It seems Saab Australia aren’t the only national body getting a rap over the knuckles with regard to BioPower advertising.
Saab Great Britain are in hot water over advertising claims made in a recent BioPower ad. This from BusinessGreen:
Saab has become the latest firm to fall foul of the Advertising Standard Authority’s crackdown on misleading green ads…..
The national press ad showed two parallel horseshoe prints and tyre marks accompanied by the slogan “More horsepower. And a smaller carbon footprint.” The ad went on to claim that Saab’s BioPower range used a flex-fuel engine that allows it to run on bioethanol E85, petrol, or a mixture of the two.
The ad attracted three complaints regarding the claim that bioethanol reduces CO2 emissions by up to 70 per cent and two further complaints against the claim that “bioethanol consumption does not significantly raise atmospheric levels of CO2″.
The ASA rejected the first complaint, noting that Saab had substantiated the claim…
However, it upheld the second complaint, ruling that the ad was “misleading” on the grounds readers were “likely to infer that bioethanol did not add a significant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere”, when in fact it still resulted in a 30 per cent net addition to atmospheric CO2.
It seems you can try and do something environmentally responsible, just so long as you don’t talk about it.
Saab Australia’s punishment is yet to be determined. As I understand it, they’ve been trying to discuss the matter with the ACCC here in Australia, but are getting nowhere as the ACCC seem somewhat determined to make an example of them.
So what would be an acceptible way to advertise BioPower?
UPDATE – Here’s a copy of the ad, with thanks to Robin M, the unofficial Saab Ambassador for the UK. Click to enlarge. The offending statement seems to be in the fine print.
One on it’s way!
IMO biofuels are a waste of time and Saab is probably best quietly dropping the whole thing.
Biofuels, those made of grain, have actually increased the price of wheat and corn over the past year or so. Biofuel factories also use A LOT of fresh water. The Economist has said that a factory producing 50million gallons of biofuel a year needs about 500 gallons of water per MINUTE make the fuel and for use ion the cooling process with a substantial amount of said water being lost through evaporation in the cooling towers and in waste discharge.
This doesnt sound like a particualry green-alternative to me.
Discuss.
But zippy, there are new and future developments in biofuels that WILL reduce the toll on feedstocks and water usage. I can’t see how pure electric cars are the be all and end all when electricity generation has its share of consumption and by-product problems. There is very little clean power available anywhere. Electric vehicles just displace the problem, our powerpoints might seem a clean solution but our dirty power stations are out of sight, out of mind.
The 9-X displays GM and Saab’s interest in a blend of renewable technologies.
Yes, we should all drive 1980 model pickup trucks with 350+ cubic inch V8 engines which get 10 mpg (at best) running regular unleaded. Yes, that is a much better alternative to ethanol. You’re right.
Oh wait, no you’re not.
As a people, we need to ween ourselves from petroleum. E85 and E100 are the next logical steps. To suggest that ethanol (especially that made from sugar in South America, switch grass in the US or crop waste in the US and Canada) is worse than standard unleaded gasoline is a bit thick. “Plants producing ethanol fuels use about as much fossil fuel as they produce ethanol.” Do really think that gas refineries and drilling rigs are that efficient? If so, you need to do your research on *all* of your fueling options.
-But that’s not what this post is about. Saab’s ads are substantiated by their research and legal team. They wouldn’t bother writing the fine print if they hadn’t already looked it up. These anti-ethanol (anti-alternative-fuel?) organizations are either creating lawsuits for the sake of creating lawsuits or they’re just trying to keep the oil companies on top (shareholders?). These claims against Saab are just petty. People really need to go find something real to complain about. In both the UK and Australia firearms are banned… that means law-abiding citizens can’t defend themselves against criminals with guns (since they don’t care about laws — hello, they’re criminals). Now THAT’S something worth fighting. A company’s ad for cars that run Ethanol? Come on people. Seriously?
In all fairness, nowhere in my posting have I stated that ethanol is worse than standard unleaded gas. Biofuel in North America is made mostly from corn and wheat which is food and is driving up the cost of food. Ethically using food to power a car is, well, totally unethical and Im not one of these treehugger types as I consider myself right wing. What’s going to happen to fresh water supplies if we turn to a biofuels instead of oil? Its worth thinking about.
