[Jason]

In a rather strict interpretation of BMW's Concept AciveE's advertising message, the European Advertising Standards Alliance has banned BMW from advertising "Zero Emissions" with respect to its electric cars. Their basis is that this is a false claim by BMW. See the following explanation:

LONDON (AFP) – A second BMW advert has been banned for claims about the low levels of carbon dioxide emissions produced by its cars, Britain's advertising watchdog said on Wednesday.

The Advertising Standards Agency said the German luxury car maker's newspaper ad claiming that the BMW Concept ActiveE electric car as "100 percent joy, zero percent emissions", was likely to mislead.

It said the advert breached their codes on substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims and should not reappear in its current form.

The advert said: "Thanks to its electrifying performance and zero carbon dioxide emissions when driving, the ActiveE redefines BMW EfficientDynamics."

A reader challenged whether the claims "zero percent emissions" and "zero carbon dioxide when driving" were misleading, because they understood that the car needed to be charged with electricity from the national power network, which would result in the production of emissions.

BMW said its headline claim was explained lower down in the advert with the phrase: "Zero carbon dioxide emissions when driving," limiting it to when the car was in use and not across its whole life cycle.

But the ASA upheld the complaint, saying the claims were "likely to mislead".

"We considered that the claim 'zero percent emissions' was likely to be interpreted by readers to mean that the car's use would not result in the production of emissions," it said.

"We told BMW not to repeat claims that stated or implied that an electric vehicle would produce zero emissions in use."

Last week, the watchdog rapped BMW for claiming its latest Z4 Roadster model had low levels of CO2 emissions, when in fact it was only low for a BMW, not all cars. It ruled the ad could not be used again in its current form.

-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100728...autocompanybmw

[Sylon]

Not to be an ass, but London is right. People don't understand what it takes to build and own an electric car. They only see that they are not producing emissions when they are driving, but they fail to see what goes into building the car and charging it.

It was said that building a Toyota Prius causes more damage to the environment than to drive a SUV everyday for a year, once you look into how the materials for the batteries are manufactured, not to mention transportation of those materials all around the world to the different places it has to go in order to become a battery. At no point is it beneficial to the environment to own an electric car.



Oh, BTW, the link on the main Bimmerpost page for this article doesnt work. Its been coded to take you to the www.bimmerpost.com page.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by Sylon

Not to be an ass, but London is right. People don't understand what it takes to build and own an electric car. They only see that they are not producing emissions when they are driving, but they fail to see what goes into building the car and charging it.

It was said that building a Toyota Prius causes more damage to the environment than to drive a SUV everyday for a year, once you look into how the materials for the batteries are manufactured, not to mention transportation of those materials all around the world to the different places it has to go in order to become a battery. At no point is it beneficial to the environment to own an electric car.



Oh, BTW, the link on the main Bimmerpost page for this article doesnt work. Its been coded to take you to the www.bimmerpost.com page.

I agree with you, but why do they say this only to BMW and not to other car makers, as Audi with their E-Tron or E1?

[Sylon]

Originally Posted by Levi

I agree with you, but why do they say this only to BMW and not to other car makers, as Audi with their E-Tron or E1?

Is Audi advertising the E-Tron or E1 on UK televisions? The UK isnt banning the cars, they are banning the ads.

[Matski]

I dont think people buy electric cars because they want to reduce their emissions, I believe they do it so they don't get bent over and raped everytime they go to the petrol pump.

[mkoesel]

But wait a minute here. This is complete bunk.

We have standards in place to govern the emissions of vehicles. These standards consider only the emissions the vehicle itself produces (strictly speaking, they actually use fuel economy since it is proportionate to emissions), not the emissions produced by the refueling infrastructure. Just like we don't take the emissions of the oil refinery that produces the gasonline nor the emissions of the transportation system that delivers it to the fueling stations into account when determining whether a car meets LEV, ULEV, SULEV, etc. standards, we should similarly not do so when determining whether a particular vehicle is considered a ZEV.

Double standard? Yes, absolutley unquestionably. Justifiable? Only if you are a hypocrite with an agenda.

[Yearofthe1]

One thing I believe people always fail to consider about electric cars is the efficiency of the energy they use.

The most fuel-efficient, cleanest running internal combustion engine is no where near as efficient at extracting energy as even the dirtiest coal-fired powerplant. What's more, of the energy that is extracted from the ICE, maybe 20% of it goes to actually providing propulsion. The other 80+% is lost as heat, whether directly from the combustion process, or indirectly through the friction of the powertrain.

