Environmental Warnings on car advertisements? For or Against?
 

I don't belive this kind of thing will assist in imparting knowledge as to better car choices and selections. The showroom is for the rest of the information. If the automaker wants to do so, then they should do so on their own volition, not as a mandate to legislation.

I don't think this is right in the EU nor do I find it right in the United States.

I also don't believe that it's fair advertising. Since I only drive <8000 miles a year, I know that I don't produce as much CO2 as someone who drives 32,000 miles. In fact, if I own 2 cars and I drive only 1 of them then the net contribution of the 2nd car is ZERO, thus the car manufacturers are lying.

I also find this to be punitive to the automakers. If you want them to behave a particular way, then legislate for it. I don't agree in the pedistrian redesign of the fronts of vehicles for pedistrian safety. It's absurd on it's face, as well, the pedestrian isn't or shouldn't be in the road to begin with. Yet they saddled all the major manufacturers with the redisgn, yet somehow I don't see Lamborghini and Ferarri redisigning for pedestrian safety.

Have we gotten any data back on warnings on cigarette packs? I reserve my judgment pending the success rate of that attempt.

I doubt it will work. People will buy expensive cars that guzzle gas and pollute for one reason: they have to compensate for something and the car helps get tail/ass.

I don't see any reason NOT to pass such a law. If all auto makers must follow it, then it is just a piece of info on the advert. Maybe it'll grab someone's attention. Maybe it won't. Don't see a huge deal either way.

It's like warnings on cigarettes. It might do a little good.

Now, I'm a smoker. Every day people tell me, "Don't you know that will kill you?". I bet that didn't happen as often before they made it known that cigarettes kill.

People telling me cigarettes will kill me is annoying. (That's a different discussion though.) People more aware of the impact car exhaust has on the environment might do this world some good.

Hahaha. No kidding. Especially if you're able to buy the Bugatti Veyron pictured. BTW, if you aren't familiar with these obscenely fast ground-mounted spaceships go to youtube and check them out.

Anyway, I am opposed to forcing owners of businesses to make warning claims. This is up to consumer groups and consumers in general. They, however, should be required not to fudge any specifications.

Say no to warnings on coffee. Make people accountable for their own stupidity... unless of course your talking politics, in which case socialism definitely beats letting the idiots that surround us constantly keep our government in a state of shittynesshood. <- Yeah I just coined that word; deal with it.

Ahhhhhhhh. This line of thought is crippling to a system already filled with laws and regulations unnecessary and unneeded. This is the same school of thought that allowed the PATRIOT act to happen. It isn't to negative so we might as well do it. What? In my opinion, a prerequisite for law making should be that it is of the utmost importance and is proven to help how it MIGHT help. I've no room for maybe's in law books.

i don't see the objection, herk--the argument against your position would be basically a restatement of the article--without the assumption that there would be positive benefits from the warning systems, there would be no move to introduce them--rating cars by gas mileage or levels of CO emissions seems a perfectly reasonable move particularly if you see the connection between such emissions and larger-scale environmental problems as being important enough to require action--no matter how late, no matter how little.

Well if they do it for one industry they can do it for all. Imagine the flak that would arise if on a milk bag, it states the CO2 emitted to produce milk annually, ...on fruit, tofu, berkenstocks ,...everything

Bring it on.Why pick on one industry. If one whole -heartedly
supports the green movement, they should also be aware of all the pollutants, not just the fashionable ones they can do without.

I can see some potential for creative marketing:

"...Our gas guzzling energy wasting environmental pollution monsters ....err I mean our wonderful cars now have carbon offsets built right into the price you pay so you can simply buy and drive with a clear conscience, knowing that XYZ Car Company is paying part of your purchase price toward global offsets, allowing you to continue polluting....errr enjoying your luxurious pleasures..."

...if you get my drift. IMO the current cost of the offsets would not deter most luxury car buyers.

i dont get this objection either---the problem is the "green movement" and not the production processes/commodities that generate these side-effects? so this "green movement" is an affliction--perhaps it is better that no consequences are labelled, no side-effects--because that way...well what? there won't be any side-effects or consequences? you as a consumer will feel less burdened with information when you make a commodity choice? the persecution "green movement" (in your imagination perhaps) will be defeated?

i dont see the logic at all.
but maybe i am misinterpreting the syntax.
who knows?
who the hell knows?

I could support such a regulation.

Most car commercials are pretty useless. I'm thinking of the typical one that shows the car being driven in the most idyllic situation: wide-open, winding roads closed to the public, and always shot with exciting angles during nice weather (that is, unless a dramatic effect is desired). This type of ad is shown to reflect a sense of sheer pleasure, which can be had by the viewer if only they go and purchase the product for themselves.

We see the same thing with beer commercials. They're essentially the same. Idyllic situations, sheer pleasure, yours to be had. The thing I notice beer companies doing--whether legislated or not--is they often have the message somewhere that reads something like: "Enjoy responsibly." This implies one thing: This product can be dangerous if used irresponsibly. Dangerous enough to take one's life. Please don't and drive.

Why not something similar for car commercials? I know they have messages such as "closed conditions" or "professional driver," but these have a different effect. They aren't aimed at the viewer as much as it is an excusing or disclaimer for the manufacturer. It's like saying, "This kind of driving was made possible by our own means...just so you know it isn't a realistic demonstration." It's too much of an indirect warning, if a warning at all. If instead they had a message that suggested a certain reality--in this case, fuel efficiency--it would be a responsible thing for the industry to do to inform their potential customers. Something to break through the idyllic fantasy. Yes, the car looks pretty driving down that winding mountain road, but also realize how much fuel it takes to do so. "Enjoy responsibly."

The only thing I'd question about such a regulation is it's effectiveness. The segment where such warnings would have the greatest impact is the one that's already (generally) voluntarily promoting these numbers anyway; the economy market is all about fuel efficiency, and it's mostly people looking for economy who are likely to take fuel efficiency into consideration. People who buy trucks typically value cargo capacity, towing capacity and sometimes just sheer size over efficiency. People who buy sports cars value speed over efficiency. People who buy luxury cars... well, you get the idea. The point is that if someone is spending ~$40 000 or more on a car then there's a much smaller chance that they're going to care, and cars below that price point often advertise these numbers anyway.

The image in the OP is especially ironic. That's a Bugatti Veyron pictured, and Bugatti doesn't advertise through traditional means because it's not efficient for them; a print ad is useless when few to none of the people seeing it can afford the product. Therefore Bugatti would be pretty much entirely unaffected by such legislation.

If you can afford a Veyron you can afford the fuel, and if you're actually buying one you probably you clearly don't care.

I'm pretty sure that the relationship between carbon footprint and fuel efficiency is linear: carbon in the fuel + oxygen = carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide gases (and water and other stuff, but that's beside the point here). So, printing the "tons of carbon" information won't tell the consumer any more information than "miles per gallon" will tell them.

I'm in favor. I don't necessarily care how it's worded. But anything to make people think about the environmental effects of their car choices might serve-- even just a little-- to motivate auto manufacturers to build cars with better fuel efficiency, lower emissions, and ultimately, alternative fuel systems.

I don't care if it works a lot, or it works a little. It won't hurt, and it might help.

nothing to say

as far as i´m concerned this is just another band-aid on the problem. nothing will work until there is a complete re-think of the trasportation problem