Regarding the ads, advertising standards in the UK are amongst the highest and most stringent in the world. You have to be very careful what you say in adverts as the Trading Standards will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you mislead people.
I, for one, would never buy a biofuel equipped car as there are better alternatives that are far more efficient and dare I say environmentally friendly – a 9-3 TTid comes to mind!
I think the first part of the ad is just fine. However, the second part feels like SAAB is out on “deep waters” with that one. It must be more or less impossible to show that “Bioethanol does not signifcantly raise the levels of atmospheric CO2….” I doubt that there even are any scientific reports on the CO2-impact of bioethanol-driven cars. It is all in theory at this point as there are a lot of question marks regarding how net effective the production of bioethanol really is.
I am all for Bioethanol, but some R&D (e.g. genetically engineered crops etc) are probably required to make it a more viable alternative.
@zippy – Unfortunately a diesel engine is never a better option in terms of CO2 and other pollutants. I feel this especially when it comes to pay the taxes. Not even my beloved TTiD.
And the whole problem should be understood like this: “Bioethanol does not significantly raise the levels of CO2, in comparison with other types of fuel”. When you reduce the emission to about 30% I’d say it’s a pretty good job.
And yes, it may seem that producing this bioethanol it’s quite expensive now (in terms of water consumption or whatever). and it could also lead to an increase in the price of corn….but let’s face it. With the oil getting more and more expensive each day, everything will (slowly but surely) become more expensive.
In th end of the day we have to choose the lesser evil. And oil won’t last forever. One day we’ll have to turn to something else and maybe it’s better to let others think about it in advance.
Therefore I wouldn’t be so keen in blaming SAAB because of some ads. We have to think longer than tomorrow.
GM’s bioethanol video states that the C02 generated by the combustion of E85 is offset by the level of C02 absorbed by plants that are grown to produce it. If so, the ad’s second claim would be supported as well.
All that aside, there are several basic problems with ethanol. 1) It is not economically viable without government incentives and/or mandates. 2) Even with those incentives it’s more expensive per mile driven than gasoline; 3) Unless brands like Saab can right size engines to overcome the mpg issue, biopower cars may end up being run on gasoline. This gets the manufacturer off the hook with the government regulators while providing no environmental benefit. 4) In most countries, the distribution network for E-85 fuel is minuscule, if one exists at all. 5) Using food grains to create biofuel is a particularly bad idea.
Until algae or cellulosic waste-generated ethanol comes to market, I think biofuel’s market penetration will remain fairly small (except for Brazil.) GM’s partnership with Coskata Inc. may break new ground by reducing costs and water usage but it’s anyone’s guess as to when we’ll see the results. In the meantime, E85′s major benefit lies in offering a domestically produced fuel source. That is a good thing from a balance of payments and national security perspective. It also may reduce the international tensions that might otherwise arise as more countries compete for access to crude oil. With that in mind, it may not matter in the long run if E85 is expensive or relatively inefficient so long as its readily available.
Miaik says..”Unfortunately a diesel engine is never a better option in terms of CO2 and other pollutants.”
Actually, modern TDI diesel engines release about 25% less C02 than conventional gasoline engine vehicles. That advantage grows over time because gasoline engines release more greenhouse gases as they get older, while diesel emissions remain relatively constant. The issue with diesel has not been C02 but rather nitrous oxide and particulates. However these are being substantially reduced using BlueTec and related technologies. All of this, together with vastly superior fuel economy and engine life makes diesel (IMHO) a very green alternative.
Unfortunately, we in the US have been diesel-starved because regulators in five key states have preferred to overlook the C02 and MPG shortcomings of gassers while setting ever more stringent requirements for NOx and particulates.
I was a quite avid support of BioFuel until recently. I still think future generations of BioFuel, produced from algea processing, is beneficial to environment.
However as it is of today I can no longer say I feel it helps the environment over all.
I have seen footages of prime rain forest in Brazil, and other SA countires fallen in order to grow Soya plant for producing Bio Fuel.
