehicle standards from a Balkanized Europe full of tiny little population dense countries. What works in Liechtenstein and Monaco doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in Western Australia or Texas or Quebec or Chihuahua.
341
Good news for all the sane buyers who want to purchase an ICE vehicle and a definite vote winner if they have the brains to advertise extensively for the next few weeks.
292
The poor have subsidized green energy.
The rich however, subsidize the propaganda to convince the poor to be happier with more poverty.
“You will own nothing.”
The ‘Commonwealth’ countries are nearing full dystopia.
Mothership UK is already there.
Oddly in lockstep with former rivals France and Germany.
Canada is about to put an EU/WEF/RocksofBlack apparatchik in charge (because the last one was so popular).
All us Americans have is a 78 old year obstinate former TV personality that they turned into a victorious hero with their hysterical efforts to discredit him and ostracize half the American population.
Who has about 18 months to save the Alamo.
(May God bless and guide him.)
Good luck Ozzians.
Your going to need it.
So are we.
BTW … the whole point is make it impossible for us to own cars.
In my solid Blue US state, they’re damn near making it impossible to live.
420
Please allow a little personal story.
Last year I was required to renew my driver’s license.
I have had this license in this God forsaken Democrat ruined state for 40 years.
That license has served as my one and only legal ID for said FORTY years.
This time I was required to show up with an ‘original’ birth certificate.
Being born long ago in a Southern US state, I can’t recall whether I was ever in possession of such.
I was able with great difficulty, and a year long effort at the expense of $300, to procure ‘original’ ID documentation.
In this same accursed state, an ‘immigrant’, can stroll into the DMV and stroll out with a DL without any identity documents whatsoever.
530
Yet, NONE dare call it TREASON?
200
Same insanity rules in Oz. An Australian passport can be used as an ID document in all situations EXCEPT applying for a new Australian passport. Same requirement to source long discarded/lost documents to ID oneself………
20
its worse than that -in WA a few years back the DoT wouldn’t accept my 16yr olds passport as an ID document. He had to have some bill or something with his current address on it, abank card or medicare card. It was a joke. The passport is our gold standard ID document and they wouldn’t accept it.
10
Australian passenger vehicles emit approximately 50% more CO₂ than the global average. Over 85% of the global car market is covered by fuel efficiency standards that Australia has yet to adopt.
https://theconversation.com/australian-passenger-vehicle-emission-rates-are-50-higher-than-the-rest-of-the-world-and-its-getting-worse-222398
264
Thank you. That’s great news Simon.
These emitters should be given a tax deduction. They are providing free fertilizer.
Do you care about people starving in Haiti?
681
And we should be proud of this fact. Thanks for pointing out good news for a change.
282
If one wades through enough of the content-free verbiage, it does eventually give part of the reason.
60
The US figures are almost certainly skewed downwards by omitting their best-selling monster pickups such as the Ram, Silverado and Ford F-Series.
50
“These people are professional liars.”
I have said this over and over again, Jo.
People like Bowen, Turnbull and Albanese lie as easily as normal people breathe in and out.
440
Yes, many politicians here and in other places hold law degrees. Such people are TRAINED liars. That is their stock in trade. The sheeple need to be made aware of this fact. Don’t forget that you do not need any qualifications whatsoever to lead a nation, nor indeed, the entire free world.
I needed far more qualifications to run my landscape design and build business or indeed, to teach the skills to others.
Politicians in the main are only motivated by gaining power over others.
There are very few genuine exceptions.
320
Worse than that … they regularly get caught out, and they don’t even care.
20
I’m suspicious already. LNP will keep the new standards but won’t impose any fines???
How long before fines are reimposed?? Always handy to keep ludicrous laws & strategies in the bottom drawer for use in some dreamed up “ emergency “!!
The “ gas “ which all politicians live in mortal fear of is harmless & it’s a fertiliser!!
If they’re going to interfere in the free market do it properly & scrap all the subsidies, rebates & exclusions ( fuel excise charges ) reduced or free annual registration fees.
I also suspect insurance of EVs has been subsidised by the latest round of insurance premium increases.
Either stop all BS, get rid of all subsidies paid to benefit the Green Blob or just leave the ALP in power. Nobody trusts them & trusting the LNP is marginally easier. Very marginally.
Grow a pair & dump Net Zero. The WEF / UN days are all but numbered!
