Importance of Informative Regulations: Automotive Advertising
The Importance of Informative Regulation:
Automotive Advertising
By Alison Smith
The term ‘greenwash’ is used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service (Ooligan Press). All facets of consumer products or governmental policies employ some degree of greenwashing, however an industry that urgently requires the implementation of enforced advertising regulations is the automotive sector. This examination of automotive greenwashing questions the lack of advertising regulation and emphasizes the necessity for mandatory universally accepted criterion of overall vehicle efficiency. North American advertising associations and governments alike must take note of the aggressive regulation codes that the European Union has adopted. Consumers of private automobiles need to be properly educated on their cars environmental impact and on new auto based energy technologies in order to make informed decisions about their future transport options. Private light-duty vehicles can assist significantly in the reduction of oil consumption and in turn a reduction of dangerous emissions if they are presented accurately, without the clouding factors of corporate competition or vague language. I will briefly investigate four highly probable replacements for the current gasoline powered automobile – hybrid plug-ins, hydrogen fuel cells, diesel, and ethanol. I will highlight the environmental truths and identify the major issues each technological approach is facing. To enhance public knowledge of these technologies, marketing emphasis needs to be placed on facts regarding fuel efficiency (fuel economy), chemical emissions, estimated life span pertaining to batteries, future infrastructure plans, and internal financial costs. The common endorsement of car imagery, power and acceleration needs to be diluted in order for the emergence of persuasive environmental facts that pertain to oil scarcity and climate change.
The population that operates or engages in the use of private automobiles on a daily basis, within the United States, is slowly decreasing but is very substantial at 85% (Chase). The interest in innovating motion within human transport is essential because in 2007, private automobiles “account[ed] for approximately 60% of oil use in the U.S. and total oil demand for these vehicles [was] projected to rise by almost 20% between [then] and 2020” (U.S. Department of Energy). Alongside high oil consumption, transportation is responsible for about 25% of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere globally, with the U.S. as the greatest contributor (Carr-Ruffino and Acheson). The concerning statistics above make it imperative that information released to the public about new technologies is truthful to a full extent. Whether positive or negative the facts need to accompany all interests in a product. The downfall of current North American automotive advertising is two sided. First of all, no standard or requirement to release information pertaining to cars fuel efficiency or emissions is enforced or even acknowledged. Although, as gasoline prices are burning the pockets of consumers and public recognition of climate change has grown into a majority, marketing teams have including fuel efficiency as a selling feature. The main issue here is the second downfall of automotive advertising regulations. There is no legal or even common structure to the way this information is released. The average automobile operator can be easily swayed by vague terms and attractive imagery that leads to poor, uneducated decision making. One of the six sins of greenwashing, developed by an environmental marketing corporation, is vague language. The use of vagueness refers to “poorly defined or broad [concepts or sale pitches] that loose real meaning and are likely to be misunderstood by the intended consumer” (Terrachoice). A study conducted in New Zealand in 2008 focused on vehicle emissions and consumer information, examined car media from magazines and company web sites over a span of 5 years (2001-2005). This study concluded that the ads “were poor in supplying much of the basic data on which consumers could make informed vehicle purchase decisions…often using vague terms such as meeting ‘emission criteria’…despite having in-depth detail about engine specifications and performance data (Wilson, Maher and Thomson)”. It is clear that a shift in fuel type, whether it be electricity or ethanol, is necessary. However the approach of governmental or commercial standards in promoting proper general information is evidently non-existent within North America.
There is an apparently large paradox between European and North Americans advertising regulations, specifically regarding vehicle marketing. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has developed test conditions to measure air pollutant emissions, carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption based on an “internationally recognized” (Wilson, Maher and Thomson) framework. These measures, falling under regulation 83 and 101, have been adopted by all E.U. members and are exercised within each of their advertising arenas. The U.K. in particular has enforced fairly aggressive regulations since November 2001, under the Vehicle Certification Agency. The key point of the newly reviewed regulation report from June 2008 states, “fuel consumption and CO2 figures must be in the same size font as that used in the main text or body area”(James). In addition to adverts having to follow sizing codes, another mandate requires such information clearly visible on all “labels, posters and promotional media” (Vehicle Certification Agency). The last commendable practice, specific to the U.K., worth mentioning is the annual ‘Fuel Economy Guide.’ This publication is produced at the national level and highlights the year’s ten most fuel-efficient cars. The guide is regulated to be compact, portable and free of charge. Automobile advertisement in Norway faces extended restrictions when compared with the E.U. as a whole. Claiming a car is environmentally friendly is strictly censored on the basis that cars “can’t be environmentally beneficial” (Naish). The use of words such as ‘green,’ ‘clean’ or ‘natural’ warrant a company fine authorized by the Norwegian Advertisement Regulation Board. From the array of advertising code precedents, combined with the investment in North American automotive innovation, it is surprising to find no similar governmental initiation on this side of the pond.
