Honda Insight Forum banner

Greenpeace VW Greenwash

9K views 11 replies 6 participants last post by  rhall 
#1 · (Edited)
#3 · (Edited)
Not to be misunderstood as lacking a desire to save the earth and end suffering and harm, in reading documents such as the above I must put on the 'black hat' of science and follow up the references cited by reading those that are used to back up various points. Not to stir up a hornets nest nor merely be the devils advocate, and irrespective of owning a '66 Bug as my first car, lol, there are several key qualifying words in some of the main reports proposing AGW, such as 'likely' that indicate opinion vs. fact in modelling. The data used in some citations is somewhat out of date [2007 papers based on older data.] being confounded by recently obtained satellite data from NASA which calls into question several key premises of the AGW theory and the politics behind it. The aspect of solar factors such as the now peaking solar coronal mass ejections and cosmic cycles over time may be of a far greater order of magnitude than anthropogenic sources of CO2 which may on close inspection of the data postdate the solar activity.

Interested persons might view:

a.k.a.Variation in Cloud Cover in the Atmosphere is Correlated to Variation in Cosmic Rays, Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming Theory.

It would appear that we are in a solar cycle that will bring us more sunspots, coronal mass ejections and perturbations of the earths magnetic field, evident even in the next coming days, dwarfing any contributions by man. A further source of info on the aspects of global warming causes can be found by investigating the work of of Weather Action.
Enjoy. :)
 
#4 ·
Not to be misunderstood as lacking a desire to save the earth and end suffering and harm, in reading documents such as the above I must put on the 'black hat' of science and follow up the references cited by reading those that are used to back up various points.
Good stuff! Many are starting to realize that the sun is quite a bit more powerful than cow farts, smoke stacks, and humans.

And - We want a clean earth!

Thanks.
 
#5 · (Edited)
In terms of being "ecologically friendly" the Prius is one of the worse violators as the amount of energy to build it, ship the various parts from all over the world to be manufactured make it ironically horrible.

VW is a business, its goal is to make money, it makes money by producing products which they believe people WANT to purchase. In the end the people will decide what is right from them by virtue of what they spend money on. Case in point - years ago people were up in arms about the quickly rising prices of gasoline, yet while they stood there complaining to the lamestream media they were doing so while pumping the expensive gas into their cars... so how motivated were the gas companies to change their ways when customers were still buying their products?

If you want to point fingers at car companies doing awful things - look no further than GM, back in the 50's they single handedly shut down the subway system here in Los Angeles AND purchase the companies that were to produce buses to enable widespread mass-transit then immediately closed those companies to make sure LA's residence had no choices but to buy cars. GM is also attempting to claim protection from needed recalls on Impala's suspension claiming that their bankruptcy should protect the "new" GM from having to honor ANY recalls/TSB's or lawsuits.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/gm-impala-lawsuit-idUSN1E77I0Z820110819
 
#6 ·
VW - Greenpeace

It is not just an eco issue of climate warming for VW.

Fuel efficiency is also the target, people want to buy less fuel, VW have stalled on the task of enhancing overall fuel efficiency for their product range, they are accused of overpricing their bluemotion vehicles as if to discourage sales.

Smaller manufacturers (VW have the biggest slice at 20% of EEC sales) have taken the needed steps, VW are accused of being uncooperative.
 
#7 ·
Anyone who understands economics would realize that VW is not overcharging their cars, no more that any company overcharges for their products. Supply/demand is a simple philosophy. They will charge hat they think people will pay, and if sales are not there then they will adjust.. you cannot blame the company in this. Look at the first Miata - Japan Mazda wanted the car around $10K, American Mazda decided, due to demand, to sell in around $20K and it sold... which Mazda was right? VW is in the business to make money, not a benevolent company who makes cars for the populous, those days ended with the fall of Hitler (hence the original corporate name).

Companies will produce fuel efficient cars when people decide they want to buy them. Companies produce products to sell, and the people decide what they will buy. If the Aptura or VW fuel efficient cars suddenly become "en vogue" then they will sell a lot of them and produce more... Americans still want ego and large/powerful cars so that is what will be made.
 