And that report about the Prius being more environmentally damaging than driving an SUV for a year is extremely flawed, and this has been known for years. ALL autos get their parts and materials from all over the globe, thus failing to take into account the methods behind the manufacture of that hypothetical SUV driving for a year creates a very misleading, though attention-grabbing story.

[PsychoSlug]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

But wait a minute here. This is complete bunk.

We have standards in place to govern the emissions of vehicles. These standards consider only the emissions the vehicle itself produces (strictly speaking, they actually use fuel economy since it is proportionate to emissions), not the emissions produced by the refueling infrastructure. Just like we don't take the emissions of the oil refinery that produces the gasonline nor the emissions of the transportation system that delivers it to the fueling stations into account when determining whether a car meets LEV, ULEV, SULEV, etc. standards, we should similarly not do so when determining whether a particular vehicle is considered a ZEV.

Double standard? Yes, absolutley unquestionably. Justifiable? Only if you are a hypocrite with an agenda.

Very well stated and spot on.

[Tegs4tugs]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

But wait a minute here. This is complete bunk.

We have standards in place to govern the emissions of vehicles. These standards consider only the emissions the vehicle itself produces (strictly speaking, they actually use fuel economy since it is proportionate to emissions), not the emissions produced by the refueling infrastructure. Just like we don't take the emissions of the oil refinery that produces the gasonline nor the emissions of the transportation system that delivers it to the fueling stations into account when determining whether a car meets LEV, ULEV, SULEV, etc. standards, we should similarly not do so when determining whether a particular vehicle is considered a ZEV.

Double standard? Yes, absolutley unquestionably. Justifiable? Only if you are a hypocrite with an agenda.

Agreed

[kyleb350]

Now we just need solar/wind powered charging stations!

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

But wait a minute here. This is complete bunk.

We have standards in place to govern the emissions of vehicles. These standards consider only the emissions the vehicle itself produces (strictly speaking, they actually use fuel economy since it is proportionate to emissions), not the emissions produced by the refueling infrastructure. Just like we don't take the emissions of the oil refinery that produces the gasonline nor the emissions of the transportation system that delivers it to the fueling stations into account when determining whether a car meets LEV, ULEV, SULEV, etc. standards, we should similarly not do so when determining whether a particular vehicle is considered a ZEV.

Double standard? Yes, absolutley unquestionably. Justifiable? Only if you are a hypocrite with an agenda.

I don't understand your point here? There's a massive difference between saying light emissions, etc, and saying ZERO.
The problem here in the UK is the ZERO emissions. They're not saying the lowest emissions of any car, they're stating zero.

It's not an agenda, and it's not bunk... what they're saying is completely justifiable.

SULEV, etc are all relative. *zero* is not relative.

[mkoesel]

No sir. SULEV is abolutely NOT relative. It's all defined here:

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_ca.php

And none of these figures - NONE - take into account any of the things I mentioned in my first post.

Zero emissions means zero emissions from *the car*. We don't just get to suddenly redefine *what* is emitting the polutants just because someone builds a car that gets the established number down to zero.

It's really quite basic. Falacial logic, however, can easily complicate the matter to the point where it almost seems like there is something to actually debate here.

Originally Posted by Freakazoid

I don't understand your point here? There's a massive difference between saying light emissions, etc, and saying ZERO.
The problem here in the UK is the ZERO emissions. They're not saying the lowest emissions of any car, they're stating zero.

It's not an agenda, and it's not bunk... what they're saying is completely justifiable.

SULEV, etc are all relative. *zero* is not relative.

[Addict...Nah Im A Junkie!]

That ad is only misleading because the majority of the worlds population is made up of morons. Seriously, could a person think that because they bought an electric car then producing power at a generation station would not produce any emissions? Seriously? This is really too much. It's just like BMW having to block the brake ducts on the e36 m3 due to litigious Americans. Once again we have all been brought down by the common denominator (too bad the common denominator is a moron.) Should Toyota have to put that making a Prius pollutes? I don't recall seeing anything about that in any of the advertisements.

Sad. If only we could send 90% of the population to mars.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by Addict...Nah Im A Junkie!

If only we could send 90% of the population to mars.

Just keep all the nice ladies on earth...

[southlight]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

But wait a minute here. This is complete bunk.

We have standards in place to govern the emissions of vehicles. These standards consider only the emissions the vehicle itself produces (strictly speaking, they actually use fuel economy since it is proportionate to emissions), not the emissions produced by the refueling infrastructure. Just like we don't take the emissions of the oil refinery that produces the gasonline nor the emissions of the transportation system that delivers it to the fueling stations into account when determining whether a car meets LEV, ULEV, SULEV, etc. standards, we should similarly not do so when determining whether a particular vehicle is considered a ZEV.

Double standard? Yes, absolutley unquestionably. Justifiable? Only if you are a hypocrite with an agenda.

Very good point. I have to check, but I think there is an European standard considering emissions for plug-in hybrids driving in electric mode. If memory serves, they use the same driving cycle they use for 'regular' cars and measure the power consumption (in kWh per 100 km). The result will be multiplied with the so called 'EU Mix' CO2 value, the average of the CO2 emission for all different kinds of power generation, and you have a similar figure in CO2 per km. That being said, you're perfectly right that only electric cars use these well-to-wheel figures, so there is a double standard.


Best regards,
south

[HTRules]

Originally Posted by Addict...Nah Im A Junkie!

That ad is only misleading because the majority of the worlds population is made up of morons. Seriously, could a person think that because they bought an electric car then producing power at a generation station would not produce any emissions? Seriously? This is really too much. It's just like BMW having to block the brake ducts on the e36 m3 due to litigious Americans. Once again we have all been brought down by the common denominator (too bad the common denominator is a moron.) Should Toyota have to put that making a Prius pollutes? I don't recall seeing anything about that in any of the advertisements.

Sad. If only we could send 90% of the population to mars.

Not to be too political here (yeah, right) but if you follow the social trends in the grand old UK (principally England) it's increasingly clear that it has fallen and can't get up.

Rick

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by Sylon

It was said that building a Toyota Prius causes more damage to the environment than to drive a SUV everyday for a year, once you look into how the materials for the batteries are manufactured, not to mention transportation of those materials all around the world to the different places it has to go in order to become a battery. At no point is it beneficial to the environment to own an electric car.

Just wanted to add to this. The study in question found that the Prius was about three times as detrimental to the environment to drive as a Hummer, when you calculate in all of the extraneous variables. The Hummer is also three times cheaper to drive and own.

http://www.impactlab.com/2007/03/14/...mental-damage/

[hubble bubble]

Most drivers are morons. That is 100% correct. How good for the environment is a Chevy Volt or Tesla when 75% of the electricity in the USA is generated by burning coal.

As for the |Hummer vs Prius, the key is that the Hummer is really just a GMC 1500 pickup with different body work (and 15k added to the price tag). So, evey full sixed GM pickup and SUV shares 90+% of the parts, hose basic design is unchanged for 5-10 years at a time. So when one Hummer dies, the parts end up in the junkyard and can be use on ANY full sized pickup or SUV.

[Kiemyster]

last night i was in the city, and saw 5 blue prius's parked in a line. I tripped the fuck out. I cant stand seeing these pieces of shit littering the roads, especially considering they are ugly as hell, and not efficient. The amount of pollution they cause is unrealistic.

when are we going to ban electric cars now? im waiting, patiently.

[Sylon]

Originally Posted by PINeely

Just wanted to add to this. The study in question found that the Prius was about three times as detrimental to the environment to drive as a Hummer, when you calculate in all of the extraneous variables. The Hummer is also three times cheaper to drive and own.

http://www.impactlab.com/2007/03/14/...mental-damage/

LMAO, thank you for posting that, I added it to my favorites. Im sure I will use that later during an argument, lol.

[Revelate]

The UK must think their entire population is morons. I've never been there, I can't confirm or deny.

Someone earlier made a great point about why people buy electric in the first place. Most don't care about the emissions, they care about the cost of fuel and being forced to support the oil companies.

As for the emissions debate, there's a legitimate argument for both sides. What I find disappointing with the UK advert bans is that their reasoning is not in line with how the world classifies emissions for automobiles. The behind the scenes impact has never been included in the emissions output of the vehicle. Taken literally just one step further, there will never be a zero emission vehicle unless it doesn't include any passengers since humans emit atmospheric CO2.


The UK's Advertising Standards Agency is just being a douchbag because they can. They probably want the publicity. They're in advertising.