Green Marketing Critique

NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AB 0501 Green Marketing Individual limited review Report Word Count 1,079 By Desmond Leong The Subject Matter The pendent matter of the article revolves around the benefits of purchasing an galvanising car e genuinelyplace conventional displace big businessmaned cars.The article also addresses the various aspects beyond the traditional debate on whether galvanic cars argon simply a greener alternative to displace powered cars, it dwells, albeit not too deeply, at the semipolitical perspective of sustainability, the frugal advantages and convenience for consumers, the aegis provided with the shifting of faith from fuel to galvanisingity as voltaic carity comes from a multitude of sources, being actually well diversified in terminuss of their sources and the various kinds of pollution that electric car cars reduce which include kerfuffle pollution and air pollution.These aspects discussed all chip in an intertwined relationship in the complex debate on whether electric cars are indeed better than fuel powered cars, for example, the political perspective of sustainability is intertwined with the security provided with the shift from fuel to electricity, especially for countries like the US. This is because in terms of sustainability, the US looks first at how their landed estate place be sustainable, ergo, reducing their reliance on middle-east rock oil, and this involves attaining security in terms of diversity of sources of electric energy.Also, the economic advantages for consumers are intertwined in a relationship with the amount of pollution produced and the political agenda supporting the purchases of electric cars, as the economic advantages dont scarce come in cheaper fuel, more everyplace also a open-hearted tax rebate of up to US$7,500 from the purchase price per electric car. Hence, the various aspects on grounds for purchasing a car pay off an fabulously intertwined relationship amongst each o ther in their united front against fuel powered cars.First Argument However, on that point are always two sides to a coin. For the political perspective of sustainability and the security provided with the shifting of reliance from oil to electricity, at that place is a counter-argument. The electricity generated to charge the cars are largely from power plants that subscribe to fossil fuel to work. There is a debate that gallon for gallon, electric cars are only 21% efficient compared to fuel powered cars (Minkoff, 2012).While it is line up that electricity does come from multiple sources, the bulk of it still comes from burning fossil fuel and hence, doesnt go a long way to ensuring sustainability in the long run. The evidence on the counter-argument points are true as they do cite information from g all overnment research (Electric Vehicles, n. d. ). However, there is the premise that electric cars get out not repair in efficiency over the years which due to the rapid ad vancement of technology in upstart years, is very unlikely.Second Argument Next, the charge stations for electric cars lack the understructure for fast charge times. Addressing the perspective of consumers having huge convenience owning an electric car, in the article it wrote that charging your electric car is easy and you can just procure it into your home at night. However, people tend to overlook the charge time, which can range from 20 hours on a 120 volt result to 30 proceeding on a 480 volt outlet (Charging Basics, 2003).Compared to 5-7 minutes for petrol stations, even the fastest 30 minutes would be an timelessness for someone charging his car on the go. However, there is also an additional argument that there has been a breakthrough in battery technology that allows batteries to keep an extremely fast charge (Peters, 2011). The evidence for the charging times are dead-on(prenominal) as it is published on Nissans official website, it does sound delicately when charg ing overnight, but it does pose a problem when you have multiple cars or live in an apartment where you dont have plan of attack to multiple charging docks.For the source of extremely fast charging batteries, it is true and existing now, but there lacks infrastructure in todays time because of the deficiency of a smart grid. The assumption in this argument is that virtually families would only have one car they need to charge, have multiple charging terminals at apartments and everywhere around the world would have a charge station. I find this a huge assumption to overlook. If a family has multiple electric cars, they would face difficulties in rotating their charging schedules, not to mention that apartments and HDBs wouldnt have adequate charging points for the many a(prenominal) cars.Lastly, for trips from Singapore to Malaysia, there is a huge risk that there are no charging points over there due to the electric cars not penetrating the market there yet, and this would caus e a lot of problems in like manner in other countries too. Third Argument For the argument that electric cars volition reduce air pollution significantly, it is true that electric cars produce tremendously little air pollution, however, their source of pollution is actually measured by the source of electricity used to charge them (Will Electric Vehicles, n. . ). An electric car that gets its energy from an unclean source like coal or oil, may produce more pollution than an internal combustion engine. Currently, most of the world get their electricity from coal burning, which produces the most pollution, rendering electric cars to be actually contributing significantly to pollution. The evidence from this argument is true, largely because it stems from the very common knowledge that electricity is generated from coal and oil power plants.However, I believe that it is easier to reduce and control pollution from a hardly a(prenominal) thousand coal and oil burning power plants tha n a some million tailpipes, which means in the long term, electric cars do have pose a huge advantage in the areas of boosting control over pollution. The assumptions here are that cleaner sources of energy will not face-lift and contribute more to generating electricity. I find this assumption untrue as more and more effort is being put in to improve clean and renewable sources of energy (What others are doing, n. d. , hence, whilst coal and oil carcass the largest generators of electricity, this is only for the short term. In the long term, other cleaner sources should flash over. Conclusion In conclusion, electric cars will be the long term solution to a lot of our problems, they will solve air and noise pollution by cars, pollution by companies boiling crude oil to get petrol, reduce our reliance on non-renewable fuels which will increase our countrys security as we can seek alternative forms of energy, which will lead us closer to being a self-sustainable world.There are ma ny areas that needs brushing up before electric cars can full replace petrol cars, but the future is looking bright for them as tremendous advancement in technology has given us very promote signs along with the increased government support in encouraging greener technology and greener sources of energy. References Minkoff, M. (2012). Do Electric Cars Really Reduce Dependence On Fossil Fuels?. Political Outcast. Retrieved folk 23, 2012, fromhttp//politicaloutcast. om/2012/08/do-electric-cars-really-reduce-dependence-on-fossil-fuels/. Electric Vehicles (EVs). (n. d. ). Retrieved September 23, 2012, from http//www. fueleconomy. gov/feg/evtech. shtml/. Charging Basics. (n. d. ). Retrieved September 23, 2012, from http//www. nissanusa. com/leaf-electric-car/home-charging/leaf-electric-car/faq/ numerate/charging. Peters, J. (2011). New Structure Allows Lithium Ion Batteries To Get A Quicker Charge. scientific American.Retrieved September 23, 2012, fromhttp//www. scientificamerican. com /article. cfm? id=new-structure-allows-lithium-ion-batteries-quicker-charge. Will Electric Vehicles Really Reduce Pollution?. (n. d. ). Retrieved September 23, 2012, from http//www. physics. ohio-state. edu/wilkins/writing/Samples/policy/voytishlong. html. What others are doing. (n. d. ). Retrieved September 23, 2012, from http//www. cleanenergyfuture. gov. au/why-we-need-to-act/what-others-are-doing/.