German environmental aid

Criticism of the "German environmental aid" grows - But the court judges: the DUH is not obliged to objectivity and truth

Has the federal managing director of "environmental aid", Jürgen Resch, exaggerated with his lawsuit tsunami against God and the world? In the meantime, members of the association have also been criticizing the business model of mass warnings behind the scenes. But a court issues a license to the DUH not to have to be exact about the truth. An absurdity.

If the CDU member of the Bundestag Joachim Pfeiffer describes the association as a "semi-criminal association", this may be neglected in the general criticism of the flood of lawsuits known as environmental aid. But if even members of the association call the warning business "highly dubious and questionable", which makes environmental aid appear in a bad light and "discredits our work", then even the always maliciously smiling Jürgen Resch would have to think about it.

Hans-Robert Richarz: German environmental aid - a questionable warning association

The so-called Deutsche Umwelthilfe is financed to a large extent from expensive warnings that it often throws into the mailbox of small car dealers. The business journalist Hans-Robert Richarz criticizes this money-making business model.

At first the focus was on particulate matter. Then it was carbon dioxide. Now the nitrogen oxide emissions of diesel cars are on. With him, four non-governmental organizations here underline their opposition to the car. For the Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU), the Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation (BUND), Greenpeace and the German Environmental Aid (DUH), the private car, especially the one with a diesel engine, is the number one environmental pig. Ironically, the club with the lowest membership DUH has been loudest on the timpani in terms of eco-PR for years and often uses controversial methods.

The nonsense from the residual value giants: the forecasts of used car prices are non-binding estimates

Every year the car manufacturers proudly report "their" residual value giants, which the market research institute Bähr and Fess Forecast are commissioned to determine, especially for leasing companies, to calculate their leasing rates and also used by Autobild and Focus and in communication by the car manufacturers becomes. And the result of the residual value giants is to be evaluated as senselessly as the annual management and politician survey on the consumption of their company cars by the German environmental aid. At least for the car buyers to whom the car companies turn.
For their forecasts, the market researchers take into account specific criteria such as purchase price, vehicle properties, brand image, ratings in comparative tests and customer surveys, as well as overarching factors such as the quality of the competitors in the segment or general developments in the automotive market. What is not clear, however, is that these calculations are forecasts, i.e. estimates. Nobody can predict, let alone know, how the prices of used vehicles will develop in the next four years.
And if the company XY advertises that the estimated value for their model is still 54 percent after four years and another company has only reached 53,2 percent with their model, that has no relevance on the real used car market. Here, the state of care, negotiation skills, mileage and other things count more than any forecast from four years ago. After all, the institute judges today's new cars how much “probably” they should still be worth in four years. With all the care of the extrapolation, this is more a look into the crystal ball than a real calculation basis. A gasoline price crisis, changes in the legal framework and many others can ruin any forecast. Even that of a residual value giant.

The company car inquisition of Deutsche Umwelthilfe is going into the eighth round - and “auto motor und sport” pretends to be ashamed of others

Audi indicator Screenshot-2014 03-29 to 19.04.15For the eighth time, so-called environmental aid asked top politicians about their company cars with their forefingers to find out again, as expected, that these cars still had too much CO2  expel. It is outrageous to read between the lines that our politicians are not ashamed to accelerate climate change.

No one is surprised that the registered Berlin association is stubbornly arguing ideologically. I am disappointed, horrified, and angry about auto motor sport online, which overwrites the Inquisition report with the question: "Who drives the biggest climate killer?"

The German environmental aid fundamentally denies the right to mobility

Dr. Remo Klinger, lawyer and legal campaigner for rights in the matter of can deposit, felt obliged a long time ago to send me the basic rights catalog of the Basic Law. It annoyed him that I didn't agree with his view that there is no fundamental right to mobility. He feels that his strange view is confirmed by the basic rights catalog of the Basic Law. "If you have the word in it Mobility please let me know. If you fail, I am grateful that I have contributed to your constitutional education. "

The inquisition of Deutsche Umwelthilfe for the management vehicle fleet is a laughing stock - but is always gladly taken up by the media

Deutsche Umwelthilfe once again acts as the supreme authority in environmental protection and condemns German companies to a “red card” because they refused to provide detailed information about the CO2 emissions of executive and company vehicles. 141 out of 166 companies surveyed did not respond at all, climate watchman Jürgen Resch is outraged. The environmental aid criticizes like a prayer wheel: "Executive floors often insist on prestige bodies". Resch should take a look at the fleet of the EU Commission (see my older post on May 5th, 2013). But the same applies there: driving large limousines is not (yet) a criminal offense.