290
Graham,
Dead right – it’s a source of revenue left on the table . The old joke about politicians – how do you tell when they are lying ? their lips are moving.
100
One thing I can’t understand is why the opposition isn’t calling out the ALP’s energy subsidies as an admission of catastrophic failure. They came into government promising a $275 drop in electricity prices and instead they made electricity so expensive that they were forced to borrow money to provide subsidies to make it affordable. Now we’ll need to pay off the borrowed money with interest, making a catastrophic failure even more catastrophic into the future. What they should do is remove the GST and all other taxes on energy, including electricity and petrol. Taxing energy makes no sense. You need to tax the profits of business, not the energy needed to start them up and keep them afloat.
340
When the g.s.t. was introduced, we were promised there would be ‘no tax on a tax’. Bullsh*t. You have g.s.t. added on the end of every petrol receipt AFTER the excise is included. A certain vote winner would be to repeal this blatant tax grab forever. That would immediately reduce fuel prices by 10%, which is a vast improvement on Dutton’s pretend policy.
190
Maybe people could stop dumping on him and stop admonishing those who don’t see voting for single policy minorities as the way forward. I’m looking at you Jo.
55
Axe the tax. Stop the boats.
It was a 90 seat winner.
There were big policies behind this, but being able to sum up those policies in short messages is just good communication skills, it’s not “single policy minorities”. A good politician can communicate in the short and the long format. This is especially important when nearly all the media are on your opponents side. He has mere seconds to reach voters. The media do their best to bore the voters, asking trite, irrelevant questions, so most won’t tune in to long interviews.
Why did you think a suggestion to use short memorable quips was “dumping”?
If I wanted to dump, I would start with the Under 16 Social Media Ban.
As I said, the car policy of the Libs is a vote winner, but I don’t think the voters realize how much is at stake.
440
Damned by faint praise. Ref. #11
21
Unfortunately Labor voters aren’t enough astute to understand this.
140
A car owner is a car owner. We all buy cars.
People will get it if we call it a $10k extra fee for a petrol car so you can help someone else pay off their EV.
300
Who are they?
They are barely an “opposition” and they are not conservative but less Leftist than Labor.
And I am impressed that the Libs came up with this. I expected them to do nothing.
Maybe they are getting a bit of a clue.
211
There are foreign readers. I have to give them the basic roadmap. Calling the Liberals “liberal” will confuse them. If I call them “conservative” at least non-Australians know they are not our furthest left major party.
110
Has anyone actually read the Act that established this “New Vehicle Efficiency Standard”?
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r7182_aspassed/toc_pdf/24048b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
Give it a go! Then please take a printed version to your local member, who should be out on the hustings, and have them explain exactly what “Vehicle Efficiency” means in this Act!
It has nothing to do with fuel efficiency!
231
If Cuban’s can keep their very old Americans cars on the road for at least 50 years there is hope for us yet! To counter this complex vehicles we buy today may just be too difficult for mere mortals to repair when necessary.
100
I have three diesel vehicles – one has been on the road for 22 years and 0.5m km (landcruiser) and still going strong – go figure what my preference is. They can only stop me by banning private sales of diesel fuel.
10
Don’t give them ideas! Please!!!!
00
Vehicle repair education will be the mother of necessity.
00
Yes, the the ALP and the Greens are professional lyers and are experts at muddying the waters. The term carbon emissions is deliberately confused with pollution and carbon dioxide is deliberately confused with carbon. Carbon dioxide, as we all know, is not a pollutant, it is essential for life on this planet !!!
Real pollution is much more difficult to fix, it is the crap that goes out weekly in our bins and all that cheap junk on the sides of the road. And all for landfill !!!
It is that real pollution we should be addressing. We could start by taxing some of that rubbish mostly imported from Asia and China.
151
Keeping the legislation but not the financial penalties is surely the most despicable use of double speak? There is absolutely nothing to prevent a mind change at some future date. Why can’t we have a clear concise statement about climate change/net zero intentions. Politicians are so scared of presenting a black/white position incase it offends one/more of their backers. Never mind the electors they can be pacified with inflation causing borrowed money.
Say what you mean and mean what you say
140
Penguinite,
Penalties for non-performance and competence testing before candidacy would help . If they had to balance the budget , and new taxes or increased taxes had to be approved by the electorate or they get fired would change the landscape . Put their skin in the game.