This impacts the bio-diversity and cause such a carnage on such a massive scale it makes my heart sink when I see the destruction.
“They are cutting down trees in the amazon basin (one of the best green house gas controller) and drive local tribes out of their land (who depend on the forect to feed themselves and their family) to in order to produce fuels for OUR cars.” I don’t know about you but I think that picture is VERY VERY wrong.
As of now, I’m against this generation of BioFuel produced from Soya planet and sugar canes. And ye I will boycott Saab’s advery campain.
The amazon basin is already facing crisis from expanding cities and farm lands, and timber industry, current gen BioFuel grower just add another wound to the threatend environment. If you feel strongly about it, please take some time to visit these websites and consider a donation.
http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildplaces/amazon/
http://www.ecologyfund.com/ecology/_donate_rainforest.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mcgowan/biofuel-could-eat-brazil_b_64466.html
There is a really interesting story hidden here – but not the one that was reported. As has already been stated, Saab fell foul of the regulators because of a badly worded statement in the small print of the ad (raising the interesting question of who goes looking for that sort of thing in the small print and then makes an official complaint, but that’s a whole other story). The interesting thing is not what failed the scrutiny of the regulators, but what passed it. Other contributors above have raised the issue of how much energy gets used making the fuel, and there are all sorts of “truths” now being quoted that “biofuels do not cut carbon emissions”. The interesting thing here is that the Saab claim of cutting CO2 by up to 70% was put under legal scrutiny – and passed! Which makes a BioPower vehicle a lower net CO2 alternative than just about anything on the road – diesels included. I agree that the food vs fuel issue needs to be addressed, but that is not so tricky once second generation fuels come on stream. FYI, the first UK bioethanol plant opened recently and the stock used is SURPLUS sugar beet production. I suspect the future of biofuels will lie in converting waste to energy…
Wow- Gripen hasn’t chimed in yet?! Someone make sure he’s okay.
Ying- I just wanted to point out something. It’s always been taught that the biggest producers of oxygen and absorbers of CO2 are found in the ocean, not on land. I’m not saying your concern for the rain forests isn’t valid-just take statements like the one you quoted with a grain of salt, because whoever said it is a bit misleading. (Can you tell it’s a pet peeve of mine?
)
I don’t think food-based ethanol is the answer or even viable long-term. However, it’s a critical bridge between real options like cellulosic ethanol and doing nothing at all, which is what we’ve had for the last 40 years. Without investing time and money into ethanol research, commercial-scale production of the cellulosic stuff just won’t happen.
The Fop- did you know there are already methods in place to harvest waste? Perhaps the most widely known example is bio-diesel derived from deep-fryer grease. There are other sources, too, but that’s the best known.
However, there’s another method few hear about- for example there is a method that’s been in use for at least a few years that extracts light, sweet crude oil from turkey offal (waste). So yes, I think you’re right- biofuels from waste are another very good option.
Well spotted, the original quote may well be ‘”best greenhouse gas controller on the land
”.
Our oceans are not doing well. As a surfer and reef aquarium keeper, I’ve seen first hand the effect of coral bleaching, it is so sad, to see a forest of white corals or dead coral skeletons, while on previous visits they were like jewels shining under water…
Corals survived for millions of years, a huge tsunami or brief period of ocean warming is not going to kill of them off. Conditions like that, they must have survived many times in the history. However, add on top of some natual disaster or climate change, are the human destructions.
In Indo and Philippines, I have seen greedy individuals using *bombs* to blast off chunks of coral and base rock to sell to the aquarium industry or as ornaments, they destroy large coral colonies for a fraction of what they can sell. And due to the changing shape of the ocean floor, the wave pattern and behaviour changes as well, most times for wrose. In parts of these countires, the locals rely on surfers and other traveller’s to generate their income, by destroying coral beds, they are slowly driving everyone away. To get rich fast will really cause the locals so much trouble but there’s little can be done
Sorry about the rant BTW!
I’m not saying all the effects of worsening environment is caused by man kind – the earth’s climate goes in circles. However anyone denying we had an impact (a big one at that) on the environment is smoking some substance.