Sometimes, you just have to laugh. In the rush to become politically correct and green, some companies really don’t think their policies through very well.
Today as I was traveling back from Thanksgiving holiday I happened to notice a U-Haul vehicle trailer next to me in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Lo and behold in my face was a statement about reducing carbon emissions as you can see in the picture below. Look at the orange label on the inside fender, you may have to click the image to zoom in.
The label reads:
U-Haul Auto Transport – Reduces Carbon Emissions
So, rather than drive your car you should just tow it on this U-Haul trailer using another one.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
While it is technically a correct statement that two engines running would produce [MORE] carbon emissions than one, this is likely offset by the fact that most uses of the trailer are likely behind a larger U- Haul truck, fully loaded with belongings, while towing the car.
I really don’t think the math works but it might make some people feel good for thinking they are saving Gaia while moving.
Like most of the climate change moving, er movement, it is really all about the feelings, isn’t it?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The guilt merchants of the left tell each other scary stories about CO2 emissions, and then the opportunists sell them salve for their consciences. – Sort of commensalism…
Exactly. Promoters ask, “What are consumers afraid of these days?” (or “What do consumers feel guilty about?” — not spending enough time with their children is a BIG one; compensate by buying them things! Yay! (not)) Then, they create a “save you from X” (or a “take away the guilt”) campaign.
I think the point was is rather than one person driving the U-haul truck and the other person following driving the car, hall the car and just drive the truck only.
I rented a U-Haul once. 4 miles a gallon. No direct injection. 18-wheelers get over 6 miles a gallon. U-Haul is a horrible mistake, don’t do it.
Michael. I cannot drive an 18-wheeler and I had neither the time nor the inclination to learn. U-haul (or a like moving company) was just right — for me.
3D Printed annotomically and emotionally perfect replicas of Wild West Gunslingers and Hookers for the Obama Alt Right Trump , P C ,SJW, Identity Polotic Facebook Twitter Social Media age
Classic post Civil Rights , post Vietnam , Watergate ,Energy Crisis , Oncoming Micro Chip Revolution Angst 1970s Yul Brinner ,James Brolin and Richard Benjamin in “West World”.
The HBO fantastic franchise reboot with Antony Hopkins in a semi permanent ponderous state and Thandi Newton in a semi permanent undressed state.
So the answer for our 21st Century environmental concerns a nuclear powered cross country Bus from the same era
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=68dTwJNvE1E
Whatever is saved or not, moving just really sucks.
“Sometimes, you just have to laugh.”
Absolutely. Still not (quite) sure if this is /sarc – on one or more of several levels – but it is a hoot!
Yet, as Mike Smith – below – suggests : –
“Obviously if the van was empty this would make no sense, but anyone with half a brain can understand that this is most likely someone moving interstate with their household goods in the van.”
But is has got us thinking [and talking, again!].
Auto
Surely it has nothing to do with fuel costs (which in the USA are quite low) and everything to do with driver resources. To drive a van and a car separately across the width of North America obviously needs two drivers. This is quite impossible for a single person. (Such as a student finishing college – who left home 4 years ago with little more than an overnight bag and a toothbrush and is now returning with a huge collection of indispensible treasures.) A lot of younger families would prefer not to do it either (i.e both parents driving simultaneously for long periods).
Yes you’re right and in a perfect world they would be promoting the safety benefits: One driver drives long distances and the other naps – then switch. Much safer than two drivers driving without relief in convoy.
But no one cares about safety – they care about Da Carbon.
To be fair, an alternative might look like taking the uhaul, then flying back to get your car.
Thismight actually save some people some gasoline and wear and tear on their cars. Isn’t it wonderful that we live in the automobile age and have access to such fabulous, powerful machines. Hooray!
This seems to be a very sensible thing to do for me. Somebody moving house and wants to take their car with them. It saves gasoline (and carbon), depreciation on the car for extra distance and removes the need fro a second driver with all that that implies. Think of a single person moving house.
the marketing is brilliant:
there’s lots of idiots out there who will think it’s a brilliant idea, and thus make U-Haul moar monies.
good for them and their stockholders.
Janice:
A little late in the thread,, but I will throw in my two cents anyway:
“Progressives TALK about what feels good; conservatives DO what is good.”
Go Pepe!
Sounds like yet another case of pitching PC instead of the real benefit.
In this case, two people can share driving of the truck, so the trip is shorter, and save some fuel cost (net of what car would take less fuel for extra drag of trailer tires and loading truck engine more). Technically, depending on where engine is running relative to its sweet spot, if a large engine the extra demand may pushe the engine into a more efficient range.