TECH

Whose voices shape pollution policy? Analysis finds economic concerns receive more attention than climate and health

Public opinion and the environment...Public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping environmental policies and practices within societies. Many individuals value a clean environment, recognizing its importance for long-term health, but often view environmental protection as a luxury rather than an immediate necessity. This duality is reflected in the varying levels of environmental quality across different socio-economic contexts, where wealthier populations tend to enjoy cleaner surroundings due to their ability to afford comprehensive pollution control measures.

The effects of climate change are all too visible in daily life. From heat waves in California to floods in Pakistan, extreme weather and rising temperatures are forcing people from their homes and worsening world hunger and famine.

But the climate crisis neither affects everyone equally—nor is everyone equally responsible. New Oxfam research finds that the richest among us were responsible for more carbon emissions than 5 billion people—the equivalent of 66 percent of humanity—in 2019.

“People who have contributed least to the climate crisis are right now suffering its worst impacts,” said Elizabeth Wathuti, a Kenyan climate activist.

At Oxfam, we’ve been holding wealthy polluters accountable for years. So we’re going to explain who is responsible for climate change—Big Oil, rich industrialized countries, and carbon billionaires—and what they owe the people and frontline communities that are paying the heaviest price for their actions.

Public sentiment can significantly influence environmental activism, as seen in instances where large-scale environmental disasters evoke strong public reactions, though this can vary with economic conditions. For example, during economic downturns, environmental issues may receive less attention as priorities shift. Additionally, perspectives on climate change are often polarized along political lines, with differing beliefs about its causes and impacts influencing public support for government action on environmental matters.

Furthermore, historical examples, like the discourse surrounding acid rain, illustrate the complexities of public perception in environmental policy-making, highlighting how media narratives can shape concerns that may not align with scientific findings. Overall, public opinion continues to be a dynamic factor in environmental discussions, guiding both activism and policy responses across diverse communities.

When it comes to regulating pollution from heavy-duty trucks, economic concerns may carry more weight than climate and public health benefits, according to a Northwestern University study.

In new research, Northwestern engineers used artificial intelligence (AI) and other computational tools to analyze nearly 5 million words from public comments submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the development of emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

Their analysis revealed a striking pattern. The EPA was more likely to acknowledge comments about costs and implementation timelines as well as comments from the trucking industry than concerns around public health and climate change.

These findings raise questions about whether the regulatory process itself could slow progress toward cleaner transportation. The study also provides a powerful example of how emerging AI tools can help researchers better understand the complex processes that shape government policy. The study was published in the journal Sustainable Cities and Society.

"Heavy-duty trucks make up 5% of vehicles on the road, but they produce 28% of greenhouse gas emissions," said Northwestern's Amanda Stathopoulos, the study's senior author. "Because heavy-duty vehicles make a disproportionate impact, we've been trying to understand why the transition from diesel to electric isn't happening. We decided to look into how the EPA weighs opinions from many different stakeholders.

"We found the EPA gives more attention to stakeholders from the heavy-duty vehicle industry regardless of how substantive their public comments were. And, ultimately, the EPA finalized requirements that were softer than originally proposed."

Stathopoulos is the William Patterson Junior Professor and associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern's McCormick School of Engineering, where she leads the Mobility and Behavior Lab. Deirdre Edward, a former Ph.D. student in Stathopoulos' research group, is the study's first author.

Competing comments...Before finalizing major environmental regulations, federal agencies solicit public comments from manufacturers, industry leaders, environmental organizations, public health advocates and other stakeholders.

"The barrier to entry to submit a comment is basically zero," Stathopoulos said. "The process is open to essentially anyone who wants to weigh in on proposed regulations. The idea is the EPA will look at those comments to see if they made an error or missed anything. Based on that feedback, they might revise their plans and make a final ruling that becomes official."

Although diverse opinions help the regulatory process, these groups often have competing priorities. Some emphasize the environmental and health benefits of stricter standards, while others raise concerns about costs, technological feasibility and whether manufacturers have enough time to comply. Understanding how agencies respond to thousands of pages of feedback is a massive challenge.

Analyzing millions of words...To understand the impact of these comments, the Northwestern team examined the EPA's Phase 3 greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

Proposed in April 2023 and finalized in March 2024, the Biden-era regulations sought to establish increasingly stringent emissions limits for new trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles. Although the EPA repealed the standards in February 2026, under the Trump administration, the public comments and regulatory responses still provided a valuable case study for how competing interests shape environmental policy.

With thousands of pages of public feedback, the researchers had plenty of material to examine. Stathopoulos' team analyzed 1,171 unique public comments containing approximately 4.74 million words, along with the EPA's official written responses.

"The EPA acknowledges some of the comments with written responses," Stathopoulos said. "But responses are only legally required if the comment is substantive. Otherwise, they are not obligated to answer."

Rather than manually sorting through the enormous collection of comments and responses, the team developed a computational framework that combined AI with traditional text-analysis techniques.

"If you were to read all of these words, it would take you months," Stathopoulos said. "We really needed a computational approach to make sense of all the text."

Mapping different themes...First, the researchers used computational methods to identify recurring themes in the comments, such as environmental benefits, economic costs and implementation challenges. Then, they used an AI language model to analyze the sentiment expressed in the comments. They also used generative AI to evaluate the substantiveness of each comment, distinguishing between general statements and more detailed arguments.