80
A reminder to vote for the party that excludes liars and cheats…
Draw box on ballot paper…
Write “Party with integrity and the slightest clue of reality” next to it.
Tick box.
40
Bolt recently interviewed a motor car guru – forgotten his name – who pointed out that China has been taking over the imports of cars into Australia. Blackout’s comment about cheaper cars might be right but once again the bullies of Beijing are certain to be closely involved.
We can only hope that the independent in the seat of McMahon – who has an enormous lead in the polls – gives the arrogant fool a shellacking in 3 weeks.
121
Why do you assume there is a shortage of financial illiterates in labor to take Bowen’s place?
Why do you assume you or many others will know his name even if he is elected?
20
Questions that need answers:
How much of the health budget is being used to subsidize green zero? 🔥💰
50
I’m sorry to have missed yesterday’s discussion on the NVES. But I am posting again here..
It’s appalling NVES, New Vehicle Emissions Standards. Does anyone actually read this rubbish? It’s the most impenetrable legislation I have ever read.
And designed to be so. You can lose your business if you do not understand this law.
All transactions involving units are made through a registry.
There are a number of offences and civil penalties in relation to the vehicle efficiency standard and the registry.
A range of compliance and enforcement powers are provided for, primarily by applying the Regulatory Powers Act.
But the text! It is so filled with acronyms it is nearly unreadable. And formulae!
21 Emissions target
The emissions target for a vehicle for a year is the number worked out using the following formula: HL + MAF(DM-RM)
HL is the headline limit for the vehicle for the year.
MAF is the mass adjustment factor for the vehicle for the year.
DM is the designated MIRO for the vehicle for the year.
RM is the reference MIRO for the vehicle for the year
Final emissions value
A person’s final emissions value for a year is the number worked out using the following formula: IEV – U
IEV is the person’s interim emissions value for the year. U is the number of units extinguished under section 42 for the purpose of reducing the person’s final emissions value for the year.
19 Interim emissions value
A person’s interim emissions value for a year is the number worked out using the following formula (rounded to the nearest whole number and rounded up if the first decimal place is 5 or more):
18 Final emissions value
A person’s final emissions value for a year is the number worked out using the following formula:
IEV – U
where:
IEV is the person’s interim emissions value for the year.
U is the number of units extinguished under section 42 for the purpose of reducing the person’s final emissions value for the year.
19 Interim emissions value
A person’s interim emissions value for a year is the number worked out using the following formula (rounded to the nearest whole number and rounded up if the first decimal place is 5 or more): ∑i(Ei – Eti)
where: i is a covered vehicle for the person for the year
So I wondered how anyone in Canberra wrote this? And then I decided, they didn’t. They copied it from the UK.
A clue is in the text.
Headline limits for years in the introductory period were determined consistently with the NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) test procedure.
Now why are Australian laws referencing typical driving cycles in Europe? Obviously driving around Kent is very similar to driving around Bathurst. Or London with Adelaide.
and these ‘headline limits’ drop precipitously.
Item Yes Type 1 vehicles Type 2 vehicles
1 2025 141 210
2 2026 117 180
3 2027 92 150
4 2028 68 122
5 2029 58 110
So CO2 has to go down x 2.5 in four years! Surely they’re kidding!
How many more CO2 laws are there about which Australians know nothing? What is the total take in cash credits, kept out of general revenue?
You have to be kidding if you thought this could be understood by Chris Bowen or Jaqui Lambie.
We are being pushed off a cliff. And the law factory in Canberra is running full steam ahead with more and more departments collecting more and more cash for growing trees overseas. As NASA can tell you, growing trees does not affect CO2. It’s all international theft. All with the idea that Australia alone can save the planet. If you believe that, you are beyond help.
110
And it all references a ‘person’. The closest I can come to the definition of a ‘person’ is that “Registry accounts may be opened by persons who have vehicles covered by the standard”
This implies a person is someone who has multiple ‘vehicles’, so presumably a dealer or importer.
This is in common with the RET, the attack is on dealers so that the public does not see what they are paying or that they are being offered cheaper electric cars because dealers are forced to sell them and so discount them and the loss must be added to the petrol cars.
It’s absolutely insidious. But no different to the Renewable Energy(Electricity) Act 2001 or the Safeguard Mechanism (2024). Britain copied our first successful illegal carbon dioxide tax where neither carbon dioxide or tax is mentioned. And we returned the favor by copying their CO2 penalties which push up the cost of petrol cars by penalizing car dealers or importers.
