Saab Great Britain Ltd Griffin House Osbourne Road Luton LU1 3YT Number of complaints: 3

Date: 5 March 2008 Media: National press Sector: Motoring Agency: Lowe London

Ad
A national press ad, for the Saab BioPower range, showed two parallel horseshoe prints and tyre marks and stated "More horsepower. And a smaller carbon footprint". The body copy stated "Release the power of nature. With the revolutionary Saab BioPower range you can drive with a cleaner conscience. However, there's no compromise. You can enjoy an exhilarating 20% extra horsepower when fuelled by bioenthanol (E85). It's a fuel made from natural crops that reduces CO2 emissions by up to 70% ... "  The smallprint text stated " ... Saab BioPower cars use a flex-fuel engine, which can run on bioethanol E85 (85% bioethanol, 15% petrol), petrol or any mixture of the two ... Bioethanol consumption does not significantly raise atmospheric levels of CO2 because the CO2 which is released when it is burned is counter-balanced by that which is removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis when growing crops and trees for ethanol production ..."

Issue
1. Three complainants challenged the claim "reduces CO2 emissions by up to 70%". Two complainants believed the claim was misleading because it did not take into account the CO2 emissions generated by producing the fuel and

2. Two complainants challenged the claim "Bioethanol consumption does not significantly raise atmospheric levels of CO2".

The CAP Code:

3.1;7.1;49.1

Response
1. Saab GB Ltd (Saab) said the claim was based on guidance from the Energy Saving Trust (EST) which stated that the bioethanol blend E85 reduced CO2 emissions by between 50% and 70% when compared with conventional petrol.  They maintained that that position was supported by a joint report from Conservation of Clean Air in Europe (concawe), the European Council for Automotive R&D (EUCAR) and the European Commission Directorate-General Joint Research Centre (JRC).  Saab said the report used an accepted methodology for the lifecycle assessment of fuels, which was based on a 'well-to-wheel' evaluation of net carbon emissions.  The approach allowed a comparison between fossil and bio-fuels on the basis that it incorporated the net carbon emissions from the well, or field in the case of bioethanol, to the wheel. They pointed out that the 'well-to-wheel' reduction in CO2 emissions of bioethanol was between 7% and 77% better than standard EU unleaded petrol depending on the bioethanol source crop.

2. Saab said, because the use of bioethanol E85 reduced CO2 emissions by up to 70%, it followed that bioethanol E85 consumption did not significantly raise CO2 levels.  They pointed out that they had not claimed that bioethanol E85 did not produce any CO2, but explained that only 30% of the CO2 emitted added to atmospheric levels of CO2 unlike petrol and diesel, which added 100%.

Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA understood the claims were based on an evaluation of the net CO2 emissions associated with the extraction, processing and use of bioethanol over its life cycle or from 'well-to-wheel'.  We noted the 'well-to-wheel' analysis in the concawe/EUCAR/JRC report calculated the mean levels of CO2 emissions per km travelled using bioethanol from a wide range of source crops.  We also noted the claim related to a comparison between those figures and the equivalent for conventional petrol. We understood that bioethanol was derived commonly from several crops, including wheat, sugar beet and sugar cane. We noted the concawe/EUCAR/JRC data on reductions in CO2 varied significantly depending on the source crop and its preparation.  We noted the concawe/EUCAR/JRC data on reductions in CO2 varied markedly between 7% and 87% for pure bioethanol.

We noted bioethanol was used in combination with ordinary petrol at a ratio of 85:15 and that that mix was commonly known as E85.  We therefore understood that any reduction in CO2 found in pure bioethanol should be multiplied by a factor of 0.85 to determine the reduction in E85.   We understood that bioethanol fuel in the Northern hemisphere, with its lower ambient temperatures, was sold as E85.  Although E85 was not yet widely available in the UK, we noted its use was growing and, at the time the ad was published, Brazilian sugar cane was the primary source crop for the UK's E85.  We noted from the concawe/EUCAR/JRC data that Brazilian sugar cane with a 'well-to-wheel' mean of 25 g CO2/km, which, when compared with conventional petrol, with a mean of 196 g CO2/km, resulted in a reduction in CO2 of 87%.  After conversion to E85 the resultant CO2 reduction was 74%.

We consulted the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport. We understood that the draft guidelines on Carbon and Sustainability Reporting Within the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation,  published in mid-2007, stated that the well-to-wheel savings from Brazilian sugar cane derived E85 were around 70% when evaluated against a conservative well-to-wheel methodology. We noted the guidelines made clear that if organisations wanted to state saving in excess of that figure, they needed to hold rigorous scientific data to support them.  

We noted the ad claimed "up to 70%" and considered that Saab had substantiated that the claim was valid for the bioethanol available on the UK market at the time the ad appeared.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clause 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental claims) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld
We understood that the exhaust emissions of bioethanol and conventional petrol were broadly the same. However, we noted Saab's assertion that, because bioethanol production initially reduced atmospheric CO2 during the crop growth phase, the fuel added only 30% of the amount of CO2 produced by conventional fuel.  Although we considered that it was reasonable to make such a claim in a direct comparison with conventional fuel, we noted the claim was not presented as a comparison with conventional petrol.  We considered that readers were likely to infer that bioethanol did not add a significant amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. We considered that a 30% net addition to atmospheric CO2 was significant and therefore concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 and 3.2 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental claims).

Action
On point 2, we advised Saab to consult CAP Copy Advice.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)