The team then categorized commenters by stakeholder type and compared their submissions with the EPA's official responses. By examining both sides of the exchange—what stakeholders said and how regulators responded—the researchers were able to identify patterns.

"We could map out the breakdown of different themes," Stathopoulos said. "That allowed us to visually plot out the discourse and pinpoint agreement or disagreement."

Not all arguments receive equal attention...The Northwestern team's analysis revealed significant differences in the issues raised by different stakeholder groups as well as how the EPA addressed those issues. Most notably, the EPA acknowledged comments focused on costs and implementation timelines more frequently than those advocating for climate and public health.

"This pattern persisted even after we accounted for the substance of the comments," Stathopoulos said. "We could see really strong trends there. Basically, it didn't matter what heavy-duty vehicle stakeholders talked about. They always got a response."

Stathopoulos emphasized that this doesn't necessarily mean that the EPA agreed with those arguments or changed its policies in response. Instead, the findings reveal differences in regulatory attention, raising questions about how agencies balance competing priorities. And those differences could have implications for cities working to reduce freight-related pollution.

"One explanation is that regulators are particularly attentive to stakeholders with greater legal resources, who may be more likely to challenge a regulation if their concerns aren't addressed," Stathopoulos said.

"Smaller nonprofits and individual citizens don't necessarily have the same expertise to frame legal arguments. Our approach could help agencies recognize meaningful concerns that otherwise might get overlooked simply because they weren't expressed with the right legal language."

Pollution policy is shaped by a competing mix of industry stakeholders, government regulators, political leaders, and civil society advocates, though research consistently shows that economic and industry voices carry disproportionate weight in final decisions.

Key voices influencing pollution policy:

• Industry and Economic Elites. Manufacturers, fossil fuel producers, and utility companies exert the strongest influence over regulatory outcomes. A November 2026 Northwestern University study found that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave significantly more attention to comments from the heavy-duty vehicle industry—especially arguments about compliance costs and implementation timelines—regardless of how substantive the comments were. Similarly, comparative global research shows that governments across varying levels of economic development remain primarily responsive to business and economic elites.

• Government Agencies and Regulators. Federal and state agencies hold the formal authority to draft standards, evaluate technical feasibility, and issue air or emissions permits. Agency leadership, staffing, and funding directly determine how thoroughly external feedback is reviewed or whether permitting processes are expedited.

• Elected Officials and Political Parties. Lawmakers, governors, and political parties set the overarching legislative framework and regulatory priorities. Research across U.S. states indicates that shifts in partisan control and political spending heavily dictate whether environmental rules become stricter or more lenient.

• Environmental and Public Health Advocates. Nonprofits, scientists, and community organizations participate through public comment periods, lobbying, and grassroots mobilization to push for stricter health and climate protections. While open comment systems allow anyone to submit input, studies note that regulators often respond less frequently to broad public health or climate arguments compared to industry logistics concerns.

• Local Communities and Voters. Citizens shape policy through electoral accountability, local activism, and state-level environmental justice programs. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, at least 11 U.S. states have enacted laws requiring enhanced public outreach and cumulative impact reviews to amplify local resident voices in air permitting.

• International and External Actors. In lower-income regions and global climate negotiations, international organizations, foreign donors, and transnational treaties also play a major role in setting clean-air agendas and enforcement standards.

 

AUTONEWS

BMW i3 covers nearly 6,000 km with less than three hours of charging

Just four or five years ago, this feat would have seemed like science fiction. An electric sedan from the *Neue Klasse* generation achieved an average energy consumption of only 12.5 kWh/100 km on a journey from the North Cape in Norway to Tarifa in Spain, setting a new record in the process.

The new i3 50 xDrive departed from the North Cape and reached Tarifa, covering 5,886.7 kilometers across eight countries. Even more impressive is the fact that, throughout the entire journey, the vehicle spent only 2 hours, 45 minutes, and 54 seconds at charging stations.

The objective was to complete a pre-determined route while minimizing the total time spent charging. Participants were required to pass through specific checkpoints and utilize public charging infrastructure along the way.

BMW claims that its electric sedan surpassed the previous record—set in 2017—by more than seven hours. This represents a significant advancement in less than a decade, especially considering how much Europe’s charging infrastructure has developed during that time.

Efficiency was another notable outcome of this trip. The i3 50 xDrive achieved an average consumption of just 12.5 kWh/100 km—a figure significantly better than its official WLTP rating, which ranges between 13.4 and 18 kWh/100 km. The route encompassed highways, regional roads, and urban driving, making this result even more compelling than a laboratory test. BMW completed the journey across eight countries with an average speed of 79.7 km/h. The actual time spent driving totaled 3 days, 2 hours, and 41 minutes.

The record-setting vehicle relied exclusively on publicly accessible charging stations, which are part of national networks along the route. The i3 50 xDrive model supports DC fast charging at up to 400 kW, thanks to its 800-volt electrical architecture.

While that maximum figure is impressive, perhaps even more significant is the fact that the car maintained an average charging power of 275 kW throughout the challenge. Sustaining such a high charging rate across multiple stops is no small feat, especially when utilizing public infrastructure.

This explains how BMW managed to cover nearly 5,900 kilometers while spending less than three hours at charging stations.

DOSSIER

AUTONEWS

How high-speed ferries can reclaim their environmental credentials

Norway has the technology and expertise needed to develop high-speed catamarans capable of operating even the longest routes. But something is missing.

