[slowmover]

Re "Greenwash"

We're gonna drill till we die (as a species) . . so hand-wringing or purity in the midst of the consumer society (as distinct from living in one composed of an informed citizenry) is off-putting. Simeon Stylite. We could go on all day about common misconceptions in the image-driven, non-literate world. One can point out the discrepancies, but facts (if indeed they are so) don't sway people, especially fine distinctions.

None of us are exempt from advertising having formed our world would be the salient point.

And on the scale of importance where propaganda is at work ("war": is it physical force exclusively or do large financial maneuvers also count in the definition?) clean diesel is accurate enough in a relative sense as has been noted above per historical references. On that, there is no question. One might as well call it "modern diesel", but "clean" is truly more accurate, thus applicable.

By it's very definition as a chemical compound diesel is dirty. Always will be, a priori, even if perfectly consumed by a motor. But among refining methods, are some better that others? (would be the actual question).

Were this my concern I wouldn't ever concede that the arguments which arise in naming or labelling should be discounted. Or turned, Manichean-like, into black::white distinctions. They don't exist, except for those same benighted un-thinking masses to be swayed. Walter Lippmann and Edmund Bernays (Freud's son-in-law) covered this so long ago that my fathers marketing classes read them as a matter of course more than sixty years ago.

Is it clean diesel? Only by every existing definition. That marketers are doing a disservice couldn't be more wrong (headed).

Gettin hung up on details of "purity" like this is always a little beside the point, is it not? If there were a cheap way to convert bunker fuel powered vehicles to "clean diesel" we'd be all over it, wouldn't we . . as someting to be proud of.

.