Parliament is out of control. They are passing laws which are intended to deceive the public and even the politicians. Many think Australia does not have some of the world’s largest and most punitive carbon taxes and do not know that this money goes overseas.
We have paid for the windmills but we don’t own them! Like in Victoria we have paid for the freeways but the new owners and the government split the loot. Like the Tullarmarine Freeway to the airport. The right to toll expired perhaps ten years ago and yet we still pay to drive on our own roads. And I presume the same people are the ones making very sure the rail to the airport is never built, even though the tracks have been there for a century.
Australia is being robbed by our public servants and the beneficiaries. These laws are illegal by all democratic tradition since Magna Carta. Enriching third parties and hidden in our costs of electricity and cars and goods and services so that no one knows they exist. Except the people who wrote them and those who receive the billions in cash.
70
My concern is that these are not just lies. They are Australian laws with serious penalties. And no one can read them. Or understands them. I will have to dedicate some real time just to understand where the money goes in this law and how that translates into $10,000 extra for cars. This amount will explode by 2029. These are rubbish laws, unworkable, unjustified and not intelligible.
Laws must be written so that ordinary people can understand them easily. Otherwise what is the point of laws no one understands? How can they be expected to obey the law?
I am just appalled, not only at this law, but at the number of such impenetrable money grabbing society crippling laws. And always the money is turned into Credits/Certificates you have to buy with real cash. And no one knows where the cash goes or to whom. Or cares. We are saving the world.
70
The problem is in Washington, Whitehall, Canberra. Public servants out of control. And parliaments rubberstamping wrong laws, laws they do not and cannot read and creating big departments for running registers to oppress the citizens with penalties for no justifiable reason at all.
For that you have Gillard’s CARBON CREDITS (CARBON FARMING INITIATIVE) ACT 2011
and Rudd’s NATIONAL GREENHOUSE AND ENERGY REPORTING ACT 2007
These are used to collect cash for CO2/CH4 and that money can go to anyone who qualifies for an emissions avoidance project.
You have to be mad to think this is all science. It is robbery with licence.
And the public has no idea how much of their money is flowing down these rivers, buried in everything you buy, not just electricity any more. But they are very careful to avoid taxing petrol as that is political dynamite. Just EVERYTHING ELSE.
70
It’s a bit like Biden with his AutoSign. Who is writing these laws? They must be rubber stamps of British laws.
And to show how impenetrable this law is, the word ‘person’ is used 261 times. And it is not defined. That is intolerable.
Everyone is a person. It’s ridiculous to suggest that this act applies to everyone. So we are left to work it out, that a person is someone who registers and that persons is someone who owns ‘vehicles’ to which the act applies. Can a company register? Can a company be a person? There is so much unsaid!
80
I even found it impossible to cut and paste as this Act uses Greek symbols for the rules stored as pictograms. What law required Greek mathematical expressions? You know you are faking it when you need complex formulae. I cannot even post them here.
70
As with men in women’s sport, a thousand genders, what is needed is what Trump is doing. Full frontal.
Fire up those coal mines. Open those pipelines. Deport those illegals. Fund the police. Defund the myriad of sycophantic government deparments
Like a Federal department of Education when there is no Federal education. A Federal advisory gone completely mad and costing a billion $$$ a year when none should exist.
No carbon taxes/certificates/trade offs/restrictions. None. And remove all CO2 laws. There is no middle ground. No compromise
Man made CO2 driven rapid Armageddon Global Warming is not proven.
Jo, you have spent so much time and so many years fighting this hoax. And now it is continuing without any debate or justification.
The legislators are punishing all Australians for something which isn’t true.
And they know it isn’t true. The platform has to be to stop the insanity. And it has to start at the top
Stop the carbon taxes
Stop the multiple sexes
Stop the uncontrolled migration of inappropriate and even incompatible people
Stop the demolition of the defence industries
Stop the loss of jobs in manufacturing
Stop the subsidies.
I cannot be fiddling and interpreting all these mad laws. It’s like Wack a Mole. The very basis of them is wrong.
But Canberra is full speed ahead on net zero, carbon taxes, carbon credits, carbon certificates and shutting down the place.
They don’t care it’s all a lie. Are they deluded or is there a darker explanation.
I don’t care either. It all has to stop. As in the US.