“In less than five years, we could have a zero-emission high-speed passenger catamaran, capable of travelling at 20–35 knots and carrying 150–250 passengers. But that will require political will and decisive action,” says Professor Sverre Steen from the Department of Marine Technology at NTNU.

Steen is confident that Norway has a broad range of expertise and companies capable of commercialising hydrofoil passenger catamarans within a few years. This could help address some of the challenges associated with emissions from passenger transport, including over longer distances.

Norway aims to reduce emissions from domestic shipping by 50% by 2030 and achieve zero emissions by 2050. This means high-speed ferries must switch from diesel engines to battery-electric propulsion or hydrogen and fuel cells.

Norway has everything it needs...“We have highly skilled shipyards, expertise in hydrofoil technology, a strong battery-electric industry and several companies specialising in control systems. The authorities need to establish clear zero-emission requirements in public tenders and stick to them. That would give ferry operators the confidence to invest,” says Steen.

The export opportunities could be substantial if Norwegian industry succeeds in developing zero-emission passenger vessels.

All countries that rely on high-speed ferries face the same challenge – they consume enormous amounts of energy per kilometre and consequently generate very high emissions.

Norway could reclaim its leading position...So far, few companies or countries have developed solutions that are ready for widespread use. Sweden’s Candela has succeeded with smaller hydrofoil passenger catamarans, while the British company Artemis is working on similar technology.

As early as the 1990s, Norway was producing hydrofoil catamarans capable of reaching speeds of up to 50 knots. However, the focus was entirely on speed, and the solutions proved too expensive.

Today, the technology has improved. The sensors and computing power needed for hydrofoil control systems are available, along with new propeller technologies.

There is also no need to reach 50 knots. Scheduled passenger services typically require speeds of 20–35 knots.

“Norway and Australia were the world leaders in developing passenger catamarans, but Norway was the only one with hydrofoil solutions. We can reclaim that leading position. We have the necessary conditions, the industrial expertise, the technology and the knowledge,” says Steen.

According to a new study conducted as part of the Zero Emission Passenger Vessel Services (ZEVS) project, several technical solutions could reduce emissions from high-speed ferries.

Testing alternatives to reduce emissions...Researchers from NTNU, the Institute of Transport Economics and the Institute for Energy Technology have developed several models and methods to investigate different ways of reducing emissions from high-speed ferries.

The most suitable solution depends on factors such as route length, vessel size and speed, operating conditions and timetables. The researchers used real-world sailing data collected from 85 high-speed ferries operating 95 routes in 2019.

By fitting hydrofoils, the hull is lifted above the water, reducing resistance and therefore energy consumption. This means that most high-speed ferry routes in Norway could operate without emissions using batteries. Illustration: NTNU

To identify the best solutions, they combined the following data sources and methods:

-Automatic Identification System (AIS) data from Norwegian high-speed ferries

-Models of vessel resistance and energy consumption

-Models of vessel mass

-Simulations of actual routes and speed profiles

The study’s lead author is John Martin Kleven Godø. As part of his doctoral research in hydrodynamics, he developed tools that demonstrate the relationship between speed, weight and resistance in high-speed ferries.

These tools are used to optimise hull dimensions according to the energy requirements of individual routes. The aim is to ensure that the hull can support the additional weight of zero-emission propulsion systems without reducing passenger capacity, speed or other important operating parameters.

Combining these tools with the other models, the researchers investigated four different energy solutions:

-Battery-electric propulsion

-Battery-electric propulsion with one battery swap

-Battery-electric propulsion with two battery swaps

-Hydrogen propulsion using fuel cells, without refuelling during the journey

‘Flying’ ferries dramatically reduce energy consumption...The study concludes that replacing diesel with zero-emission solutions, primarily batteries, is technically feasible.

However, batteries are heavy relative to the amount of energy they store. This increases the vessel’s weight and, consequently, its resistance in the water.

The problem can be addressed by lengthening the hull and introducing one or two battery swaps during the journey.

Battery-swapping technology is currently being tested in the Oslofjord, where the vessels’ hulls had to be lengthened to accommodate the additional weight.

Research shows that a much better way to address the weight and energy challenges is to install hydrofoils – essentially wings beneath the water.

-Hydrofoils can reduce energy consumption by approximately 38 per cent.

-Hydrofoils lift the hull out of the water, eliminating much of the resistance.

Regardless of the propulsion system, reducing water resistance delivers significant benefits.

“Hydrofoils reduce energy consumption by approximately 38 per cent,” says Godø.

He also points to an additional benefit: hydrofoils make it possible to build smaller, lighter vessels, which further reduces energy requirements.

“When we calculate the average combined energy savings across Norway’s high-speed ferry fleet, the reduction is approximately 46 per cent,” says Godø.

Hydrofoil ferries require some additional power to accelerate to the speed at which the hull rises out of the water.

However, according to Godø, this has very little impact on overall energy consumption.

“The batteries need to provide sufficient power for lift-off, but that additional power accounts for only a few per cent of the vessel’s total energy requirements. That’s not the main challenge for electric hydrofoil ferries,” says Godø.

Electrifying long-distance routes...Based on route distances and operating patterns, the study shows that 78 per cent of Norway’s high-speed ferry fleet could be electrified without additional measures such as battery swapping or hydrofoils.

However, these vessels operate the shortest routes and therefore consume the least diesel.

Consequently, electrifying them would eliminate only around 31 per cent of the fleet’s emissions.

The worst offenders are a small number of long routes with numerous stops along the way.