#8 · (Edited)
VW is in the business to make money, not a benevolent company who makes cars for the populous, those days ended with the fall of Hitler (hence the original corporate name).
Not to disagree with the first part of that statement but rather to clarify the outcome of the benevolence which seems common to many governments' undertakings: Whereas the "Kdf" a.k.a People's Car, Volkswagen Beetle introduced a plan for average working folk to own an affordable car representing only about 2/3rds of their year's earnings, [where they'd make small payments over time and later go to pickup the vehicle]: There was no follow through. In fact, virtually no-one ever got a car! All the marks saved up in the accounts went into the weapons factories for national rearmament. But that particular idea definitely caught on well at the time to the hopes of many savers.
My opinion on the economics is that marque loyalty and vehicle image will persist in keeping a large market share for a time, with price point of both vehicles and fuel increasingly dictating through market forces more efficient and less costly vehicles. At least I would hope such in the best of worlds.
However, big political/economic changes are now occurring in Europe [and globally!] and changes may be sudden. I feel there could be a swing back towards more austere mandated restrictions on consumption of all kinds, on national if not regional levels. We are living in "interesting times" as would be said in the orient, and as ever with an uncertain outcome more so now than before. Basics like food and fuel costs will be on the rise affecting daily lives substantially. One has just to survey youtube and see the reactions of the populations. Manufacturers will be hard pressed also to keep costs down in face of increasing metal prices and eroding currencies for the most part.
In the short term, on the automotive front, I look forward to seeing what fuel efficient and affordable offerings are proffered to meet the day at the prestigious and very soon upcoming Frankfurt Auto show. I'm interested how realizable and close to production these more economical fuel saving vehicles may be. I hope production of same may occur sooner than later for all our sakes, and let the market decide!
It is indeed a complicated issue with big monied interests afoot, hidden agenda, the variable economies of scale and all, but, by way of comparison the price VW charges is not out of line with other large manufactures of fuel efficient vehicles.
For example i found these figures [in 'OZ' dollars from down-under which btw: are doing very well these days] : VW Golf Bluemotion, $28,990; Ford Fiesta Econetic, $24,990; MINI Cooper D, $34,800; and Toyota Prius, $34,990. So, the VW price ranks even a little under the average price for compatible cars.
My feeling is Greenpeace may have tackled VW in particular on account of advertising rhetoric and reputation, vs. real price point in the ecologically sensitive car market. I suppose it was perhaps considered that with such a history, they could be better shamed to make changes given their 'footprint' in the market. A change there would have a greater effect for the cause of reduced consumption if nothing else, irrespective of the red herring of CO2 being largely responsible for global warming.
No doubt in my mind, carbon based fuel prices will be on the rise by and large, and with ever increasing reliance upon hybrid electric power, lithium deposits, and their control, will continue to be a source of regional conflict around the world. No doubt as well, there should be well placed efforts to curtail the harm done by the mining process of same to indigenous landscapes and populations alike. This should be calculated as part of the cost.
As regards the current source of much of North America's gasoline fuel, derived now in these times from the heavy Alberta oilsands, [not unlike lighter oilsand containing areas in Venezuela] similar cost assessments should be considered. One only has to fly over the landscape in my province in an aircraft to see what changes have been wrought by big oil developments [not to omit mega forestry operations for oriented strand board.]. The size of the operations are immense.
Official surveys of the health problems of the indigenous people due to big open pit mining oilsands projects belies the true extent of the damages caused to the indigenous people's health, particularly soft tissue cancers, because of the mining processes involving diluent solvents and other chemicals present in production. It is very sad what has happened to many and there is much good work to do. I hope we may all have a chance to choose to do more with less in the future, and lessen the harm due to our present and past activities.
 
#9 · (Edited)
VW group

It may well be that Greenpeace select VW for certain motives.

But a few facts:

The targets for emmisions/fuel efficiency were set by EEC for EEC markets and were weighted to allow for the type of vehicles, ie BMW had a higher figure on account of their larger engines.

VW appears to be isolated in its reticence, other manufacturers have complied or are close, Toyota made target 6 years early.

THe VW group is 33% owned by Porsche, 13% by the the German State of Lower Saxony and 17% by Qatar LLC, an Arabic sovereign wealth fund managing oil and natural gas surpluses of Qatar, the latter would not benefit from less oil consumption in the EEC.

The report is critical of VW for their lack of commitment, and their political manouevres to undermine the EEC targets, the bluemotion technology is low cost to implement yet buyers pay a significant premium for such vehicles.

It is not the first time VW have been found out, they were found guilty of profiteering by price fixing in the EEC in anti competition investigations.

As 1 in 3 cars sold in the EEC are by VW, the numbers involved mean they cannot be allowed to get away with it.
 
#12 ·
This is bound to be a hot topic among us Insighters and I agree it shouldn't be in this forum. I would like to point out that ethically, it's prudent to act as though AGM is a fact. That way, if the science is wrong we have only spent money but if it's right and we do nothing, we have contributed to a monster problem for future generations and we will be remembered as incompetent and motivated by greed and laziness. "Fiddling while Rome burns."

Rick Hall
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top