I came across this awesome looking project recently. Dale Vince, founder of UK green electricity company ecotricity wants to build a wind-powered sports car.

Before you get carried away and start imagining a Lamborghini Murciélago with a wind turbine strapped to the bonnet, there is an intermediate step.

The car, which is being built by a hand-picked team of specialists, will run on electricity generated from wind power.

When I first started looking at electric cars, I was pretty sceptical. It's all very well in theory but there needs to be an integrated approach (but one very different from that advocated by ACEA, that shifts the burden of CO2 emissions somewhere else). There's no point in switching to electric cars and burning fossil fuels at the power station to run them.

But regular readers of this blog will remember the Greenpeace report that shows how it will be possible to meet the increasing energy needs from electric cars without increasing our carbon footprint if we make an investment in clean renewable energy. So if it was coupled with a big push to renewables, there might just be some substance to Dale's dream of an eco friendly sports car.

© Greenpeace / Xuan Canxiong

And it's not the only initiative I've found out about. Over in the States, rock star Neil Young is trying to convert a gas guzzling Lincoln Continental MK IV into a zero carbon car that will even generate power that you can use at home.

If the detail on the website is a bit sketchy, here's a simple explanation on the Green Car website.

Young's aim is to produce a new kind of engine that can be retrofitted into existing cars like his beloved '59 Lincoln. And if it works, that would be good news for carmakers who would need to make minimal changes to their production lines to start making these cars.

It amazes and inspires me that these two people have a vision and are willing to invest their own money to find a marketable zero emissions car. They haven't asked for a few billion Euros or dollars from their governments - they've used their own cash and the belief that the world is ready for their vision of a zero emissions car.

So what are the car makers waiting for?

With the Tesla Roadster already in production, it seems like finally the electric car is becoming a reality. Porsche is even rumoured to have bought one in order to see what makes it tick.

And we might not all want to buy a luxury electric sports car, but a lot of people complain that green cars are no fun.

So the challenge is on - and if even the carmakers aren't going to accept that challenge I'm sure there are people out there who will prove that it is possible to make a fun green car at a range of prices to suit all pockets.

Greenpeace Italy has produced a new “climate barbarians” video to show how the Berlusconi Government is siding with the German car makers who are lobbing to continue the production of gas guzzlers despite their significant contribution to the EU's carbon footprint.

The third and probably final “trilogue” among European Commission, Parliament and EU Council was scheduled for last night to reach a definitive deal on European car efficiency legislation.

The Berlusconi Government is threatening to block the whole European climate and energy package if carmakers aren't given the green light to continue business-as-usual.

"The Berlusconi Government is trying to destroy the first European law to fight climate change in return for a handful of euros," said Andrea Lepore, Greenpeace Italy transport and climate campaigner.

Let's hope the other countries don't let him get away with it.

The EU council, parliament and commission representatives met in the final "trilogue" on Monday night to work out a deal to set targets on CO2 emissions for cars.

Though the car industry has been lobbying hard to get an agreement that will allow them to wriggle out of making any reductions, and to some extent they've got away with that in the short term, the good news is a long term target has been set.

The initial target of 130g will be phased in over 3 years, which means the car industry has until 2015 to put the brakes on their CO2 emission levels. Penalties are weaker than we'd have liked, so that in some cases carmakers could choose to pay the fine rather than make the required improvements.

But there is some good news for the climate, and while analysts are going through the fine print of the agreement to work out whether it's a jewel in the crown or just a piece of glass in the plastic, what's clear is that there is a long term target of 95g by 2020. That means the car makers are going to have to shift up a gear to get emissions down over the next decade.

It looks likely that the deal will be signed off in a vote later this month.

Greenpeace will be keeping an eye on what steps the carmakers take to meet the targets.
In the long term, car makers are going to have to change their ways, whether they like it or not. At the end of last year emissions levels were around 158g for new cars so manufacturers need to start making significant reductions.

And the market is changing - all over Europe people are switching from gas guzzling cars to more economical versions. Whether that's because they care about climate change or whether it's a case of simple economics in this global recession, the effect is the same. It's all good for the climate.

Whatever the reason, people are doing the right thing - now it's time for the carmakers to step up to the plate

Have you ever thought about taking a green driving test?

Here's a video of an environmentally-minded driver who took one. Proud of the fuel efficiency he gets from his own car, "how hard can it be?" Patrick Barkham asked as he set off. The challenge was to drive a Ford S-Max around an 8 mile circuit on one litre of petrol.

And the answer is in his case, was very hard indeed. Running out after 5 miles, he managed to achieve only 24 miles per gallon, 40% less than the ideal score. Over a year, that style of driving would emit an extra tonne of CO2.

As the green driving test shows, there could be a lot of scope for driver improvement, so aren't the carmakers right in insisting that eco-driving should be included in the CO2 emissions targets? It's all part of their "integrated approach" that demands that everyone needs to play their part in reducing CO2 emissions.

Eco-driving makes a lot of sense. No one is going to argue that changing your driving habits to make the most of the fuel in your car and limit your CO2 emissions is a bad thing. But to make that part of a target for carmakers to limit CO2 emissions on the vehicles they produce?

It would mean the carmakers can carry on churning out cars with higher CO2 emissions. Remember the EU target is 130g per km and the car lobby wants some of that to come from eco-innovations. So if 7g could come from something like Fiat's ecodrive system, just who is making the reductions?

It's up to you to make that 7g per km saving by driving more carefully. If you don’t your emissions are back up to 137g. So whatever you manage to save by eco-driving won't be an extra saving, it'll be you helping to bail out the car maker again.

And if you think that eco-driving is no problem and that Guardian report was fluke - here's another one in the Independent. He did even worse, only making it three miles around the course before he ran out of fuel.

I strolled into some car showrooms last weekend and tried to get the low down on fuel efficient cars.

I got a few strange looks from the salesmen when I asked about CO2 emissions. One was puzzled about exactly why I was interested in emissions levels. Though there were eco-labels on most of the cars, I got the impression that no one had ever asked him before. "Was it to take advantage of cheaper car tax?" he asked.

"No," I told him. "It's because I want a car with low CO2 emissions." That clearly didn't make any sense to him, but to be fair, though he didn't know why exactly I was interested in a low emissions petrol car, he did catch on and get me all the data and show me a new petrol car that when it's released next year will come in at just 99 g per kilometre, the lowest emissions for a petrol car on sale in the UK.

© Frank Mentha / Greenpeace

But the one big point about buying a greener car that he just didn't mention is that lower CO2 emissions equals lower fuel costs. It's as simple as that. And in these credit crunch times I reckon it's a brilliant sales tool.

If I chose something like a petrol-driven Citroen C1 with emissions of 109 g, instead of a C3 with emissions of 143 g per kilometre, I'd save myself almost £300 (around €350) in a 12,000 mile year's worth of driving.

I looked at petrol engine cars - diesel may be cheaper but there are still problems with the particles emitted that cause other kinds of pollution, so I decided to stay away from them. And I set myself an ambitious target, more ambitious that the 2012 target being considered right now by the EU, I chose to slash that by 10 g and looked at what I could get under 120 g per kilometre. If I had gone for 130g that would cost me roughly an extra £124 per year. So these are significant savings.

And I found that there are 26 models to choose from, which sounds pretty impressive. Though when you drill down a bit there are only twelve manufacturers. And looking more closely I found that some of them are basically the same car - the Peugeot 107, the Toyoto Aygo and the Citroen C1 are triplets.

There are a couple of hybrids in there - the Prius and the Honda Civic hybrid.

I went into three car showrooms and none of the salespeople mentioned to me that I could save a minimum of £100 a year in running costs just by switching to a car with lower emissions. All of them mentioned the fact that at 120g or lower the UK annual car tax is £35 (that's £85 cheaper than cars with emissions of 121 -150) but why didn't they add on the up to £300 saving in fuel costs and tell me I could save nearly £400 (that's around €475) per year? The tax bands are a great incentive - everyone likes to pay less taxes, but if you use your car regularly it's the fuel cost where you can make some significant savings and it would be the potential £300/€350 saving in petrol that could persuade me to choose one model over another.

And while there are a lot of smarts on that list of 26 cars, there are none from Audi or BMW, only one Peugeot, one Citroen, and two Fiats - both 500s, which seem supersized when you compare then to the original iconic cinquecentos still sneak in at 119g per kilometre.

If the car makers aren't rushing to bring us fuel efficient cars, at least some governments in Europe are working on the problem. The Netherlands is planning on scrapping a vehicle purchase and road tax and bringing in a kilometre levy instead.