If the Nordland Express can become emission-free, any route can.

One example is the Nordland Express route between Bodø and Sandnessjøen.

It is one of Norway’s longest and most demanding high-speed ferry routes and was used as a case study to investigate potential zero-emission solutions.

The study suggests that if the Nordland Express can operate without emissions, any Norwegian high-speed ferry route can.

The route is currently served by two catamarans. One of them, MS Elsa Laula Renberg, is built from carbon fibre and can accommodate 220 passengers.

Four diesel engines provide a cruising speed of 33 knots on the 220-kilometre journey.

There is no time to recharge batteries during the crossing. However, the development of lighter batteries with higher energy density, such as solid-state batteries, combined with hydrofoils, means the route could probably operate entirely without emissions within a few years.

Even with today’s technology, the route could be electrified if the vessel swapped battery packs twice during the journey.So far, battery swapping is only being tested in the Oslofjord. If the Nordland Express vessels were equipped with hydrofoils, they could complete the route with just one battery swap.

Energy mix and increased emissions from hydrogen...Hydrogen and fuel cells are another potential zero-emission solution for the route. However, when the total energy requirements are considered, from hydrogen production through to operating the ferry, fuel cells perform very poorly.

In the worst-case scenario, hydrogen produces 111 per cent more emissions than diesel.

Producing hydrogen through electrolysis requires enormous amounts of energy.

Compared with using electricity directly, as much as 70 per cent of the energy is lost.

Hydrogen performs particularly poorly compared with battery-electric ferries charged using 100 per cent renewable electricity, especially when calculations are based on the European energy mix, which still includes a substantial proportion of fossil fuels.

In the worst-case scenario, hydrogen produces 111 per cent more emissions than diesel.

Norway ‘lost its nerve’...Sverre Steen has a clear message for politicians: “Forget hydrogen as an energy carrier for high-speed ferries. Introduce zero-emission requirements when counties and municipalities issue new tenders for high-speed ferry services. Norway’s collaborative approach will stimulate creativity and innovation, resulting in good solutions with considerable export potential,” says Steen.

He points out that Norway had been moving in the right direction but then ‘lost its nerve’.

Encouraged by government plans to introduce stricter emissions requirements for high-speed ferries, several county authorities launched a development project in 2017 called The High-Speed Ferry of the Future.

A wide range of Norwegian companies, from shipyards to equipment and systems suppliers, joined forces.

Incentives for industrialisation...Five solutions were developed, but The High-Speed Ferry of the Future project gradually fell apart when the government failed to follow through on its promised emissions-reduction requirements for high-speed ferry tenders.

The counties never received the regulatory pressure they needed, while shipyards and suppliers lost their financial incentives.

Encouraged by the findings of Zero-Emission Fast Ferries: A High-Level Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of Catamarans and Hydrofoil Vessels, Steen believes the time is right for renewed investment.

He also points to increasingly stringent national and international climate requirements and the rising cost of fossil fuels.

“There’s no shortage of effort or willingness. Research funding is welcome, but what we really need are incentives for industrialisation.”

During the parliamentary consideration of the revised national budget in June, NOK 100 million was allocated to developing emission-free high-speed ferries.

The budget agreement also included a request for the government to work towards stricter emissions requirements, with the aim of introducing zero-emission requirements from 2029.

However, neither John Martin Kleven Godø nor Sverre Steen is celebrating.

“Progress is far too slow. This has been on the agenda for many years, but deadlines and requirements keep being postponed,” says Steen.

Godø adds: “There’s no shortage of effort or willingness. Research funding is welcome, but what we really need are incentives for industrialisation. “We need tenders that genuinely encourage low- or zero-emission solutions, along with funding to operate these routes.

“Commercial competition without prescribing specific technologies will ensure that we develop the best and most cost-effective solutions.”

 

AUTONEWS

Why the end of combustion engines in 2035 won't happen?

The measure had been contested: industry associations complained; some automakers didn't miss an opportunity to claim that it would be insane for the automotive industry, especially the European one, to end combustion engines in 2035. And many consumers thought the electric transition that the European Commission intended to implement was very "forced," in the literal sense of the word. But the "no mercy," after all, has room to be softened, and so much so that, in 2035, instead of completely eradicating new gasoline or diesel vehicles from European showrooms, it is most likely that up to 30% of sales at that time will (still) be models with combustion engines (mainly hybrids and PHEVs). This is because the European Parliament approved a proposal that lowers the carbon dioxide (CO₂) reduction target from 100% to 87.5%, compared to 2021 levels.

This drastic reversal in decarbonization targets for passenger and commercial vehicles will still have to be submitted to a plenary vote in the European Parliament, which should happen next December, anticipating negotiations with the Council of the European Union with a view to final approval of the new directive—something that, naturally, will only happen in 2027.

The most skeptical may understand that this change is not very substantive, considering that 90% was mentioned as an interim proposal to avoid and soften the absolute 100% cut initially announced in 2023. However, this is not quite the case: the new proposal from the European Parliament is rich in mathematical subtleties, sustainability incentives, and a genuine engineering of credits and super-credits that make the calculations worthy of explanation. What's on the table now is that, instead of manufacturers being required to reduce their average tailpipe emissions by 100%, they will have a 95% cut. However, a compensation mechanism of up to 7.5 percentage points is introduced through the use of low-carbon steel (green steel) produced in Europe. As a result, if manufacturers maximize the use of this measure, sustainable steel allows them to lower the limit to 87.5%. This opens not just a window, but a door of opportunity for hybrid vehicles to remain a viable purchase option. But there's more.

