You can't advertise EV's as zero emissions

Captain Caveman

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2020
9,280
5,057
938
England
The UK's advertising watchdog has banned adverts from two different car makers that referred to their electric vehicles as 'zero emissions' as it continues to crackdown on claims made about battery-powered models.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said today it had upheld rulings against BMW and MG Motor UK for ads that appeared on Google last year.

It said the both adverts had misled consumers by suggesting EVs do not produce emissions during the manufacturing process - or when they're being charged by non-renewable electricity

. Advertising watchdog BANS adverts referring to EVs as 'zero emissions'


Yup, EV's produce so much co2 in their manufacture and charging, it takes years to offset that against an ICE vehicle. In fact, if you prang and write off an EV before the end of that co2 catch-up period, you will have contributed more in co2 than if you stuck with an ICE vehicle.

So manufacturers can claim EV's are zero emissions only when driving. As an EV I nly reduces your carbon footprint by only 17% to 30%, then they suffer more worn tyres and write offs, the planet needs a green alternative to an EV.
 
Lies!

You just plug them in and its like magic, the recharge by themselves!!!

:auiqs.jpg:
 
Getting away from ICE vehicles is a no brainer.
But Lithium batteries is not the answer... it is a VERY poor replacement that, I have no doubt, in the end will show is more pollutant than ICE.
 
Lies!

You just plug them in and its like magic, the recharge by themselves!!!

:auiqs.jpg:
Hydrogen Fuel cells where the hydrogen is produced by fusion nuclear reactors would be a zero carbon emission, but then it is all a pipe dream because Marxists/Demofascists cant have happy people.
 
"Emissions" is almost universally understood to mean, "tailpipe emissions," and advertising them as "Emission free" is entirely appropriate. Nobody but a neurotic Leftist gives a shit about emissions during the manufacturing process, which are unavoidable.

Jesus Fuck, the workers in the factory probably exhale thousands of times a day, not to mention passing a little gas...does that count as "emissions"?
 
"Emissions" is almost universally understood to mean, "tailpipe emissions," and advertising them as "Emission free" is entirely appropriate. Nobody but a neurotic Leftist gives a shit about emissions during the manufacturing process, which are unavoidable.
Then say “zero tailpipe emissions.”

But otherwise, it’s a lie.

The emissions are simply far greater at the source of the electricity (often coal power plants) than at the tailpipes. Plus, there’s all that ecological stress caused by mining for the battery components and the problem of disposal of the electric vehicle batteries.
 
Hydrogen Fuel cells where the hydrogen is produced by fusion nuclear reactors would be a zero carbon emission, but then it is all a pipe dream because Marxists/Demofascists cant have happy people.

Fusion reactors are a pipedream in and of themselves. Political ideology isn't at play here.
 
There's no Free Speech in England ... the government can control what you say ... including how you advertise ...

"Read my lips, no new taxes" ...
"I didn't have sex with that woman" ...
"There's WMD in Iraq" ...
"If you like you insurance, you can keep it" ...
"Hurricanes are attracted to Alabama" ...
"My memory is fine"

... whereas it's legal to state lies in the United States ...

=====

A two-cycle Vespa is the most environmentally friendly ... even though they burn MOTOR OIL ... the emissions are horrible but on total, including manufacturing, Vespas are the cleanest mode of motorize transportation ... just because they are so small ...

I'm okay with the OP until he claims EVs require an enormous amount of extra steel, or that the manufacturing plants for EVs require a hundred-fold more of carbon intensive concrete ... what next, 8 inches of lead shielding for the fly-by-wire cabling? ...

Typical EV weighs 2 tons, my Toyota wheel barrel weighs 2-1/2 tons empty ... that 1,000 pounds of extra steel didn't absorb that much CO2 ... a little sure, but just a little ...

Remember ... this is only for FAT and LAZY people who can't ride a bike ... the same folks driving up your health care insurance premiums ...
 
Last edited:
"Emissions" is almost universally understood to mean, "tailpipe emissions," and advertising them as "Emission free" is entirely appropriate. Nobody but a neurotic Leftist gives a shit about emissions during the manufacturing process, which are unavoidable.

Jesus Fuck, the workers in the factory probably exhale thousands of times a day, not to mention passing a little gas...does that count as "emissions"?
Disagree... because the use of the word "emissions" is also used to state any products overall carbon emissions.
It doesn't just mean tailpipe.
And the fact is,unless you own your EV for a minimum of 3 years... minimum... total carbon emissions is worse than an ICE
 
Disagree... because the use of the word "emissions" is also used to state any products overall carbon emissions.
It doesn't just mean tailpipe.
And the fact is,unless you own your EV for a minimum of 3 years... minimum... total carbon emissions is worse than an ICE

I agree with you except for the last ...

Why does a 2-ton EV produce more manufacturing pollution than a 3-1/2 ton F-150? ... I'm asking about ALL pollution, not just the CO2 emissions from cement and steel production ... 1,800ºC and 1,500ºC respectively ... and include the blood of black children mining lithium ... I still think the F-150 is the worst, we can't fill the bed without going over-weight, so what's the point? ... other than points for style ...
 
Fusion reactors are a pipedream in and of themselves. Political ideology isn't at play here.
Putting a man on the moon was a pipedream back in the late 1800s....Get Marxists/Demofascists out of the way and the ability of the United States to achieve greatness is just around the corner.
 
Putting a man on the moon was a pipedream back in the late 1800s....Get Marxists/Demofascists out of the way and the ability of the United States to achieve greatness is just around the corner.

If party control was central to the moon landing then look it up during the moon race and square it with your statement. Anyways, lets look at the latest in fusion:


Intriguing, is it producing more energy than that which went into it?

The experiments produced 69 megajoules of energy over five seconds. That is only enough energy for four to five hot baths - so not a lot.

Hmm, not really, but this is a BIG advancement, right?

The result announced today is triple what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997.

So... were not moving moving fast on this presently? Certainly there is more ambitious testing slated to make fusion power a reality?

The Euratom successor to JET is a facility called ITER that will be based in France. Originally planned to be open in 2016 and cost around 5bn euros, its price has since roughly quadrupled and its start-up pushed back to 2025. Full-scale experiments are now not foreseen until at least 2035.

So, in the next 30 years and an additional several tens of billions of dollars we may be able to heat up a swimming pool or two...
 
Hmm, not really, but this is a BIG advancement, right?

Compared to what ... nuclear fission was fringe science at the beginning of 1939 ... to self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions beginning in 1943 ... four years ... and just two years after that we're dropping nuclear armageddon on Imperial Japan ...

If we ever get fusion power, it will be tiny baby step by tiny baby step ... and I don't see it ever being cheaper than thorium reactors ...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top