Bonus Malus 2011 new car: Update

[Christophe]

did i think he's kidding (a little).

Indeed it looks like you have crushed an elementary granny of earth (golem) just with the left wheel ... yuck ...

[I Citro]

... if I had the choice between a vehicle that consumes 2l per 100km VS another 14, I would take the latter "because I would refuse to buy the one allowing me to achieve such savings" .... All idiots, we are all idiots ....

Absolutely and me first.
Before driving daily in an electric car which consumes the equivalent of 2 liters per 100km, I drove in a VOLVO 2,5L LPG peak which consumed 14Litres ... How did you guess?
So I had a choice ... what am I saying, I have do the CHOICE to divide by 5 the energy I used to move.

Well, you, you have no choice, you WANT to stay ... as you are.

[Did67]

did i think he's kidding (a little).

I wrote my answer before the post with the photo, but it crossed. I only saw this second jar after I sent my message.

For the previous post, to which I replied, I asked myself the question. But it was not at all obvious ... For me, anyway.

[Obamot]

Did67, you dropped the "Who said"? ....pity!

In this thread, there is so much second, even third degree that nobody understands anything anymore "I have a big green cock and I go to pedibus when I can because it makes me hard not to be like all these fags of show-offs in polluting 4x4s. I prefer to play it with a Hummer" ok I'm going out -> []

There's no girl in the corner to read my post

Obamot should not be pushed on the small path of gross (f) ièretés! I promise, tomorrow I sell my Justy all-terrain and my big 4-cylinder malibus 8 candles that consume only slab ...

Citro: at least we understand each other

And I have NO CAR !!!

That is true: I never had a gray card of car in my name! Motorcycles yes but no car ...

.. there are surely some who imperatively needed a gray card because they confused with gray matter

[Macro]

.. there are surely some who imperatively needed a gray card because they confused with gray matter

I tried ... It has no effect ... Neither on my brain nor on my zézette ... On the other hand the day when I got pooped by a drunk guy launched at high speed with his 25 while I 've been quietly waiting at a red light in my little party ... I have a bit changed my filozofie over the distance that separates the driver and the passengers from an initial point of impact ...

Did. Yes I was kidding. Mon4x4 is used only very very rarely I have it for 3 years it has been 2000km (and still I'm not sure) it is an inexhaustible machine on the road at normal speeds (more stabilized bars, studded tires at 1kg2 , no DA, exhaust reduced to its simplest expression ......) On the other hand the night where I have to shift and that there is 10 to 15 cm of snow .. I shift with and in the thirty minutes I arrived on site, salted past or not ... And it does not help me to go shopping in the city (that said it is shorter than my zx)

[Did67]

Did67, you dropped the "Who said"? ....pity!

No, no, I'm drying!

This is before the Rio conf, but I have not yet had an idea on a humanist conferring on the UN in 87!

There are so many people who chat at the UN: Yasser Arafat, Benjamin Netayaou, Idi Amin Dada, ...

[Did67]

Did. Yes I was kidding.

OK OK. I prefer.

I have nothing against the "useful" 4 X 4: the doctor or the country nurse, the ambulance service, the lumberjack who has to assemble a chainsaw, gas can, etc. as close as possible to his yard (often on the slopes) , isolated people ...

I react against the "4 x 4 show off". Especially since for 4 years, as a volunteer for a French NGO at the end of Chad, I only had one old man, a little dilapidated and rickety obviously not air-conditioned (the legendary BJ45 from Toyota in the Pick-up version. Up "working"; it was the copy of the Jeep). I was enraged when I saw some flamboyant in the middle of Paris on the way back. It still remains a frustration to me today; hence my ability to overreact on this issue!

[Christophe]

Ah ah, "amazing", isn't it?

According to INSEE, the CO2 balance of the ecological penalty bonus would be negative

INSEE evaluated the CO2 balance of the taxation system known as the ecological bonus / penalty. Apparently contradictory figures that lead to amalgams.

No, CO2 is not a pollutant. No, carbon dioxide is not one of the polluting gases emitted by the combustion of fuels. Admittedly, the increase in the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere can be harmful (it contributes to amplify the natural phenomenon of the greenhouse effect), but it is not a question of pollution in the strict sense of the term.

The distinction is important because ignoring it leads to amalgamations, or at least shortcuts such as the title read yesterday in the press: "Ecological bonus = pollution?"