So what happens to the multi-million dollar fines?

There are also changes on this point, and they are not insignificant, with European legislators yielding to intense pressure from automakers and industry associations who saw the astronomical fines for non-compliance as a mechanism that would strangle car manufacturers and undermine their competitiveness against (Chinese) competition. The new proposal maintains the punitive impetus, but offers a series of escape valves to alleviate the financial pressure on manufacturers, giving them new breathing room to face the energy transition without having the daunting scenario of inaccessible sanctions ahead.

How are the calculations now made? The fine remains at R$ 95 for each gram of CO₂/km exceeded, multiplied by the total number of new vehicles registered by the manufacturer that year. However, as the bar drops to 87.5% (with "green" steel, or 95% without it), this allows automakers to continue managing their sales mix with a small percentage of combustion engine models, without incurring sanctions. Manufacturers are also "challenged" to be creative in managing a series of benefits, from the aforementioned use of low-carbon steel, which allows them to go from the nominal 95% to 87.5%, to the multiplier effect of supercredits attributed to electric vehicles manufactured in Europe. The emphasis of the increase is on city cars and utility vehicles powered by batteries (models up to 4.2 meters in length), which count as 1.4 vehicles in the fleet average calculation. 

Electric vehicles, also produced in the EU, which are considered highly efficient (i.e., stand out for their low energy consumption), are now worth 1.2 vehicles. Social leasing also boosts the result, adding +0.1 to the other multipliers. Thus, if a tram is allocated to a social leasing program, it is worth 1.5 if it is less than 4.2 meters long, or 1.3 if it is efficient. In practical terms, imagine a manufacturer sells 100,000 electric vehicles, urban or subcompact, produced in the EU. The manufacturer's average will not include 100,000 vehicles with 0 g/km of CO2, but rather 140,000. An additional 40,000 "phantom" electric vehicles are artificially injected into the average emissions calculation; these are models that were never sold but directly contribute to diluting the emissions of 40,000 combustion engine vehicles…

And, as if all these variables weren't enough to artificially lower the average emissions of automakers and avoid sanctions, it is proposed that vehicles certified to run exclusively on synthetic or renewable fuels be equated to electric vehicles, that is, they contribute "zero emissions" to the brand's average.

The total ban on the sale of new combustion-engine cars in the European Union by 2035 is being weakened and reconsidered due to pressure from automakers and countries such as Germany and France. You can follow the official discussions on the European Parliament’s portal.

What the original rule states:

• New cars only: The EU regulation prohibits only the sale of new combustion-engine cars and vans starting in 2035.

• Existing cars remain on the road: Gasoline or diesel vehicles purchased before this date may continue to be driven as usual for the remainder of their lifespan, provided they pass inspections and comply with local regulations (such as Low Emission Zones).

Why the target is shifting:

• Political and industry pressure: Traditional automakers (such as Volkswagen, Stellantis, Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche) and governments like those of Germany and France have been pushing for flexibility, citing the risk of job losses and high costs.

• Slow adoption and competition: Electric vehicle sales in Europe have grown less than expected, while Chinese manufacturers have gained ground with more competitive pricing.

• New alternatives: Recent proposals discuss allowing the use of synthetic fuels (e-fuels) or advanced biofuels, or lowering the zero-emission target from 100% to approximately 90%—which would allow for the continued use of certain types of hybrid vehicles and combustion engines.

You are correct: the strict 100% ban on new combustion engine cars in the European Union for 2035 has been revised and softened.

What Changed in the EU Policy:

• The Old Rule: The original legislation required all new cars and vans sold in the EU to have 100% zero tailpipe emissions starting in 2035.

• The Revised Target: In December 2025, the European Commission adjusted the requirement to a 90% reduction in average fleet CO₂ emissions (compared to 2021 levels) rather than a complete 100% ban.

• What Remains Possible: Car manufacturers can continue selling combustion engines, hybrids, or vehicles designed for sustainable/renewable fuels past 2035, as long as their overall fleet meets the new emission thresholds or uses compliance credits

The European Union adjusted its 2035 combustion engine policy from a complete 100% zero-emission sales ban to a 90% CO₂ reduction target, allowing manufacturers to continue selling internal combustion engines if average fleet emissions drop by 90% or through credits and low-carbon fuels.

Key Reasons Why a Strict 2035 Combustion Engine Ban Is Changing:

• Automaker Pushback and Economic Pressure: Major traditional automakers in Germany, Italy, and France (including Volkswagen, BMW, Renault, and Stellantis) lobbied hard against the total ban, citing massive financial strain, potential job losses, and factory closures.

• High EV Prices and Competition: European electric vehicles (EVs) often cost significantly more than traditional cars or cheaper Chinese alternatives (which hold a major price advantage of €6,000–€7,000).

• Slow Consumer Adoption and Infrastructure Gaps: Consumer demand has lagged in several markets, with under 10% of buyers considering EVs in parts of France and rental fleets (like Hertz and Sixt) reporting heavy financial losses or hesitating due to sparse charging infrastructure.

• Supply Chain and Material Bottlenecks: Severe global deficits in critical battery minerals (like lithium) and heavy reliance on foreign supply chains (such as China dominating battery components) created major industrial hurdles.