Although Canada does operate an Advertising Standards Board (ASC) specific to Canadian automobile manufacturers and distributors, the codes within the board’s guidelines focus on safety and unacceptable depictions & portrayals. In other words, the board’s aim is to eliminate direct associations with dangerous practices or unlawful behavior. Throughout the relatively recent (June 2009) report absolutely no mention of fuel or emission standards are presented. However, a new locally based legislation that has quickly and effectively penetrated the automotive advertising board is the use of mobile phones while driving. Vehicle advertisements are advised to include commentary asserting similar statements to: “driving while distracted by a mobile phone can result in loss of vehicle control” (Lincoln ). The idea of imposed advertising regulations is not a new one. Graphic picture warnings are mandatory on all tobacco packaging and marketing schemes. To ensure maximal consumer reach, it would be beneficial that governments demand even more than the current European strategy. The development of universal and easily identifiable graphic symbols measuring fuel efficiency, greenhouse gas ratings and air pollution would become a reliable and informative manner in which to present this important information.
In order to develop an acceptable mandatory advertising standard for vehicle environmental performance a complex analysis of various automotive technologies and a conversion equalizing benchmark would need to be established. Both are costly and timely undertakings, therefore the inclusion of a technological advancement would need some sort of marketable reputation. Due to the scope of this examination I will briefly evaluate only four front running automotive technologies in a very broadly categorized manner. Although each form of fuel or technology that creates fuel deserves further audit of internal classifications, a diverse selection of oil replacements allows for an umbrella type reach. Three questions should be asked when developing criteria for standardization, and although these questions appear to be simple, application with a quantified result is complex. The questions are as follows: Will the alternative help reduce oil consumption? Will the alternative help reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases implicated in global climate change? And finally, could the alternative have significant market penetration? (Keefe, Griffin and Graham)
The first broad category under inspection is the hybrid car, which includes the extent of light, mild, full, and plug-in innovations. In order to differentiate between the four platforms I will define their capabilities in laymen terms. Light hybrids reduce fuel consumption by shutting down the engine when the vehicle is not in motion. Mild hybrids go a step further by performing the same process but also regenerate electricity through kinetic energy when breaking. The superior feature of a full hybrid can run on electricity alone at slower speeds (below 25 mph) without burning any of its fuel reserves. The Toyota Prius has held the acclaimed position of best selling full hybrid model since 2001 (Carr-Ruffino and Acheson). Plug-in hybrids offer all the benefits of a full hybrid, and they can keep their gas engine off for longer periods, with the capability of reaching speeds up to 100-mph. Ultimately releasing fewer greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf are the most popular plug-in hybrids in the developing market to date. However, the downfalls commonly associated with hybrids, particularly the full and plug-in models, are the expense of manufacturing and the life spans of the batteries. The relatively new improvements in these two factors need to be expressed to consumers as to better their choices and to rectify misconceptions. Most of the large manufacturers such as Toyota have “cut the costs associated with building hybrids almost in half since their first engagement with the technology ” (Carr-Ruffino and Acheson). A dramatic switch from nickel metal batteries to lithium ion based batteries has transformed the marketability of the plug-in. Longevity has been increases, weight has been decreased and safety concerns have been rectified by the use of iron phosphate. The Chevy Volt has guaranteed a 100,000-mile or 8 year warranty to their lithium battery, proving confidence in the technology. Overall the advances derived from hybrid technology are of a substantial level and a strong initiative backed by government is needed to implement a fast switch, making the majority of road cars non-petrol based.
The capabilities and legitimacy of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles have been widely debated for a number for reasons. Most obviously is the fact that hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a source of energy. Hydrogen is not naturally available in sufficient quantities and must therefore “be made by a reaction with oxygen resulting in water vapor emissions” (Schlapbach). Currently, generating pure hydrogen uses more energy than that contained in the hydrogen, and the source of that energy determines if this technology is reducing oil derogation. If the source is from a coal fired power plant then the technology does not meet the first criteria. Additionally issues of storage and transportation of hydrogen gas between pumping stations for mass consumption are not promising. The dilemma with internal storage stems from the temperamental qualities of the substance. Delivery of hydrogen to the fuel cell is required to be compact, light weight, room temperature and of a controlled pressure. An Australian researcher has produced a prototype for a home fueling station, the size of a filing cabinet and running off electricity. This prototype does successfully matches the first two criteria because the electricity is generated form a rooftop solar panel and a home wind turbine, however fails to meet the third because the station is extremely costly due to rare catalyst expenses. Also the likelihood of homes providing their own electricity is not viable at the present time. Although the research and development from hydrogen fuel has induced advancements in battery technology, there are too many dependant variables for this fuel alternative to be widely adopted in North American in the near future.