A little reminder, to start. By offering a premium for the purchase of new vehicles that emit the least CO2 and by taxing the purchases of the most polluting vehicles, the ecological bonus-malus system introduced in 2008 aimed to help reduce CO2 emissions. The share of new vehicles emitting less than 120 grams of CO2 per kilometer has doubled in a few months. But INSEE specifies that "the observation of this phenomenon alone is not, however, sufficient to assess the capacity of the measure to reduce total CO2 emissions. The size of the vehicle fleet, its composition and the mileage per car are thus parameters. The effect on sales of new vehicles must also be taken into account, as their production emits a lot of CO2. "
New car production increases CO2 emissions

The conclusions of the INSEE study are clear: "In the short term, the bonus / penalty, in the formula implemented in 2008, would have increased total CO2 emissions by nearly 170 kilotons per quarter, ie an increase 1,2%. This result is mainly explained by the increase in sales of new vehicles, the production of which increases emissions. "

The Institute is however reassuring. Far from wanting to condemn the "ecological bonus-malus" tax system, INSEE specifies that estimating its impact over the long term is more difficult. "The bonus / penalty could indeed encourage manufacturers to produce more models that pollute less. It is also possible that buyers have partly overreacted in 2008, thinking that the measure would not be sustainable."

Source: http://automobile.challenges.fr/actu-au ... gatif.html

INSEE study:

The ecological bonus / penalty: evaluation elements

Pauline Givord and Xavier d'Haultfoeuille, Markets and Business Strategies Division, Insee
Summary

The ecological bonus / penalty, original system for taxing new vehicles, was introduced in January 2008. By offering a premium for the purchase of new vehicles with the lowest CO2 emissions and by taxing purchases of the most polluting vehicles, its objective is to contribute to lower CO2 emissions

The incentive to buy less polluting vehicles quickly produced its effects since the share of new vehicles emitting less than 120 grams of CO2 per kilometer doubled in a few months. However, the observation of this phenomenon alone is not sufficient to assess the measure's ability to reduce total CO2 emissions. The size of the car fleet, its composition and the mileage per car are thus essential parameters. The effect on sales of new vehicles must also be taken into account, since their production emits a lot of CO2.

New vehicle registration data and the Transport survey were used to produce a first estimate of these effects. In the short term, the bonus / penalty, in the formula implemented in 2008, would have increased total CO2 emissions by almost 170 kilotonnes per quarter, an increase of 1,2%. This result is mainly explained by the increased sales of new vehicles, the production of which increases emissions.

Estimating the long-term impact is more difficult. Firstly, the maintenance of the 2008 scale over a long period has become a pure textbook case since the system was gradually tightened after 2009. Then, the costing is very dependent on the assumptions made on the size of the car fleet and behavior driving. If the 2008 scale had been maintained and assuming that the 2008 “response” continues indefinitely, the long-term balance would have been very negative, due to the increase in the size of the fleet induced by the fall in the price of the models. entry level. With a less advantageous scale and the same response behaviors as in 2008, we obtain a more balanced balance sheet, close to neutrality in terms of CO2 emissions.

There are other factors that should be taken into account for a more comprehensive long-term review, but they are difficult to quantify. The bonus / penalty could indeed encourage manufacturers to produce more less polluting models. It is also possible that the buyers partially over-reacted in 2008, believing that the measure would not be permanent.

This exercise shows the diversity of channels through which a bonus / penalty system affects CO2 emissions and the difficulty of assessing them exhaustively. It also shows how useful it is to know how to anticipate the effect of financial incentive (or disincentive) on sales, to define the most suitable calibration of such a tool, according to the objectives selected.

This text is based on a study conducted by Xavier D'Haultfœuille, Pauline Givord and Xavier Boutin from the “Markets and Business Strategies” division of INSEE. It was published as a working document of the Department of Economic Studies and Syntheses (n ° G2011 / 14)

(...)

Source Suite: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?ref_id=iana3

[Did67]

It seems to me a good illustration of the difficulty of comparing "all things" elsewhere ":

- did the bonus encourage more people to change cars: one can think so; however, it is only the "surplus" that must be counted; in my case, two cars replaced (a Xantia TD and a ZX D) in one year; both had difficulties (one no longer passed the technical control; the other had a problem with the injection pump which got worse); I just "sped up" the purchase by a few months to take advantage of Citroên promotions and buy two C1s

- do I roll more? I don't think so, even if the fact that the bill at the pump is reduced (especially on the C1 GPL!) Encourages people to "think less" ...

- is the park increasing because there is the bonus ??? I absolutely do not think so. Every day I see people buying Iphone, tablets, fashionable clothes ... But I haven't yet met anyone who told me: "There was a promotion at Citröen, I stopped and I bought such and such a car! "

- what seems obvious to me in my entourgae, is that there is a phenomenal "downsizing" of the automobile because of "daily clouding": C1, twingo, and all a series of Japanese or Korean pêtites flourish, where formerly there were big used diesel sedans!

- the induced effect of which the study apparently does not speak, it is the drying up of the second-hand market by the scrapping of large sedans at the end of their life, sold cheaply as a second car, now replaced by the "small" new ones (with CO² loss rates divided by 1,6 to 2 and particle emissions rates divided by 100!