• Alternative Fuels (e-Fuels): Pressure from political leaders and the automotive sector opened pathways for combustion engines running on sustainable, low-carbon synthetic fuels (e-fuels) to remain legal past 2035

 

AUTONEWS

Fiat Argo X (Grande Panda for Brazil)

Fiat has released the first images of the new Argo X model for the South American market. It is essentially a localized version of the European Grande Panda, featuring minor design tweaks, a simpler interior, and different powertrains.

While the Grande Panda is manufactured in Kragujevac, the Argo X will be produced at the Stellantis plant in Betim, Brazil.

The official premiere of the Argo X is expected later this month, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of Fiat’s operations in the region.

Fiat has also confirmed that the current Argo will remain in production, noting that the Argo X will not immediately replace the model already well-known to the Brazilian market. This means the Argo will continue as an entry-level model, while the Argo X will take on a new role within the lineup—a move that reinforces Fiat’s strategy of offering two distinct options.

Fiat is set to embark on an intensive product renewal cycle in South America. The brand plans to launch a completely new model every year until 2030, with the Argo X serving as the first step in this offensive.

The company states that the Argo X was developed to expand the brand's presence in one of the most important segments of the Brazilian market. According to the brand, the Argo X "will ensure continuity for Fiat’s best-selling passenger car in Brazil" and is designed to combine robustness, efficiency, and a more modern aesthetic.

Although the design is derived from the European Fiat Grande Panda, the brand believes that the name "Panda" does not carry the same commercial weight in Brazil. The Argo is a very popular vehicle in the country, making its name one of the manufacturer's most valuable assets. The addition of the letter "X" serves to identify the new compact SUV offering and facilitates immediate consumer acceptance.

The Argo X will thus serve as the South American counterpart to the Grande Panda, though it will not be an exact replica of the European model. Fiat has adapted the vehicle to local requirements through a specific engine lineup, suspension tuning, equipment, and technical solutions. The core philosophy remains similar, emphasizing simplicity, durability, practicality, and a distinctive style.

It will be offered with both a 1.0-liter naturally aspirated engine and a 1.0-liter turbo engine. Further details are expected to be released soon.

Depending on the configuration, power will be delivered to the front axle via a five-speed manual transmission or a CVT.

The Argo X will be the first new product from the Betim plant under Stellantis's 32-billion Brazilian real investment plan for South America, which runs through 2030. Fiat has confirmed that the model will arrive in 2026 and will play a strategic role in refreshing the brand's local product portfolio.

 

AUTONEWS

Driven 112,000 km in five years with only two oil changes: Mechanic opens up engine and is left speechless

The owner of a 2021 Lincoln Aviator changed the oil just twice over the course of 112,000 kilometers. Disassembling the Ford 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6 engine revealed the catastrophic consequences of extreme neglect, including hardened oil sludge.

The case of a 2021 Lincoln Aviator—a modern SUV that had its oil changed only twice over 112,000 kilometers—perfectly illustrates what happens when an owner completely ignores basic maintenance and service intervals. When the vehicle arrived at the shop for disassembly, the interior of its engine was in a condition rarely seen, even in vehicles with five times the mileage.

A Ford V6 engine driven 112,000 km with only two service visits...The engine in question is a twin-turbocharged Ford 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6(in the image below), which ended up on the workbench of Eric Berg, creator of the popular YouTube channel "I Do Cars." Berg specializes in the detailed teardown of failed engines to determine the exact cause of their breakdown. Although he initially lacked details regarding how the vehicle had been driven, a check of the official records via the VIN revealed the explanation: the service history showed only two oil changes over a five-year period. Even allowing for the possibility that some maintenance was performed outside of official service centers, the condition inside the engine clearly testified to extreme neglect.

Removing the first valve cover revealed a thick layer of black, baked-on oil sludge. This occurs when oil, due to excessive mileage, completely loses its lubricating and chemical properties; instead of cleaning the engine, it begins to accumulate impurities and form tar-like deposits.

"I have seen engines with 400,000 or even nearly 500,000 kilometers that look incomparably better than this unit," noted Berg.

Black sludge instead of oil...Removing the second valve cover and the timing chain cover revealed even more serious consequences. The solenoid valves responsible for variable camshaft timing were completely covered in tiny metal particles. The same situation was found at the bottom of the oil pan, where a large quantity of metal shavings had accumulated—the result of metal components rubbing against each other without adequate lubrication. The fatal blow to this engine was a damaged bearing on the sixth cylinder, which, due to overheating and a lack of oil, had spun within its housing. Interestingly, the crankshaft did not suffer fatal damage in this instance; it is estimated that the cast-iron engine block could potentially be salvaged through extensive machining and refurbishment. 

Although the end result was a complete engine failure, the mechanic noted that it was actually quite fortunate that such a unit managed to cover 112,000 kilometers under those conditions—a testament to the durability of the engine's core design. Nevertheless, the reality for modern turbocharged gasoline engines remains unforgiving. Turbochargers and hydraulic tensioners operate under high temperatures and pressures; in these components, oil serves not only to reduce friction but also to dissipate heat and keep the system clean. When oil changes are delayed, oil passages narrow due to sludge buildup, system pressure drops, and vital components—such as turbocharger bearings—are the first to fail. Routine minor servicing remains the most affordable aspect of vehicle maintenance, while ignoring service intervals almost invariably leads to repairs that are many times more expensive.

