Japanese brands are demonstrably worse for the environment than nice European brands, according to the party that proves it.
A new day, a new investigation. Agencies, foundations, advocates, research centers, marketing agencies and governments every so often come up with a new report following a study. Skeptics immediately look for the source and immediately cancel it because there is something wrong with it.
We now have another one and we have a feeling that people will dismiss the results of the study because of the researcher. This is a study by Greenpeace and that is a reason for many people to use their keyboard and become very angry about the emissions of their Rainbow Warrior. You know, that old (now sunken) diesel barge of theirs that they used to sail around the world.
Japanese brands are bad for the environment
In this case it concerns the ‘Greenpeace East Asia Investigation’. The researchers assess the brands based on how they are banning the combustion engine and looking for alternatives. Suzuki in particular was razed to the ground. According to Greenpeace, the brand is doing far too little to reduce emissions. Suzuki is at the very bottom of the report’s list. In any case, Japanese brands are bad for the environment, according to Greenpeace.
By the way, it is not just about the number of EVs in the showroom or what the plans are for EVs. Greenpeace also looked at the complete production chain. So Toyota scored extremely poorly because only less than 1 per 400 cars are electric. The Chinese Great Wall (30% of what they make is electric) scored poorly because their production chain is not environmentally friendly.
But who will do it well?
But if Japanese brands are bad for Mother Nature, which brands are kind to Flora & Fauna? That answer is something true @jaapiyo van starts to coo, because the German premium brands Mercedes-Benz (1) and BMW (2) are doing very well. These two brands have their production chain perfectly organized, only 7.25% of Mercedes are electric. At BMW that percentage is slightly higher (10.32%).
Greenpeace is therefore pushing hard to embrace the EV more quickly. Not only for the environment, but also for themselves. Brands such as BYD and Tesla (which only sell electric cars) are already taking over important parts of the market. Greenpeace (of course) goes one step further by saying that car brands must ban all combustion engines in Europe by 2028.
For Asia and the US, this must be done by 2030, according to the environmental club. In addition, manufacturers must invest in battery recycling and making the production chain more environmentally friendly. Oh, and the employees also have to earn more, because that is not in order either.
Autoblog Nuance!!!
We also see this more or less in the sales figures. In the 80s and 90s, Japanese car brands were hard to come by. Yes, Toyota took a lead with their hybrid technology, but further measures to limit CO2 are only now being implemented, actually. Too little, too late. In the Netherlands you pay an extra BPM fine for a car’s CO2 emissions and many Japanese cars then have difficulty remaining price-wise interesting. Something that used to be a USP.
By the way, we do have to apply the much-needed and now patented Autoblog Nuance. Suzuki is a manufacturer of small, light and compact cars with relatively simple technology. They are partly judged on this simple technology.
There really is a difference between theory and practice. Most Suzukis are actually ALWAYS very economical. With many (often large) cars equipped with plug-in hybrid technology, consumption can be very favorable, but if you hardly charge it can also be very unfavorable. This short-sighted way of research also ensures that in the Netherlands you hardly pay BPM on a hybrid SUV monster, but that A- and B-segment hatchbacks are unaffordable because of the BPM fine.
Through: Carscoops
This article Japanese brands bad for the environment, Euro brands good first appeared on Autoblog.nl.
#Japanese #brands #bad #environment #Euro #brands #good