I lived in Amsterdam for 8 years and inside the city centre congestion isn't too bad, especially when you consider it's the capital city. But there's a good reason for that - the citywide transport network including trains, trams, metro system and buses means you can get from A to B without too much fuss, and the fact that almost everyone owns a bike means that there's no need to get in your car only to queue up on the roads and spend hours circling the city centre looking for a parking spot.

© Debra Broughton

But outside city centres things are different. The amount of traffic on the roads has grown year by year until these days the motorway between Rotterdam and Amsterdam is one long queue for much of the day. Change is desperately needed.

There are a couple of pretty nice things about the Dutch road pricing scheme. It will replace existing car and road tax so drivers can't complain it's just another tax on driving. It is a tax on driving, but not a tax on car ownership, so people who drive less will pay less. It seems to me (and most of the Dutch population) that people who drive more, wearing out the road surface and causing all that extra congestion, should pay more. It's only fair.

Pricing will depend on time and location and the CO2 emissions of the car. So there's a congestion element and a climate policy element.

There is some road pricing in Europe - in Germany and Austria, trucks are charged according to their emission levels and number of axles. Bergen in Norway has had a congestion charge since 1986 with reductions for electric cars. There are tolls on some motorways in countries like France, Italy and Spain, and you have to buy a disc in Austria before you hit the highways.

In the UK, the London congestion charge gives concessions to electric cars but not to other cars with lower CO2 emissions. The UK's second planned congestion charging scheme in Manchester, which is being voted on by residents right now, offers no incentives for drivers to switch to more efficient cars. This government-funded scheme is said to be a flagship that will be rolled out across cities in the UK if it's approved, and it's disappointing that a government who has committed to an 80% reductions in CO2 emissions hasn't insisted on an environmental incentive in the scheme. On the plus side, the scheme does depend on improvements in public transport.

Carmakers operating in the Dutch market need to get their skates on to be ready for the changing market there, but they have some time to start building up their range of low CO2 cars - the scheme will be phased in starting in 2011. And the car industry loves a phase-in, we know that already.

It's an exciting time to be concerned about CO2 emissions. Unless some bright spark comes up with a non-polluting zero-carbon alternative to petrol (and people are trying) things have got to change. And while the traditional carmakers are mainly carrying on with business as usual there are some real innovations out there. CNN have a handy guide to the cars of the future, including hydrogen cell, electric and even cars that run on fresh air.

Hydrogen cars might be the car of the future, but the future is still a long way off. The hydrogen often comes from natural gas, but there's no good reason why it couldn't come from a process involving water and renewable electricity. But with only one model in production, made by Honda, which is massively expensive and with extremely limited availability, it doesn't look like it will be taking the roads by storm any time now. And there's the infrastructure problem, and until affordable fuel cell cars go into production there will be no call for hydrogen fuelling stations.

At least with electric cars you can plug in at home to recharge. And there are already electric cars on the market with some of the major manufacturers working on electric cars. But there could be a bumpy ride ahead for them - the materials for the batteries could become more expensive as more carmakers enter the market. And when the battery has come to the end of its life, carmakers need to make sure the materials are recycled and not just stacked somewhere causing more harm to the environment.

If you thought that the idea of cars running on fresh air was impossible, air-powered cars do really exist. As far as I can make out, there's only one company, MDI, that is making these cars, which use compressed air to fire the engine. The CNN verdict is that they're not a serious contender to electric and fuel-cell vehicles, but on paper at least, the figures aren't bad -the AIR Pod will have a top speed of 70 kph and a range of 220 km. MDI are planning a range of cars that will include air only and some duel fuel cars. The AIR Pod is due for production in spring 2009.

Meanwhile a solar powered car has driven around the world and arrived at the climate change talks in Poznan. Swiss teacher Louis Palmer drove the car 32,000 miles (52,000 kilometres) and only lost two days in breakdowns in the 18 month journey. The solar panels are carried on a flat-topped trailer and the car has a back up battery that can be charged for use when there is not enough light.

He's hoping that carmakers will improve on his prototype car, which meets Swiss safety standards, and start building truly zero-emission cars like his. "These new technologies are ready," he said. "It's ecological, it's economical, it is absolutely reliable. We can stop global warning."

Though the US House of Representatives approved a $15 billion bail out, on Thursday night the bill was rejected by the Senate.

