Love that guy. He truly is brilliant. However, people are NOT going to give up their Ferraris for the environment. Being somewhat of a car lover myself, I realize this. What Ferrari should do, instead of just giving us convoluted green claims, is to prove themselves as the innovators and great engineers they profess to be. They should innovate in ways that both improve the performance of their car and make it more environmentally sound. In short, they should work toward William M.'s goal - a society where few actions that humans take have any environmental impact (and much more have a positive environmental impact), and therefore a society where consumption is not limited by the environment, only by money and space.

"a company that produces cars no one needs and that go faster than anyone should"

Reminds me of the Tesla.

"But another point of concern is the tendency to justify rampant consumption with green claims, a trend some have called 'green conspicuous consumption.'"

Reminds me of the Tesla.

The Ferrari Factory recently said "Our customers are not concerned with the price of petrol." So, it MUST be the regulations they are required to meet. On the other hand, their factory is greener than most. I think American car companies whining about 35mpg standard is more pathetic. But soon they will brag about it.

I would bet if you took the worst car from every manufacturer and compared the total sales and the amount of pollution, Ferrari would come close to the bottom of the list due to such limited sales. Not to mention really limited amount of driving, as they are not daily drivers.

At best, Ferrari is a racing team that happens to sell cars.

At worst, they are a T-shirt and jacket company that happen to sell cars! ;) j/k

Faulting a company that is trying to get positive PR for their work to comply with regulations is not a particularly mature or worldly stance.

I will also go so far as to say that the statement that ferarris are cars "no one needs that go faster than anyone should" is exactly the kind of punitive eco-vangelism that is undermining the green movement. To even speak in terms of needs is childish and simplistic.

Kudos to the commenters above who see that the way forward is to do things well and healthfully, for ourselves and for our planet, not to restrict and regulate human ingenuity and passion into nonexistence.

"To even speak in terms of needs is childish and simplistic."

I take it you work in marketing/PR yourself Daniel, a field where the concepts of wants & needs were confused many decades ago

I *hate* to disappoint, but I am employed in no such way.

It's not merely the School of Bernays which has abandoned rational concepts of what needs and wants are, nearly the whole of human civilisation is a nested structure of wants.

I stand by my statement that trying to divide all desires into needs and wants is childish, and that basing something's importance on wether or not it is immediately and gravely important to basic biological functioning is ignoring most of what it is to be human.

You hardly need anything, a vast majority of every item/article/device a person owns or interacts with is completely superfluous to their continued survival.

house/apartment, car, computer, cellphone, wristwatch, anything that uses electricty or burns fuel, most of your clothing, your pencils, notebooks photographs, etc etc ad nauseum.

but don't let the insignificance of a boutique sportscar's fuel consumption get in the way of a good sermon, far be it from reality to weigh heavy on the minds of those in the grip of religious fervor.

Well I agree with you on the fact that most of civilisation is a a complex hierachy of wants (& needs). But I still disagree that you shouldn't discuss where something is on that scale, just because it's complicated. I can see that to adherents of unrestricted markets, it's slightly unthinkable to say 'we will decide what you should have'. But against the rapid rise in consumption overall, you cannot just say "aaah sorry, that's just human nature!"

Car
1910-luxury
1950-habit
2000-need

Flying abroad once a year
1900-luxury
1970-habit
2000-need

Car - 200bhp
1950-luxury
1990-habit
2010-need?

Yeah I hope too there are lots of clean, healthy, lovely fluffy technologies round the corner. But until we get there the most effective way to reduce environmental impact is for people to take a long, hard look at what they really need!

I just don't see a limited use, durable luxury item - affordable by very few - to be an environmental issue. I HOPE someday Ferrari's emmissions are the most important thing to worry about, it'll mean we've achieved a lot.

I'm guessing high performance combustion engines will probably move to ethanol and other fuels used in racing, as that is where their street technology is developed anyway. They will get more power, range is not an issue, and they will meet tighter environmental restrictions.

Then again, I was soooo excited to see the Audi R10 bio-diesel win the Le Mans.

It boggles the mind when you think they sell 6000 per year. You really have to be a multi millionaire to own one and live in a car friendly city. not to mention sales of all the other premium branded cars, new and used. Who is buying all these crazy expensive vehicles?

It boggles the mind when you think they sell 6000 per year. You really have to be a multi millionaire to own one and live in a car friendly city. not to mention sales of all the other super premium branded cars, new and used. Who is buying all these crazy expensive vehicles?

what a negative article for such a positive site. the first time i've been dissapointed with your content treehugger.

I agree with Gwen on this one. What a bitter and negative article.

Last I heard, everyone need to do what they can.. Right down to us individuals. Are you suggesting that we are all so small that it makes no difference what we do.

Ferarri has their market. What they sell is what they sell.

Good on them for trying.. Doing their bit (no matter how 'small') and for raising awareness of the problem to their own customers, not matter how 'few'.

Finally I'd add that this news will reach far more people than the 6000 or so cars they produce.. Ferarri has a massive fan base. This initiative will reach millions of fans and car lovers all over.

Growth fuels consumption and saying that its very. approp. that ferrari wants to go more green.
They have many things green on the cars they make. Adding new engine technology to burn less is a challenge they have undertaken.
Mind you ferrari will never sacrifice their speed and safety supperiority.

If you compare a ferrari factory to the US or Indian one churning millions of cars the italian company can beat the world in greener production techs.

Now THIS is an interesting quote...

"...Why anyone with enough money to buy a Ferrari would worry about fuel efficiency isn't entirely clear...."

There's a bit of an arrogant, holier-than-thou assumption underlying this, isn't there? To cite just one example, doesn't Al Gore "have enough money" to buy a Ferrari, but yet he goes on and on and ON about things like fuel efficiency. Surely one can have money and love the environment too.....unless you're a Kennedy, of course, and it might ruin your view....

It is this type of moralism that sidelined the environmental movement of the 1970's and consigned it to 20 years of irrelevance. Beware puritanism!!

(by the way, Ferraris are very beautiful cars...it would be great if they were greener).

i work for a rental agency that rents Ferrari's for the past 20 years. all clients have one thing in common, environmental what? i support a green group every year, is not that enough?
several customers left their Ferrari home and drove a Prius for a day from www.simplyhybrid.com , surprisingly they loved it!!!!!! several bought the hybrid as a second car. just to take care of daily needs
not bad, the road to change have just began

Much needed support from Ferrari...Kudos to them!