You bring your car to the auto repair shop and they slap a sticker on the windshield: change your oil again in 3,000 miles or three months. You probably knew that the 3,000-mile interval was ridiculous, but what about that other deadline? What if you don’t drive much and let your oil sit for six months? A year?

I know a guy with a fleet of Ferraris—some of them seven-­figure cars—and he goes only by mileage. “That oil was in the ground for 100 million years,” he says. “What’s six more months?” That’s a good question, and one that I recently answered through semi-intentional negligence.

Here’s what happened: In 2008, I bought a Troy-Bilt lawnmower with a Honda engine. After a few years, I realized I hadn’t changed the oil. But, by then, electric mowers were getting cheap, and I really wanted an electric mower. I figured I’d just let the Troy-Bilt go until it blew up—which it refused to do. I kept mowing my lawn, season after season, the little Honda purring away, until I eventually started feeling bad for the thing. I decided that if I pulled the trigger on an electric mower, I could at least give my Troy-Bilt to someone who would use it. I warmed it up, tilted it over, and drained the oil, saving a few ounces to send to Blackstone Laboratories, an oil-testing company in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

I was particularly interested in the TBN (total base number). Oils contain bases to prevent acidification, so the TBN shows how much additive is left to keep it healthy. A TBN of less than one is considered bad. My oil’s TBN? Five. Hooray! The sample was also spot-on for average values of zinc and calcium, but a little high on sodium. Silicon was way high, about four times higher than normal. Flashpoint—the temperature when the oil’s vapors ignite, which can signify a contaminant like fuel in the oil—was a little low, at 360 degrees Fahrenheit.

Long story short: the oil was dirty, but leaving it there for ten years didn’t really hurt anything. What does that mean? Blackstone wrote it out on my oil’s report card: “Universal averages show typical wear for similar Honda engines with about 65 hours on the oil. This oil was in use for ten years, and may even be the factory fill. If so, some of the excess metal is from initial break-in and silicon could be sealer material from assembly. Silicon can also show abrasive dirt contamination, which causes poor internal wear. There’s also some fuel and moisture in the oil. The TBN is okay at 5.0, so the oil actually has additive left in reserve. Make sure the air filter is in good condition.”

So, should you wait 10 years between oil changes? No. But don’t worry if you miss the date on the Jiffy Lube sticker.

Why Do Repair Shops Say I Should Change My Oil So Dang Often? our average 3,000-mile quickie-lube sticker gives you a general suggestion of when to change your oil based on a really severe maintenance schedule. Their job is to sell oil changes, after all. The real authority you should consult first—if you’re erring on the side of caution and not in the market for a new lawnmower—is the owner’s manual for your vehicle. Different vehicles have different maintenance needs, especially with recent advances in automotive technology that have pushed some newer cars’ oil change intervals out to 7,500 or 10,000 miles, or once every six to 12 months.

Why Are Oil Change Recommendations Given in Mileage and in Time? Oil degrades over time. The longer it sits, the less viscous it becomes and thus, the less effective it will be at keeping various engine components properly lubricated. Synthetic oil is designed to break down more slowly over time, which means you can probably stretch its oil changes out a little longer, but it still breaks down like any other oil. Oil that degrades too much can cause engine sludge that can block oil flow entirely.

How Often Should You Change Your Oil? Even if you don’t drive very often and you’re not hitting the recommended mileage interval, it's bestto get your oil changed twice a year. Your oil may be fine, but it’s the moisture in your engine that’s the real enemy. If you don’t run your car for very long very often, the engine won’t get hot enough to burn off this moisture, and your oil won’t be as effective at lubricating your engine, eventually leading to shorter engine life.

What Is a “Normal” Vs. “Severe” Maintenance Schedule for Oil Changes? Remember how we keep calling the quick lube’s usual suggestion “severe?” Owners’ manuals often list both a “normal” and a “severe” maintenance schedule, with the latter being for harder driving, extreme weather, and other cases where there’s extra stress per mile on the engine, such as hauling heavy loads, towing, and track day use.

This is bad news for your grandparents’ couple-blocks-to-church use case: never getting the engine warm enough to burn off any condensation inside is also considered “severe” use. It typically takes about 10 miles to burn off that moisture, so if trips over 10 miles are rare-to-never, follow the “severe” schedule until you can get an expert analysis done.

How Can I Check My Oil? Few things beat simply pulling the dipstick out of the engine for a visual check. Even new cars can consume a little oil and may need topping off, so this is a good idea to do about once a month anyway. Taking a look at the dipstick can also give you an idea of when you should change your oil based on your driving habits.

Look for common warning signs of engine damage while you’re peeking at your dipstick. If your oil looks lighter or cloudier than usual—frothy like latté foam in extreme cases—you may have coolant leaking into the engine, perhaps from a broken head gasket. Watch out for any glittery chunks of metal, too. That usually signifies internal engine damage, potentially from metal parts not getting lubricated well enough. Either way, if your oil looks a little too glittery for comfort or smells too much like another fluid (such as coolant), that’s a good time to get an oil analysis done to determine how that may have happened.

How To Get Your Oil Tested...An oil analysis will tell you how long your car can really go between oil changes. They’re cheap, too—Blackstone’s standard analysis is just $30, and can tell you if you’re changing your oil too often or not often enough. Knowing to skip even one unnecessary trip to the shop makes it worthwhile.

Driving 112,000 km in five years while changing the engine oil only twice means you averaged about 56,000 km per oil change (or went ~37,000 km past recommended limits each time), which is a severe neglect of basic vehicle maintenance.

