Saab should offer to plant 34 trees instead of 17 just to piss off the watchdogs.

Thought you’d like that

The 17 trees will take a lifespan to offset 1 year of carbon emissions. If the trees are felled or burnt then the offset falls short. Also by the time the trees die naturally the car will have been driven into the ground over a 20-40 year life-span and already produced much much more (maybe up to 4500% presuming the car pollutes more as it gets older) emissions than the 17 trees can offset.

And Turbin, while we’re talking Subaru, my WRX-for-a-week should be arriving soon. More to come

Wouldn’t the tree take in more CO2, as it grew larger?

And they are being so counter-productive, Saab is trying to being eco-friendly and what happens? They get punished for it. Sigh.

This is not going to be good. ACCC are going hard at car companies after Audi’s Q7 gaffe. They are out for blood and Saab might have to give it.

Yes we understand that no car is green, now get over it. The offset campaign and Biopower are positive steps. On the subject of hybrids/electrics, people seem to forget that the energy production is displaced and still has enormous environmental impact. The Tesla will undoubtedly chew a lot of power in its 4sec. 0-60mph scream. Bloody hell, how do greenies get from place to place. That’s right, they don’t. They’re all chained to trees in Tassie.

While we’re talking ACCC. I’ve heard that they are investigating the Subaru safety ad you wrote about pre-christmas.

Quite off-topic, but I was wondering if you still plan to post about the chat you had, before going to Detroit, about the 9-4x design: I’m still very interested…

Cheers!
(Love the idea of JAJ with a TS shirt )