ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

MUCH of the US had set limits on the pollution emitted by cars as long
ago as 1976. Sweden and Switzerland followed suit soon afterwards. Manufacturers
in the rest of Europe, however, held out against similar limits in the European
Community. The reason: the catalytic converters required would increase
the cost of a small car by about 5 per cent. Most European manufacturers
considered this price differential to be enough of a disadvantage for them
to battle for years against pollution limits requiring converters.

In November 1988, the European environment ministers agreed, with difficulty,
on the lowest legal limits for pollutants they could devise that would not
require the universal use of catalysts. Then in June there was a complete
turnaround. The ministers approved, without a murmur of dissent, a stricter
set of limits that will force cars to use catalytic converters. By the end
of 1992, for example, all new cars with engines smaller than 1.4 litres
must not emit more than 22 grams of carbon monoxide, and 5.8 grams of hydrocarbons
plus nitrogen oxides, during a standard test cycle.

The first surprise came in March, when the new Commissioner for the
Environment, Italy’s Carlo Ripa di Meana, scrapped the November agreement,
and simply presented the Commission with a new proposal for strict pollution
limits. This happened soon after Fiat announced a new line of cars equipped
with catalytic converters.

The president of the Commision, Jacques Delors, was said to have rebuked
di Meana outright for his astounding reversal of a hard-fought Community
compromise. Then France’s Renault announced that, henceforth, all its new
cars would be equipped with catalysts. Delors adopted Ripa’s position.

Only the British remained. Lord Caithness and William Waldgrave, at
various times environment ministers, had insisted for years that adopting
pollution standards requiring catalysts would kill research on lean-burn
engines, the ‘clean technology’ versus ‘end-of-pipe’ solution to car pollution.
Then Ford announced in April that it would produce a complete range of cars
with catalysts. In June, Caithness claimed that Britain would adopt the
stricter standards, stating that the measures would not, after all, kill
lean-burn research.

It is hard to see any justification for such a universal about face,
apart from a change in what caused the impasse to begin with: pressure from
manufacturers. That conclusion is reinforced by what happened next. Billboards,
flyers and whole pages of green ink appeared in newspapers throughout Europe
telling the public that the car maker in question was green, and had been
for some time. With Pounds sterling 300 chalked onto the price of the average
car by a catalyst, the manufacturers’ enthusiasm, if late in coming, was
understandable.

But the Swedes, who have had rules requiring catalysts for years, may
spoil the game. Volvo does not need to pay for the costs of tooling up to
install catalysts, as the other European manufacturers do. It announced
in July that its models equipped with catalytic converters will cost the
same as unequipped ones.

The commercial advantage of automotive greenery may turn out to be in
increasing a company’s market share, rather than higher prices for a green
product. That is good news for the green consumer, to whom must go the credit
for completely reversing one major European pollution policy.