Statutory Warning! British Labour MP says cars should carry climate health warnings

May 6, 2009 at 12:06 pm
(Source: Autobloggreen & Guardian)

Way back in 1965, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act required cigarette manufacturers to place those little blurbs warning smokers of the dangers of using their products. Might a similar label be placed on advertisement from the auto industry? Don’t laugh – if Colin Challen, chair of the all-party climate change group in the UK, gets his wish, just such a thing might happen. He says:  

You maybe have 25 or 35% of the space of any promotional material given over to a health warning. These warnings would be graded depending on the emissions from the vehicle, with the worst gas-guzzlers carrying the most severe warnings. It would have to counter the impression given by some manufacturers that their vehicles are greener.

In his column on Guardian, Colin writes:  “So why can’t we do more to encourage immediate, low-tech behavioural changes? If there were a conspiracy theory as to why a government that has recently committed itself to a massive renewal of the nuclear power industry would want to promote the idea of electric vehicles, then the cynical explanation is obvious. Alternatively, without spending a penny the government could introduce tobacco advertising-style health warnings on all car promotional material. That might introduce some honesty into the green claims made by manufacturers. I discovered that the motor industry before the recession spent £800m a year on advertising in the UK alone. In the three-year period of the government’sActOnCO2 campaign, which cost £12m, the competition will have spent £2.4bn. It’s no contest and wholly counter-intuitive to expect people to change their behaviour when most of the daily messages they receive tell them it’s business as usual.

We are in a four-stage process of addressing the challenge of climate change, as Britain was in a four-stage process meeting the challenge of Adolf Hitler: denial, appeasement, phoney war then total war. I believe we are staggering between appeasement and phoney war at the present time. Our effort is improving, but in dribs and drabs, suggesting that we’ve not entirely convinced ourselves that the threat is real. It is as if we have grasped that the scientific debate has been settled but the hard, practical choices still have to pass through a multitude of sceptical arguments.”