If you have an iphone, palm pre or a mobile that runs on Google's android system, you can check out the latest Greenpeace guide to greener electronics on your handset here: http://www.greenpeace.org/electronicswebapp

Nidhi, one of our new communications interns, made it the other day. Called a "mobile webapp", it's really just a webpage with some fancy javascript and stylesheets (from jQTouch).

We published the latest edition of the Guide to Greener Electronics last week, and silently launched this mobile version too. There are some bugs still, but for a few hours work it'll do the trick. (If you know how to fix the twitter status bug, please leave a comment here! Other suggestions also very welcome!)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.