What happens with such long intervals:

• Massive mileage per change: Standard oil change intervals range from 8,000 km to 15,000 km depending on the vehicle and whether you use conventional or full synthetic oil. Going ~56,000 km means each batch of oil was used for roughly 3 to 6 times its intended lifespan.

• Depleted additives: Engine oil contains detergents, anti-wear agents, and dispersants that neutralize acids and trap soot. These additives burn off or break down long before 56,000 km, leaving the engine lubricated by degraded, acidic sludge rather than clean oil.

• Filter saturation: Oil filters clog up and go into bypass mode long before hitting 56,000 km, meaning metal micro-particles and debris circulate freely through the engine bearings, camshafts, and piston rings.

• Severe engine wear: Extended intervals like this typically lead to heavy carbon buildup, stuck piston rings, increased oil consumption, loss of power, and accelerated mechanical wear or catastrophic engine failure.

 

DACIA

Dacia Logan Steppe: An adventurer with a Romanian alpine spirit

When Dacia re-emerged under the leadership of Renault in the early 2000s, its mission was quite clear: to produce simple, robust, and affordable automobiles for emerging markets. The Logan, launched in 2004, became the symbol of this philosophy by proving that it was possible to offer a spacious, reliable, and economical sedan at an extremely competitive price. Few, however, imagined that just two years later, the modest Romanian manufacturer would surprise the world by unveiling its first concept car. Thus was born the Dacia Logan Steppe Concept—revealed at the 2006 Geneva Motor Show—a design exercise that showcased an entirely different facet of the brand and anticipated a new stage in its evolution.

Much more than a mere styling study, the Logan Steppe was conceived by the Renault Design Center to demonstrate that an affordable automobile could also evoke emotion. The proposal involved transforming the Logan platform into a leisure-oriented vehicle, inspired by the world of winter sports. It combined practicality, versatility, and an adventurous look, all while maintaining the traditional values ​​of robustness and rationality that already defined Dacia. The result was a concept remarkably close to a production-ready model, making it one of the most realistic show cars presented at that Geneva Motor Show.

Visually, the Steppe departed from the sedan’s austere appearance, adopting the proportions of a raised station wagon with a personality akin to an SUV. The body measured approximately 4,470 mm in length and reached a height of 1,780 mm, thanks to an elevated suspension and an ingenious cargo compartment integrated into the roof. To emphasize its adventurous character, the concept featured wraparound bumpers, plastic fender cladding, side skirts with metallic inserts, 17-inch wheels, xenon headlights with LED elements, and prominent, visible brake calipers. Every detail was designed to convey robustness without excess, remaining true to Dacia’s understated visual identity.

The true highlight, however, was the roof. Instead of a conventional roof rack, the designers created a compartment integrated into the bodywork, specifically for transporting skis and snowboards. Its opening mechanism was inspired by the bindings used on such sports equipment, offering both convenience and security against theft. At the front of this compartment, two powerful auxiliary spotlights—capable of illuminating snow-covered roads or ski slopes independently of the main headlights—further reinforced the project’s alpine theme.

The creativity extended to the interior, which combined light-colored leather with technical fabrics inspired by winter sportswear, creating a modern yet welcoming atmosphere. The cabin accommodated five passengers, while expansive glass surfaces—totaling over 3.3 square meters—flooded the interior with natural light, enhancing the sense of spaciousness. Video screens for rear-seat passengers were mounted behind the front seatbacks, and the multimedia system included an MP3 player—a significant luxury for a concept from a budget-oriented brand back in 2006.

Functionality was another key strength. The trunk featured two symmetrical rear doors rather than a conventional tailgate, a design choice that facilitated access in tight spaces. The interior floor was modular and featured a non-slip surface; it could be reconfigured to create a large, flat area when the seats were folded down, even allowing two people to rest comfortably during trips or outdoor activities. The maximum cargo capacity reached 1.7 m³, demonstrating that practicality remained an absolute priority.

Although it was never intended for production exactly as it appeared in Geneva, the Logan Steppe fulfilled its mission perfectly. It previewed nearly all the design lines of the future Logan MCV, which was unveiled a few months later at the Paris Motor Show and launched in Romania later in 2006, offering both five- and seven-seater versions. While several extravagant features were naturally dropped, the overall architecture, body profile, and highly efficient interior space were carried over almost entirely to the production model—a vehicle that would go on to become a major commercial success in various markets.

The Logan Steppe also represented a symbolic milestone for the Romanian automotive industry. As the first concept car in Dacia’s history, it signaled to the international market that the manufacturer was no longer just a producer of budget vehicles, but a brand capable of exploring new ideas and developing creative projects within Renault’s technological framework. In a sense, this concept paved the way for the adventurous identity that would later emerge in models such as the Sandero Stepway, the Duster, and, more recently, the Jogger.

Viewed nearly twenty years later, the Dacia Logan Steppe remains one of the most intelligent concepts unveiled in the 2000s. Rather than banking on unattainable, futuristic technologies, it envisioned how an affordable, mass-market car could become an adventure companion for families and outdoor enthusiasts. It was an exceptionally realistic, functional, and production-ready concept—qualities that perfectly reflected Dacia’s philosophy. Perhaps this is why its legacy is so significant: it demonstrated that simplicity and creativity can go hand in hand, transforming a budget-oriented project into a vehicle capable of sparking genuine excitement and foreshadowing a new generation of European family cars.

MotorLand