The pressure is now on outgoing President George Bush, with calls on him to intervene with emergency funding. Both Chrysler and GM are facing collapse if some sort of rescue package doesn’t go ahead, while Ford has admitted that it’s not in such dire straits but will need a long term credit line if it is to survive.

When the bill was under discussion Electric sports car maker Tesla asked for $350 million to develop a 4 door sedan. There’s been a fair amount of outcry at a car maker that produces nothing more than rich people’s playthings asking for cash. And to make matters worse, Tesla is suffering from the credit crunch and has had to cut 24% of its workforce, but Chief Executive Elon Musk admits “We don’t need the government to survive. They need the government.”

So, the argument goes, why should Tesla get a share of the low interest loans when other car makers are about to fold completely, especially when it’s not even clear whether its plan for a family car will actually work. If Tesla need investment it should seek it from the billionaires that are going to benefit from the finished product, because the average tax payer won’t.

But there is another side to this argument. Why should tax payers foot the bill for car makers like Ford and GM who have carried on turning out gas guzzlers for the past ten years, flying in the face of the realities of a changing world that is facing up to the challenges of climate change? Why shouldn’t tax payers invest their money in car makers who guarantee to switch from what they’re doing and concentrate on making affordable greener cars? And does it much matter who does it or where they’re coming from as long as they’re moving fast in the right direction?

UK electric car company Nice has gone into administration amid reports that electric car sales in the first 9 months of the year have fallen more than 50% compared with last year, selling only 156 cars.

Though they are much cheaper to run, the tiny number of charging points and the lack of incentives to switch could have a lot to do with it. In London, where most of the UK's 1,100 electric cars are, the City of London has reversed a decision to exempt electric cars from parking charges which could cost their owners £4000 per year.

I was looking forward to a Nice dealership opening up near me so I could try one out and let you know how it feels, but though that's not going to happen, I did find an electric car owner who has test driven a range of electric cars.

But it's not all bad news for the electric car market across Europe - Nissan and Renault have unveiled plans to launch electric cars in Portugal in 2011. Hopefully that will give the Portuguese government time to get the infrastructure in place. If all goes well they'll have quick charging stations in Porto and Lisbon and some motorways where you'll be able to top up in 20 minutes, allowing a quick rest stop for you and your car to recharge batteries and get back on the road.

Italy is diving into the electric car market too. Energy company Enel SpA has done a deal with Daimler and will help bring electric smarts to Rome, Pisa and Milan in 2010.

It's also in talks with other car makers across Europe.

Enel SpA does claim to be an active player in the renewable energy sector, with "expertise in geothermal, hydroelectric and photovoltaic energy", and say they are "making very strong developments in wind power." so that's a step in the right direction. Much better than EDF who think that "nuclear power has a key role to play" and have teamed up with Renault to develop a large-scale electric car project starting in France.

Even BMW are getting in on the electric bandwagon - they unveiled an electric version of the Mini, imaginatively called the MiniE. It promises to perform more like the petrol version, with a top speed of 95 mph and a range of 150 miles between charges.

And finally, even the US army is getting in on the act - they've planning on leasing 4,000 electric vehicles, which will save them 11.5 million galleons of fuel a year. And that translates to big cost savings too, on average instead of paying $2,400 a year of petrol, they'll have a slim electricity bill of $400. That's a $2,000 annual saving. Let's hope they cars will run on renewable energy and to make it add up to a sizeable saving for the planet.

A German driver has successfully sued Daimler for overestimating the fuel efficiency of his Mercedes E-Class.

The driver bought a brand new top of the range E-Class in 2005, which the manufacturer claimed would achieve a fuel consumption of 10.2 litres per 100 kilometres in the city and 7.6 litres per 100 kilometres out of town. But the bad news for the car owner was that the actual consumption was around 15% higher.

The total amount of damages has yet to be decided but the district court in Stuttgart has agreed damages of €436 in respect of the 53,000 kilometres driven so far and the carmaker will have to give back €2,500 as a reduction of the €62,000 purchase price. In addition Daimler will have to pay compensation for future fuel use and court costs.

An interesting point about this case is that Daimler argued that fuel consumption is not an absolute - each driver has its own driving style, and that affects consumption. And what's more, the weather conditions, road surface and air-conditioning could all affect actual consumption.