CO2 cannot be controlled by mankind. Stop the insanity. Repeal all these laws as if they never existed. And fire the people in Canberra costing all that money. $1Bn a year.
And the $18Bn in the current spend, off budget of course, for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The money is a total waste. We will never see it again.
Australia should be rich. All this CO2 religion is doing is wrecking the place. Rapidly. The 35% penalty rates on CO2 is absolutely insane. And this money just goes overseas, gone forever. No wonder we are $1Trillion in debt and this will explode. Stop the CO2 insanity. Cui Bono? Not Australia.
90
Great post TdeF.
70
So the biased ABC quote some equally leftist biased study that has cherry picked some data to tell a narrative and you and other gullible ABC advocates swallow it up and side with lying clown politicians like Chris Bowen on trying to tell the rest of us how to live based on this dibble?
The study(which i doubt you bothered to read) quotes EU, America, China and Japan emissions, EU & Japan would probably be the only semi accurate data. China emission data would be whatever the CCP says it is which would be a lie, i can’t see how America would have lower emissions (even on a per vehicle percentage) compared to Australia due to all their large gas and diesel guzzling cars and pickups.
Do better Simon.
20
I have worked through the appalling law. It is in fact about six different laws and nearly impenetrable.
But in summary it is an attack on petrol cars at the wholesaler. Be aware though that there is now a register of every car sold by VIN number and its CO2 production. At any time in the future this will allow a government to (punitively) CO2 tax every car owner based on miles travelled.
For the moment it is based on a simple idea. CO2 is toxic pollution under the Clear Air Act. The gas from which all living things are made and which powers all living things through hydrated CO2, or carbohydrate and the gas which all living things breathe out is now TOXIC POLLUTION is insane. But now Australian law.
Plus all cars have a CO2 per km. but the basis of this punitive tax on dealers is that they have to balance these with electric vehicles, which are assumed to have 0g/km.
And over the next five years they have to achieve AVERAGE output/pollution as follows
Headline limit
Type 1 Type 2 vehicles. Presumably in g/km although not said. (nothing is really explained, units, variables)
1 2025 141 210
2 2026 117 180
3 2027 92 150
4 2028 68 122
5 2029 58 110
Type 1 being family cars. And type 2 commercial vans.
Consider a Toyota Corolla emits 90g/km and an Audi Q7 emits 220g/km, so this looks like g/km.
As you can see the Audi is already illegal. So you have to sell an electric car for every Audi you sell if electric cars are 0g/km.
Or give cash to buy certificates to grow trees overseas.
The Corolla is fine but by 2029 you have to sell an electric car for two corollas. And five electric cars for every Audi.
But here’s the problem.. It’s a blatant lie today. Electric cars generate CO2 per km driven! And none when they are stopped.
At present in Australia 83% of all electricity comes from coal. And electric cars are coal powered. Plus there is a loss of 8-15% in the transmission system.
A Tesla model 3 consumes between 11.9kWh and 17.1 kWh per 100 kilometers. On average 13.1kWh/100km but in suburban commuting 17.1kWh/100km. And typically about 20,000km per year in the US. So over a year a Tesla Model 3 uses 3MwHr.
There is an energy loss in distribution of this coal based electricity of 8% to 15%. Say 12% to 3.6MWhr required at the power station.
Coal power generated about 1 ton of CO2 per MwHr. So 3.6 Tons of CO2 to power a Tesla Model 3 per year for 20,000Km.
So 3,600,000gms for 20,000km or 180 g/km. Now allow that only 83% of the electricity in Australia is coal and you get 150g/km. Very comparable CO2 to a typical mid range petrol car.
The point is here that you CANNOT reduce your average emissions by selling electric cars today. And the law is operating today, not at some future time where all our power comes from hydro and solar (at night) and Wind. In fact if you are charging your car typically at night, forget solar. So more like 180g/km.
And the law is unworkable. The defence is that electric cars when driven generate as much CO2 per km as petrol cars. And much more than a Toyota Corolla and even more than a Toyota Corolla hybrid. Anyone prosecuted could defend themselves easiliy. And I would hope take this to the High Court and get it struck off. This whole scam is based on a ridiculous idea that driving electric cars produces zero CO2. The only time that’s true is when they are stationary and everything turned off.
30
As later..
For those car dealers who have to deal with the appalling NVES law now in operation
I have struggled through the many changes to many laws which are intended to strangle sales of petrol cars.
