Warning: European Union could be hazardous to your car
Cigarettes, alcohol and fireworks all carry warning labels because of their potential danger to your health. The European Parliament has now suggested cars should carry similar warnings, not for your health, but the planet's.
Under the proposal, carmakers would have to set aside 20% of an ad's space for environmental impact information, listing fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
As you might expect, auto manufacturers are not happy about the suggestion and advertising companies and media outlets are afraid of how much money they stand to lose.
As the New York Times points out, the plan is a long way from being implemented, since the EU rarely moves quickly on anything. We see how such a requirement could do some good, but also understand that people who care about environmental impact usually know better than to buy, say, a HUMMER to begin with.
[Source: The New York Times]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Rollolo 7:40PM (10/29/2007)
Please America, we need a regime change! The EU is nothing democratic, some say, it should be called the EUCCR!
Reply
Craig 8:05PM (10/29/2007)
And the USA is getting so good at spying on their own citizens and promoting fear it should change its name to USASR...
Not too many free places left these days.
Austin 9:19PM (10/29/2007)
"And the USA is getting so good at spying on their own citizens and promoting fear it should change its name to USASR..."
Oh please, that is for our safety so that there is no terrorist attacks. Oh let me guess your with the extreme US haters who think that the government did it. If you think there is anything wrong with that , go to Cuba or Venisula and see if you can do what you can in a free country. Your most likely a socialist(communist) who addores them anyway. And on the spying,if you have nothing to hide,why should it bother you anyway Hugo lover.
graviton 9:42PM (10/29/2007)
Austin that is perhaps the single stupidest knee jerk reaction I have ever heard. People that are happy about the loss of privacy in the USA because "it protects us from the terrorists" are the biggest f**cking pussies. I am more afraid of the slippery slope that we have fallen into. A slope where the govt takes just a little more liberty here and just a little more privacy there until there is nothing to take and we all feel "as safe as can be because big brother is protecting us". Get your head out of your ass and grow a pair.
Craig 9:54PM (10/29/2007)
Looks like I hit a nerve with Austin. When that happens, generally you are too close to the truth.
I don't think the US govt were the brains behind Sept 11, this administration is too incompetent to pull that off in secret. What I do think is that they were asleep at the wheel after repeated warnings, whether that was a deliberate plan to further their interests (neo-cons) or just plain idiocy, I don't know.
And you falling into the fear game that their is a terrorist around every corner is absurd. If the US kept their noses out of business that doesn't concern them, they wouldn't be hated by every man and his dog...
WetheSheeple 10:30PM (10/29/2007)
"Oh please, that is for our safety so that there is no terrorist attacks. Oh let me guess your with the extreme US haters who think that the government did it."
Don't be a sheep there Austin. It's that exact attitude our government and powerful elites want you to feel. They use this terrorism war b.s. as the reasoning to ammend the Constitution and pass the Patriot Act to make us feel all warm and fuzzy while we are fine with giving up some of our freedoms and rights all in the name of 'national security'. We have to get permission from the government to do almost anything today. You think that's freedom? Just be a good boy and take your National ID card with an RFID chip in it when they start to implement them beginning May 2008. Oh, and when the North American Union goes into effect (drafted 2005), Canada, USA, and Mexico will be one big happy family with one currency, one border. One world government is coming, so stand in line like a good boy to get your chip. Read the 10 planks of the Communist Maifesto and see how many the United States are using.
toonczyk 7:43PM (10/29/2007)
AFAIK car manufacturers are already obliged to put CO2 figures in ads in EU.
Reply
BritishDriver 7:52PM (10/29/2007)
Let's face it, Europe is getting so regulation heavy that it is going down the drain if it hasn't already. It has become a pretty awful place to leave, simply a place to get educated, build up some professional experience, and vacate as soon as possible.
Yet one more silly regulation isn't the end of the world, simply yet another reason to seek greener pastures.
Reply
Mark 7:59PM (10/29/2007)
V for Vendetta anyone?
Reply
Craig 8:07PM (10/29/2007)
"We see how such a requirement could do some good, but also understand that people who care about environmental impact usually know better than to buy, say, a HUMMER to begin with."
These warnings aren't for those of us who are concerned about environmental impact. It is for those who don't know and/or just buy based on its coolness factor. Those folk who follow trends generally have tunnel vision and are a pretty selfish bunch.
Reply
compy386 10:51PM (10/29/2007)
Please, environmentalists are far more selfish. They want other people to conform to their ideals through fear. They're no better then the people you were complaining about spreading fear about terrorism. With that said it's at least good to live in the US where you can't go to jail for just saying something. Unlike Europe.
AZ 11:59PM (10/29/2007)
"With that said it's at least good to live in the US where you can't go to jail for just saying something. Unlike Europe."
And China.
pmgk 8:15PM (10/29/2007)
"Under the proposal, carmakers would have to set aside 20% of an ad's space for environmental impact information, listing fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
"
- The energy used to build a car should also be mentionned (see below links)!
Note: It take more energy to build a car than the energy used to run the car during 100,000 miles. If you want to be 'green' keep your car for 20 years instead of 3 to 5 years...
Prius snob challenges data that shows hybrids, Hummer have same lifetime energy consumption
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/02/13/prius-snob-challenges-data-that-shows-hybrids-hummer-have-same/
New study: Full-size SUVs consume less energy over lifetime than hybrids
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/01/new-study-full-size-suvs-consume-less-energy-over-lifetime-than/
Reply
Mike 10:14PM (10/29/2007)
YES! Finally someone else who realizes the energy required to build is WAY more than the energy used by the car. Consider the people driving to & from work, the steel, rubber and other raw materials input into the car, etc. The marketing cycle is the biggest threat to the environment!
Andrew 7:44AM (10/30/2007)
The fact that constructing the car actually harms the environment is the *basis* for the EU's new legislation! It's not enough to consume less fuel when your car's remains will pollute the environment for the next 100 years.
SuperSkyline89 9:18AM (10/30/2007)
Though it is true that manufacturing a car uses more energy than driving it, the CNW study is flawed in the way it states the amount of energy a vehicle uses over its lifetime.
iQuack 8:33PM (10/29/2007)
All extreme followers of Al Gore and other global warming alarmists should drive into their garages, close their garage doors, and run their engines.
Silly leftist alarmists!
Reply
Cameron 12:02AM (10/30/2007)
When I saw this post it had zero comments, that was several hours ago. I'm actually kind of disappointed in the AB comment flame community. I figured this would be 3 pages already.
Reply
Furion 4:26AM (10/30/2007)
I never understood the short-circuited thinking where people only look at the CO2/km figures. Some of the treehuggers that drive priuses are the same ones that live in the countryside and commute 70 km each way to work, while claiming to be green.
Somebody in a Hummer H2 driving to work 10 km has less carbon footprint. Also the treehuggers dream of living in a single house close to the damn trees isn't exactly eco-friendly.
As for this article .. damn, as a EU citizen, all this regulation crap is getting on my nerve. EU was a great idea, but people should understand that it comes worse the more EU we have. All the regulations and bureacrats don't help, they detract from EUs competitive ability. I feel sorry for the newer EU members (former soviet block countries), you thought you'd have freedom after the soviet rule, huh? Tough luck, pals, and welcome to the club.
The proposition in this article is just one in a long line of utter BS regulations that the EU is so apt in churning out.
Reply
John R 7:13AM (10/30/2007)
I can see the reasoning behind this. But this is kind of semi-lazy, 15 minutes of research could answer most of these environmental questions.
Reply