We already knew that, but it's strange to see a carmaker using that as a defence when the car lobby has been fighting hard to get the "integrated approach" adopted, arguing that we all have a role to play in reducing CO2 emissions and crucially, trying to get part of the EU target offloaded onto the motorist.

But when they're asked to justify their fuel consumption figures, they blame the driver. Well, yes, it's true, that eco-driving isn't as easy as many people think and fuel consumption does vary depending on how the car is driven, but you'd think Daimler would know that and be able to adjust their figures to take human nature into account.

But though this case may be a breakthrough in getting carmakers to be a bit more realistic about their fuel consumption, according to lawyer Silvia Schattenkirchner from ADAC the German car drivers association, it’s not setting a precedent. Car owners who suspect their vehicles aren't matching up to the figures in the glossy brochures will have to have their car tested before a claim can be made.

It’s not much of a secret – more something that General Motors would prefer to keep buried among the piles of crushed metal in breakers yards in California, but back in the 1990s car makers in California were forced to produce electric cars. They weren’t exactly aggressively marketed, and most of the cars were available on lease only and cars were repossessed against the owner’s wishes.

And you might understand why people wanted to keep them – car like GM's EV1 look like the kind of family car you can see on the roads all over Europe. Except that the running costs would have been minimal. This generation of electric cars never found its way out of Europe – carmakers fought California’s Zero emissions mandate in the courts and it was withdrawn. By 2002 Toyota was selling off its last few electric cars. And all the other manufacturers withdrew their cars from the market and destroyed them. In 2006 a film called “Who Killed the Electric Car” was released.

One of the suspects is the consumer – people like you and me who might never consider buying an electric car, or who might have an aversion to it because of the low top speeds, or even the lack of noise. But I wonder if that aversion which is there in many people I talk to is down the fact that we’ve had little experience of electric cars, apart from the one person cars used by people with disabilities like the Canta in Holland.

Though this time around car makers aren’t being forced into producing electric cars, EU legislation means they have to do something to reduce CO2 emissions, and judging from the exhibits at the Paris Motorshow earlier this year, it’s going to be the electric car. Without legislation, they could do what they did in California in the 90s and quietly bury the electric car without even holding a decent funeral.

Things have changed since the 1990s. More and more people have faced up to the realities of climate change. And with the concerns about fuel costs and the recession, the time is right for the introduction of a car with low running costs and that could be better for the environment if we were able to use electric cars to drive an energy [r]evolution. So we can’t afford to let the car makers get away with burying the electric car a second time around. We desperately need cars that run on clean renewable energy and right now there’s no marketable alternative. That might change some day in the future, but we need change right now.

So I was happy to read this article from Chris Goodhall of Carbon Commentary. He argues that the internal combustion engine has had its day and lays out a plan to switch Formula 1 racing to an all-electric Grand Prix. If that happened, then electric cars would finally shake off their reputation for being slow and boring. And the car makers wouldn’t be able to argue that there was no market the for cars they’ve forced people to give up once, and we might all get the chance to drive one.

The deal on cars & CO2 has just been adopted in the EU.

To be honest the carmakers have made a wreck of this deal, with the politicians taking the back seat instead of putting themselves firmly behind the wheel and taking some positive action on climate change. The new law won’t force carmakers into making any reductions in the short term but we do have a crucial target for 2020 of 95g CO2 per km, even if it is up for review at a later stage. With CO2 emissions from cars running at around 158 g per km, it could make quite a difference. And we could be reaping benefits from that legally binding target sooner than the next decade.

© Greenpeace / Uwe H. Martin

The car makers might feel they’ve got away with it by lobbying hard for a phase in that means they have an extra 3 years to fully comply with the 2012 target of 130g per km. But can they really afford to wait or will they be changing up a gear to get CO2 emissions down long before that?

If they stall again and put off making any changes until the last moment they’ll have to make drastic improvements across their fleet to save an extra 35g per km in just 5 years. So it’s clear that the carmakers can’t sit and do nothing - that 95 gram target is a steep reduction and even if it does change when it’s reviewed they can’t be sure of the outcome of that just yet. So they’ve got 11 years to get fuel efficient cars on the production line.

The 2020 target will be reviewed in 2013, and no doubt the car lobby will be out in force trying to get the target delayed or watered down, or both. But you can be sure that environmental groups will be working hard to make sure that won’t happen.