And they talk about huge savings in CO2 when there are none.
And point out three things
1. The law is based entirely on the idea that driving electric cars produces no CO2. This is a lie in a country where 83% of electricity is from coal. And higher at night, of course.
2. every car is going on a National register with its g/km rating using the VIN number. So every car can be tracked and carbon taxed at any time,something you do not have with petrol with the excise. The petrol is taxed, not the owner.
3. the dramatic drop in the ‘headline limit’ on emissions from 141g/km to 58g/km by 2029 means almost no existing car or electric car will qualify for sale by 2029.
____________________________________
Ridiculously even bicycle has a CO2 cost comparable to a petrol car in g/km. Humans breathe out 3 tons of CO2 a year and can be directly taxed for breathing under this law, if on a pedal bicycle. Or at present, the vendor of the bicycle. You may need to track your bicycle or perambulator or skateboard. The Federal government is determined to save planet Earth with expensive Green Certificates and rivers of cash overseas. Certainly not a carbon tax. That would be betraying a trust.
There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead. So it is all done by stealth and laws no one reads or can read. I found these laws very impenetrable, badly written, terms poorly defined or not defined and endless references to other Acts which had to be modified to fit. This has been a huge operation in deceit.
And looking at the member’s speeches and amendments, these Acts have been rammed through parliament with no discussion and ZERO comprehension. This breaks the trust the public should have in our legislators, even putting equations in the law which few people and no legislators would comprehend.
We are being deceived. And CO2 should NOT qualify as a toxic gas under the Clean Air Act. All living things breathe out CO2 and are made entirely from CO2. It is also ALL our food as carbohydrates or proteins derived from animals who lived on carbohydrates. It’s all lies. Science fraud. Theft.
30
And simply, this appalling and crippling and complex Green money grab because people have to buy cars, is based on really bad science.
I would go so far as to call it a fraud, the pretence that electric cars in Australia do not generate CO2 when they are driven. Currently they are responsible for more CO2 than most small petrol cars.
10
And there’s no point saying that in the fullness of time, all energy will be carbon free.
Right now, as this law started on 1st January 2025, it is ridiculously far from the truth in Australia. Electric cars generate more CO2 than conventional cars or as much. Which means no dealer should be forced to sell electric cars or pay a hefty fine. Right now, electric cars do NOT reduce CO2 emissions at all.
The idea the Carbon Dioxide is a toxic pollutant under the Clean Air Act is fraud. Ignorance of basic biology at best. Absurd. Or just an old fashioned bald faced lie.
30
In the Digest on the new bill..
“Australia is one of the few major global economies that doesn’t have a vehicle efficiency standard (VES).[6] Concerns have been raised by a broad range of stakeholders over a long period of time that the absence of a VES in Australia is a major barrier to the introduction of low and zero emissions vehicles to the Australian market.
According to analysis commissioned by the Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) and Climate Council”
So advising on science and economics are the Electric Vehicle Council. “The Electric Vehicle Council is the national body representing the electric vehicle industry in Australia. ” So not biased then.
And the “Climate Council” “The Climate Council is a fearless champion of the climate solutions Australia needs”. Although ‘Chief Climate Councillor” and world expert on ancient Australian wombats Professor Tim Flannery seems to be missing. “even the rains that fall” level expertise in science. Hot Rocks too. “technology is straightforward”.
20
Is this law yet, and is this the Green tail wagging the idiots in labor.
10
Yes, 1st January 2025.
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/nvesa2024265/s10.html#interim_emissions_value
and
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7183
The word ‘person’ is used 265 times, without defining the word person.
I can only think this Act has been transliterated from a UK Act which made sense, perhaps.
It is quite possible the Act as passed is unworkable and undefined in intent and as such unusable. The essential formula for “Interim Emisssion” is unintelligible and literally unprintable in English characters.
At no point does it dictate that Electric Vehicles are exempt and as in Australia they are responsible for as much CO2 per km or more, they also should be subject to heavy fines on vendors. Obviously at night there is no solar and the contribution of solar to charging cars overnight is zero.
It’s all nonsense. Even the explanatory notes. Possibly the worst piece of legislation every passed and likely the MPs have no idea what it said either. Though there was a query as to why the penalties were not in the body of the legislation. Which is like asking why the ring on the pin on the hand grenade is round. Perfunctory and pointless. And now it is passed, the department refuses to answer questions like this as it is now law. So there.
