Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

No surprises there I guess :(

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Australian Automobile Association testing – funded by the federal government – found that eight of the 21 cars examined in its latest round of testing consumed more petrol in real road driving conditions compared with the efficiency rates calculated by their manufacturers in laboratories.

Conversely, the AAA found that two vehicles had on-road fuel consumption 10% to 13% lower than their lab results.

Meanwhile, Volkswagen’s Tiguan 2023 performed better in the AAA’s real-world tests than its lab test indication, using 13% less fuel than its advertised rate of 7.7 litres per 100km, while the Kia Cerato 2023 used 10% less fuel than its marketed rate of 7.4 litres per 100km.

He said the testing program was helping address greenwashing concerns and could make the government’s new vehicle efficiency standard “more robust and more effective”.

The testing was conducted in Victoria’s Geelong region in conditions the AAA said were strictly controlled and in line with European Union legislation that “ensures fuel consumption and CO2 results are repeatable and minimises the influence of human factors such as driving style and changing traffic flows”.

Volkswagen, which owns Skoda, responded to the Kamiq’s discrepant test results.

The original article contains 579 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!