The conversion from a gasoline to a diesel compatible engine has been explored under the radar for many decades. Studies have found diesel to be the number one fuel-efficient form of vehicle energy in a “well-to-pump” analysis (Transportation Quarterly). In other words, diesel retains the most fuel between extraction from a well to pumping it into a car, compared to gasoline and coal powered electricity. A transition from gasoline to diesel would require the little governmental capital to implement nation wide pumping stations. Due to favorable tax policies overseas, advanced diesel technology represents almost “50% of the light-duty market in Europe” (Keefe, Griffin and Graham). However, recent advances in emission control capabilities, combined with the increased availability of low-sulfur diesel, are creating a feasible car and light truck market within the North Western hemisphere. In 2007 the Europeans automaker of Mercedes offered an ultra low sulfur diesel model called the E320 BlueTec. This model produces 20% less carbon emissions than its gasoline counterpoint and meets strict emissions standards for Nitrogen Oxides (G. Wilson). Diesel defiantly seems to be a strong option for gasoline alternatives, especially due to its fuel efficiency, lowered emission rates and feasibility of entering into the mass market with relatively low investment. However, it must be stated that diesel is just as nonrenewable as oil is, and the same cycle of scarcity is destine to occur.
The last fuel option under investigation is the use of ethanol within a fuel flex engine. The most common combination of fuel flex vehicles is known as E85, which denotes 85% of the fuel as ethanol while the remainder as generic gasoline. Flex fuel can be manufactured as many varying ratio combinations. The single marketable factor of ethanol production is the minimal internal cost of converting engines. On average it approximately costs $200 American, to complete the alterations (Keefe, Griffin and Graham). This includes converting the tank to stainless steel, as to avoid corrosion. One can easily identify errors with this technology when addressing the three criteria above. Firstly, E85 looses its consumer appeal gained from modest internal reconstruction costs because “corn-based ethanol is more costly to produce than gasoline after adjusting for the energy content of the fuel” (Keefe, Griffin and Graham). Secondly, greenhouse gas benefits are moderate by two facets of the current plant based production processes (the following comment excludes the greenhouse gas benefits of cellulosic based ethanol production processes). A significant amount of emissions are associated with the fertilization of corn, palm or sugar cane. Furthermore, many of the ethanol plants rely heavily on coal as a fuel. The only way in which ethanol will be highly demanded on a global scale is if the combination of extremely high oil prices and low costs of producing ethanol fuel (perhaps through cellulosic technology) sync.
The fairly simple abstractions of the four technologies above need to be communicated in an informative and standardized manner. Given the united importance of climate change, energy security, and the substantive health impact from localized air pollution in many countries, there is an immediate need for improvements in the content of vehicle advertising. The automotive greenwashing within North America not only branches from the lack of regulations, but also from the lack of mandatory figures. From my compressed and generalized analysis of the four technologies, it is apparent that hybrid, specifically plug-in, and diesel platforms are going to dominate the market. The reductions in dangerous emissions, from these automotive technologies, are due to their higher fuel economies. Which are two extremely attractive selling features to consumers that should be accompanied by an influential and authoritative advertising initiative.
Works Cited
Carr-Ruffino, Norma and John Acheson. “The Hybrid Phenomenon.” The Furturist (2007): 16-22.
Chase, Robin. Does Everyone in America Own a Car? 19 March 2010. December 2010 <http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2010/March/20100316154329fsyelkaew0.8109356.html >.
James, Alana. Car Advertising Restrictions. 13 June 2008. December 2010 <http://www.vca.gov.uk/additional/files/fcb–co2/enforcement-on-advertising/vca061.pdf>.
Keefe, Ryan, James P Griffin and John D Graham. “The benefits and Costs of New Fuels and Engines for Light-Duty Vehicles in the United States.” Risk Analysis 28.5 (2008): 1141-1153.
Lincoln . “2011 Lincoln MKX.” Architectural Digest, December 2010.
Naish, J. “Lies, Damned Lies, Green Lies.” The Ecologist 38.5 (2008): 36-39.
Ooligan Press. Sustainability in Publishing. 3 November 2010. December 2010 <www.ooliganpress.pdx.edu/sustainability/>.
Schlapbach. “Hydrogen-fuelled vehicles.” Nature 460 (2009): 809-811.
Terrachoice. “The Six Sins of Greenwahing.” November 2007. Terrachoice Environmental Marketing . 2010 <www.terrachoice.com/files/6_sins.pdf>.
Transportation Quarterly. 56.1 (2002): 51-73.
U.S. Department of Energy. Population of oil use in the U.S. Washington, DC: Annual Energy Outlook, 2007.
Vehicle Certification Agency. “VAC The Passenger Car (fuel consumption and CO2 emission information) Regulations.” 2008 June. OAA. December 2010 <www.vca.gov.ik>.
Wilson, Greg. First Drive: 2007 Mercedes Benz E320 BlueTec Diesel. 20 December 2006. December 2010 <http://www.canadiandriver.com/2006/12/20/first-drive-2007-mercedes-benz-e320-bluetec-diesel-2.htm>.
Wilson, Nick, et al. “Vehicle emissions and consumer information in car adertisements.” Environmental Health 7.14 (2008).