30
It’s hard to work out the penalties, but there is this.. “The person’s final emissions value for the year multiplied by $ 100 “.
A person’s final emissions value for a year is their interim emissions value for the year minus the number of units they have extinguished for the purpose of reducing their final emissions value .
So you can pay to reduce your ‘final emissions value’
Start formula sigma with subscript i below it open bracket E subscript i minus ET subscript i close bracket end formula
where:
(which simply means no one can copy the formula as it is in Greek characters, with subscripts)
∑i(Ei – Eti) and you add up all these for each car.
“i” is a covered vehicle for the person for the year.
“E” , for a covered vehicle for the person for the year, is the emissions number for the vehicle for the year.
“ET” , for a covered vehicle for the person for the year, is the emissions target for the vehicle for the year.
each car being IEV-U where U is what you have paid converted into ‘units’.
and assuming the Mass in Running Order equals the “Actual Mass” you pay the headline value for the vehicle for the year x $100.
i is possibly one of a number of vehicles or a number of weeks or something else. It is certainly not “a covered vehicle for the person for the year” This Act was never meant to be read.
And if it is the emissions in g/km you do need the number of kilometers.
At this point I give up! Unintelligible variable definitions.
How anyone came up with $10,000 is beyond me. If you don’t want to pay these hefty fines or risk jail, you better sell a lot of very small hybrids by 2029 or no cars at all.
30
In a country which doesn’t make any cars, this Act makes selling new cars nearly impossible without somehow selling electric cars which generate similar or more CO2, paying unintelligible fines to bring the notional ’emissions’ down or just telling people to get bicycles.
That this piece of mumbo jumbo science legislation was passed by our parliament is no surprise. Parliamentarians have no more idea of what is going on than anyone else. It looks like we are in the hands of Tim Flannery once again and the Electric Car people in China.
30
In summary, this Act is utter nonsense. The ‘formulae’ are unintelligible to anyone even with substantial science training.
Whoever wrote it has no idea what they are doing. It presumes that you can reduce emissions to zero somehow. But electric cars generate more CO2 than petrol cars?
Anyone prosecuted under this Act should take it to the High Court for review. It would be tossed out. Politicians will be rewriting Newtons laws of motion soon. It is like the time Indiana redefined PI to 3.2 to make calculations easier. That at least made some sort of sense. This Emissions nonsense is utterly wrong scientifically and as a law and the unspoken premise that electric cars do not generate as much CO2 as petrol cars is nonsense in any country.
Unless you have only nuclear. In which case the emissions are far safer than CO2? Try Chernobyl.
20
I have finally concluded that this absolute garbage of an Act is unintelligible. And the department responsible for explaining it to the public has really given up.
I can understand how it was passed. No one understood it.
The department has likely cooked up some sort of example rules for car dealers. I have no idea what they are telling dealers. But it’s likely wrong but no one can understand the Act anyway.
Because it’s all science nonsense, rubbish. These are make believe calculations not properly defined. They are confusing per km and per year.
I really don’t know. Cut and paste pictures of equations.
I despair at the state of play in Australia where such a thing could happen. A nonsense law. With criminal penalties and cash demands as carbon credits.
So complex and convoluted that no one can understand it. And I should be able to by now, but the terms are not defined or so poorly defined I cannot follow it.
And no worked examples. I would hate to be an Australian car dealer. And they are all importers as Australia no longer makes cars.
So there is no Australian car lobby to fight it. Just an Electric Car group who represent importers, mainly Chinese I expect. And they see themselves profiting greatly from this, as it appears to force people to sell electric cars only by 2029. Or pay heaps. Or get out of business.
Just like all the manufacturers saddled with a 35% CO2 tax. How can you make anything without energy? It takes huge energy to make materials.
And every more energy to shape and join them. Without producing carbon dioxide? You cannot make anything without producing carbon dioxide.
Canberra is off the rails completely.
I don’t know how anyone can even ask questions in parliament.
The fundamental assumption appears to be that electric cars have no emissions. But they are comparable in Australia to petrol cars and perhaps worse.
And they are attacking the car dealers as they attacked the electricity retailers and the farmers, manufacturers, freight companies, miners. Anything to keep the public ignorant of the hundreds of billions of dollars to flow out of this country by edict. To achieve nothing.
