Volvo Calls For The Truth About Tailpipe Emissions
When I was a young copywriter, I wrote about a catalytic converter that was just newly introduced to Volkswagen. I proudly wrote that it “removes all harmful substances.” The copy came back. I was told to say that it “largely reduces the amount of “ a list of strangely named substances. I said I would never subject the poor Volkswagen customers to such nonsense. I then was called to Wolfsburg and had a meeting with a gruff engineer. He said: “Look, that thing lowers the amount of some bad stuff. But it lets stuff through, it may even create stuff that is much worse. It’s just that nobody is looking for it!”
I was reminded of that episode when I read that “Volvo has called for greater openness about all harmful emissions from cars,” as the BBC has it.
Consumers are told how much carbon dioxide CO2 a car emits. Volvo’s UK’s managing director Peter Rask told BBC News that buyers should get the whole story: “We think it is time to give consumers information about all emissions,” he said. “We would like to see a new environmental label that would highlight this in a simple way.”
In a simple way? If I recall correctly, it would be a rather large label. Or it will have a lot of small print with many strange sounding substances.
Comments
Join the conversation
Complete HC oxidation: N + O2 + HC -> H2O + CO2 + N Water is the major "greenhouse gas" since CO2 is only 0.035% of the entire atmosphere. How is starving plants of CO2 considered "Green"...Is that a public school thing?
The price of entry is compliance with the relevant emissions standard of the region which normally deal with NOx, CO, HC, PM etc. What's the point of telling the public how much PM is produced? Yes gasoline produces PM as well - and should do this via a mass or particle count, so many choices, so much confusion, so little benefit CO2 on the other hand is directly linked to fuel consumption and in much of Europe vehicle tax so it's a key factor in the operating cost of the car. On a side note a couple of years ago I had lots of fun confusing a salesman who was trying to tell me that the ULEV I was looking at didn't produce emissions - He couldn't understand that CO2 & Water & Heat etc are all emissions!
"I guess that you missed the part where CO2 production is up while the planet is being deforested" Then CO2 production is a good thing then. Is that the kind of "clue" you get at your publik skool?
There will be no "iron-clad" proof of AGW before it's too late to reverse the initial effects. The fact that conservatives have successfully framed the argument into another "redistribution of wealth" paradigm will have many flocking to the "science" of the opposition. Even a partial sacrifice of the comforts afforded to us by (artificially) low-priced energy is "Anti-American", especially if that sacrifice would benefit poor people in the (seemingly far-off) future, in far-flung places. Many who deny AGW are merely afraid of any downgrade to their present lifestyle, and choose the easy answers, many of which (thanks to Exxon, et. al.) are in plentiful supply. A donation to the collection basket at church on Sunday should ease any lingering doubt of one's charitable intents.