Is this funny (and awesome) because it says everything about what's wrong with the absolutest green movement?

If a car is whisking Al Gore around in order for him to convert people to environmentalism, is it not doing any good for the environment?

The optimal level of pollution is not zero and the perfect is the enemy of the good.  These may be cliches, but that doesn't make them untrue.

I think stuff like this is counterproductive.  Big old gas guzzlers still sell in droves.  Their buyers can say, with this degree of truth, "what difference does it make, no car is green."

On another, geeky-techno level, remember that "cars" are just 4-wheel transport for small numbers (one to six?) of people.  When you rag on electric cars you are saying, arbitrarily, that we will never ever have a satisfactory technology for family transport.

You are saying, peering into the future, that only buses and trains will pass that bar (or something).

That's kind of bizarre, because on the geeky-techno level a mini-van is a small bus.  If you can make one work, you might with the right tech make the other work as well.

... unless of course this is religious.  In that case, bring in the priests to see if a mini-van is a car or if it is a bus ;-)

In the early 70s there were a lot of earth friendly folks (dirty hippies) displaying ecology logo stickers displayed in car windows. This struck me as very ironical.  

Of course no pollution is optimal.  Putting 6 billion people behind the wheel of "green" autos spells disaster.  But putting only elites behind the wheel still passes the test?  

We need to be shooting for a way of living that the earth could live with if every person on earth decided they wanted to live with it.  Not a way of living that will take four more earths.

But, naturally, the chosen will choose to keep their chosen status even with a color coat that masks or deludes.

I should have used table II-6 above, but that only makes the story worse.  Actual fleet mileage, combined for cars and trucks, foreign and domestic, fell from 25.1 mpg in 1982 to 24.6 mpg in 2002.

A plugin hybrid powered by renewable energy CAN actually be green.  Because it can displace GHG that would be produced by a gas guzzler.

Word games, like the norwegian ad dude is playing, do not displace any GHG.  Perhaps his salary would be better spent on plugin hybrid subsidies or purchase for government use?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

It had to be a country where they do not make cars. Something like this would not happen here where the car is the holy cow and anything that hurts sales is not acceptable.

And why please do some of you have a problem with not allowing incorrect statements in car advertising? I don`t get it. This is a big problem: Allowing marketing and advertising professionals mislead the masses with language that is wrong or leaves out the important parts.

These are just facts: Light cigarettes can cause cancer, light beer can make you an alcoholic, and a car cannot be environmentally "friendly". It can be less damaging than another vehicle but since the only data available is refuted, you cannot even say that in good conscience. We just do not know. Fuel consumption data paints a very incomplete picture.

A car can be used for activities that support the environmental movement, but if the activity can be done without the car it would be less damaging. Even a car designed to use less fuel while it is USED requires a lot of energy to be MADE, TRANSPORTED, DISTRIBUTED, RECYCLED, and LANDFILLED. Even hybrids that need to be plugged in create GHG. They do not grow on trees, you know. You cannot even compost them.

Of course a car can be green. Anything can be green. You just have to paint it green.

And, yes, the list can be expanded and probably should. There are some issues with truth in advertising in regard to houses and appliances. The other items I have not seen much advertised with "green" language, but I have to admit I do not pay attention much to advertising.

This is a step in the right direction. It does not allow incorrect statements with currently popular language and it sends the signal that if you consume more you pollute more no matter what industrially made product you consume. It also begins a discussion about the definition of words. And it shows the population (of Norway at least) that car companies twist language to sell products. Skepticism is a good thing.

Karsten Pollute LessDotCom

Yes banning a certain type of language in advertising may not seem like a huge environmental feat. There is an infinite amount of more pressing issues out there, but it is a step in the right direction. The first step in change is being informed, soceity is lied to every second of everyday by the media. Every ad and Every radio broadcast is paid for by someone with a special interest , and the internet is so vast and unreliable it can make your head spin, so where do we turn for the truth? We can start by making it illegal for marketers and advertizers to actually take responsibility for the information they are feeding society, heaven forbid we make people tell the thruth!