Just like all the missing hundreds of billions in Ukraine. We are being turned into a Third World Country using fake science and punitive laws.
Neither lawyers nor Church should be legislating science. What a tragedy of binding legislation. Australia is becoming a carbon dictatorship.
30
So I have given up trying to decipher the Australian law. It is rubbish.
However it is likely stolen and chopped up from the UK which in turn will reference the EU before Brexit.
Yes!
BD-065-New-Car-and-Van-CO2-Regulations-Guidance-2022-v.3.
For example in the British Act
6.33 The amount payable will be £86 per gram of exceedance multiplied by the number of vehicles registered.
So we have a plain English definition of the penalty! Except it’s been changed to $A100 per gram and at least we now know it’s per gram and not per gram over an entire year!
Then
Specific emissions target = WLTPreference target + a [(Mø – M0) – (Mø2020 – M0,2020)]
7.3 In 2021, for cars, the values to be used to calculate ‘specific emissions target’ are:
• WLTP reference target as set out above;
• a = 0.0333
• Mø = the average mass in running order of the new cars of the relevant manufacturer/pool in 2021 in GB plus Northern Ireland from 1 September
• M0 = 1379.88kg
• Mø2020 = the average mass in running order of the new cars of the relevant manufacturer/pool in 2020 in the UK
• M0,2020 = 1379.88kg
And if you note that M0 and M0,2020 are identical, this reduces to
WLTPreference target + a * (Mø – Mø2020 )
Except the Australian law has left out the ‘a’ factor of 1/300. And there is a penalty for cars which grow in weight of 1/300th of the additional weight. Why is not explained but at least the formula is clear.
The Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP) is the new EU-approved test procedure for determining fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of new cars, replacing the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).
In 2025 and 2029, cars will have a target of 93.6 g CO2/km, and vans will have a target of 153.9 g CO2/km.
By 2030-2034, these targets will further decrease to 49.5 g CO2/km for cars and 90.6 g CO2/km for vans.
Compare the Australian laws of 154 in 2025 and 58 in 2029. So they have pushed compliance to 2030 to match the UK in 2034!
Overall the English Act is written in plain English and intelligible.
Whoever cut and pasted this Act had no idea what they were doing. So we in Australia have a law which is unintelligible. We can only guess at the intent. And why the calculations were changed, a major factor left out. And European driving patterns applied to Australia.
But overall it also talks about reducing emissions as close as possible to zero. And implies you can do this by selling electric cars. Which is nowhere in the Act. Otherwise it is impossible to reach 48gm/km by 2029. We don’t make the cars. And only a very light weight small engined hybrid could match this.
What has been established that our NEVS is a Frankenstein version of the UK Act which is based on the EU regulation. And has lost all meaning in translation. It is a straight demand for lower emissions with a penalty.
In Australia we are likely to be 100-150g/kg over this by 2029 and at $100 per gram, this is the $10,000 to $15,000 payment for every vehicle. How this is supposed to reduce CO2 is beyond logic unless you sell a mix of electric and petrol cars to reduce the average emissions on the basis that electric cars do not cause CO2 output. Which is wrong. Or perhaps by making larger cars so expensive that no one buys them, which won’t work. So it’s just more carbon cash grab.
20
So to summarise
The Australian version of the UK/EU Act is just wrong, nonsense.
I have worked out what they were trying to say from the UK Act which was butchered to make the Australian Act by searching UK Acts.
But the UK Act is IS NOT the Australian Act. No Australian Act should be unintelligible and open to debate and interpretation.
That’s not a law, it is utterly wrong and must be taken back to the garage. Just because I can get an idea of what they meant to write, it is not what they wrote.
And the additional idea someone in the Department has that Electric Cars can reduce CO2 output to zero is pure fantasy. Not in a country where coal is 83% of the electricity on average and much higher at night when people charge their electric cars. Petrol cars produce the same power with less CO2.
But from the comments, the Department is openly being advised by the Electric Car lobby and the Climate Council. Neither are unbiased independent authorities. Rather very biased special interest groups who should not be involved at all in matters of taxation.
This Act must be repealed. It is fundamentally flawed, very poorly written by someone who did not understand the subject and could not explain the calculations or even correctly define the terms. Plus leaving out the 1/300 factor in the difference between weights over time making weight differences a major factor in emissions, which it is not. So the weight part of the equation 300x too big. But I expect people will ignore the correction because no one understands it!
20