Porsche Impact
Discussion
Hi guys,
Yesterday I read an article in the Automobilwoche about the factory opening of the Taycan. It mentioned that the Taycan is manufactured CO2-neutral. I found it very interesting and checked what else Porsche is doing in the context of CO2 reduction. At the same time, I was very surprised about all the different projects in procurement, logistics and transport. For me, Porsche Impact (https://www.porsche.com/uk/aboutporsche/responsibility/porscheimpact/) was completely new.. its about compensating your CO2 emissions. I only knew this from flying so far. Lufthansa also has a new project called: compensaid
What do you guys think of Porsche Impact? I think its a good idea, but in my opinion it lacks more options to choose different projects
Yesterday I read an article in the Automobilwoche about the factory opening of the Taycan. It mentioned that the Taycan is manufactured CO2-neutral. I found it very interesting and checked what else Porsche is doing in the context of CO2 reduction. At the same time, I was very surprised about all the different projects in procurement, logistics and transport. For me, Porsche Impact (https://www.porsche.com/uk/aboutporsche/responsibility/porscheimpact/) was completely new.. its about compensating your CO2 emissions. I only knew this from flying so far. Lufthansa also has a new project called: compensaid
What do you guys think of Porsche Impact? I think its a good idea, but in my opinion it lacks more options to choose different projects
Edited by wep_howard on Monday 16th September 07:14
Edited by wep_howard on Monday 16th September 08:35
I would ask the question, why are Porsche doing this?
What are Porsche getting from this, not saying it is a bad thing just trying to understand their motivation as lets be honest making cars (IC or Electric) isn't an environmentally friendly thing to do in the first place.
As for carbon neutral manufacturing, rather missing point isn't it and I think designed to make customers think Porsche are eco-friendly. Toyota did all this with the Prius manufacturing plant along with oxygen generating paint to try and make it carbon neutral.
What are Porsche getting from this, not saying it is a bad thing just trying to understand their motivation as lets be honest making cars (IC or Electric) isn't an environmentally friendly thing to do in the first place.
As for carbon neutral manufacturing, rather missing point isn't it and I think designed to make customers think Porsche are eco-friendly. Toyota did all this with the Prius manufacturing plant along with oxygen generating paint to try and make it carbon neutral.
Taffy66 said:
As far as man burning huge swathes of the Brazilian Amazon rain forest it is 'man-made'..Over 87.000 fires there in the first eight months of 2019 and 7.200 square miles burnt off in July 2019 alone..
Given the barely measurable 'man-made' content of CO2 in the atmosphere,how much of a contribution is even this? The clearances have been receiving a lot of negative media attention because they don't like the new right wing Government. However, they're an annual event and seasonal. Obviously there are many illegal fires but given the vastness of the Amazon extremely difficult to Police. Also, worth noting since the Spanish arrived 500 years ago some 80% of the rainforest remains. How much European forest remains?Have to say, I don't condone what is going on but its a complex problem. The people there are very poor for example. Just trying to show there's often more than one side to a story. Unfortunately, the mainstream media are not balanced when it comes to this topic.
browngt3 said:
Have to say, I don't condone what is going on but its a complex problem. The people there are very poor for example. Just trying to show there's often more than one side to a story. Unfortunately, the mainstream media are not balanced when it comes to this topic.
Given that anthropomorphic global warming is undeniable by all but a tiny few (even the oil companies are admitting they've known about it for decades), what would balanced look like?If you're getting your news from sources that deny man made climate change, your world view must be fairly odd.
drjdog said:
Given that anthropomorphic global warming is undeniable by all but a tiny few (even the oil companies are admitting they've known about it for decades), what would balanced look like?
If you're getting your news from sources that deny man made climate change, your world view must be fairly odd.
Great! Global warming is now taking on the form of man! Big blokes running around on fire or something...If you're getting your news from sources that deny man made climate change, your world view must be fairly odd.
Its your view thats odd if this is the case
Do you mean anthropogenic global warming? ... caused by man?
drjdog said:
browngt3 said:
Have to say, I don't condone what is going on but its a complex problem. The people there are very poor for example. Just trying to show there's often more than one side to a story. Unfortunately, the mainstream media are not balanced when it comes to this topic.
Given that anthropomorphic global warming is undeniable by all but a tiny few (even the oil companies are admitting they've known about it for decades), what would balanced look like?If you're getting your news from sources that deny man made climate change, your world view must be fairly odd.
Edited by ras62 on Sunday 15th September 18:08
drjdog said:
Given that anthropomorphic global warming is undeniable by all but a tiny few (even the oil companies are admitting they've known about it for decades), what would balanced look like?
If you're getting your news from sources that deny man made climate change, your world view must be fairly odd.
Well I guess there's the majority informed by the over simplistic and politicised mass media. And the tiny few who carefully research both sides of the argument which must look fairly odd to the uninformed If you're getting your news from sources that deny man made climate change, your world view must be fairly odd.
ras62 said:
Global warming agenda has been pushed in the news for maybe 100 years, it really is nothing new. The climate has always changed and always will and the caused by mankind argument is based on very shakey data and a lot of propaganda. One large volcano erupting has a much greater impact on CO2 emmisions than mankind has contributed in a century. You know its BS when the politicians support the idea as another source of income.
Completely agree. Of course governments love the idea, they have a great reason to increase our taxes! Edited by ras62 on Sunday 15th September 18:08
browngt3 said:
ras62 said:
Global warming agenda has been pushed in the news for maybe 100 years, it really is nothing new. The climate has always changed and always will and the caused by mankind argument is based on very shakey data and a lot of propaganda. One large volcano erupting has a much greater impact on CO2 emmisions than mankind has contributed in a century. You know its BS when the politicians support the idea as another source of income.
Completely agree. Of course governments love the idea, they have a great reason to increase our taxes! Edited by ras62 on Sunday 15th September 18:08
Dr S said:
In the 70s there was the fear of a coming next ice age - the opposite of global warming.
Here's some irony for you; global warming causes ice ages.. 
Hint; atmospheric heat melts polar snow/ice, less polar ice = lower albedo (more heat absorbed) = more heat absorbed (less polar snow/ice).
Melted polar snow/ice = diluted / disrupted / changed ocean conveyors.
Ocean conveyors move heat energy from equator to keep poles warm.
No conveyors to convey heat to the poles = cold poles.
NB: last time the ocean conveyors stopped, the northern hemisphere glaciated within 18 months....
Source; Any peer reviewed climate model scientific paper ever.
Bullet-Proof_Biscuit said:
Dr S said:
In the 70s there was the fear of a coming next ice age - the opposite of global warming.
Here's some irony for you; global warming causes ice ages.. Hint; atmospheric heat melts polar snow/ice, less polar ice = lower albedo (more heat absorbed) = more heat absorbed (less polar snow/ice).
Melted polar snow/ice = diluted / disrupted / changed ocean conveyors.
Ocean conveyors move heat energy from equator to keep poles warm.
No conveyors to convey heat to the poles = cold poles.
NB: last time the ocean conveyors stopped, the northern hemisphere glaciated within 18 months....
Source; Any peer reviewed climate model scientific paper ever.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff