Jump to content

Who is really responsible for our environmental damage.


Simon_CSK
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sorry if I am resurecting something that may have been discussed before but I have been away for a while ................. a Long Long while :huh:

There was an article by Simon Hodder, I think, in the back of LRE a month or so ago about the polution put out by motor vehicles. The full article on which his is based can be found here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...and+environment

Now despite the fact I am currently involved in developing a new building product that will revoutionise the thermal performance of buildings I do not subscribe to the global warming argument. This article provides further evidence of what I have beleived for a considerable time that we are being fed B**l S**t in order to buy greener products.

Alister Darling has just anounced his budget :banned: which obviously is going to attack us as Landrover enthusiasts but when are these idiots going to realise we have to consider the whole life costs and not the short term effects.

OOOOH it makes my blood boil :angry::angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government has realised that they can use climate change as a means to raise tax. They will continue to do so, whatever the truth of the matter, as long as the public believe them. Tax will rise on fuel, as if that will stop all the fossil fuels being used up in the end, and money will not be put into CO2 reducing projects, however worthy. And by CO2 reducing projects, I mean ones that actively lock carbon away rather than simple defer it's release, move the source of release or similar. Even the US government have acknowledged CO2 related climate change as they too have realised it's value for tax generation.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it is piggin cold down here at the moment

building outside in the wind/rain

where's all this global warming when you need it. :D

as for Taxes bring them on no amount will stop me driving what I please, all a sodding con to get more ££ out of the population,

well someone needs to pay for the great unwashed who refuse to work :)

and next year we are off to the States again to enjoy a gas guzzler, funny how every car over there is huge compared with UK cars

and fuel a 1/3 of the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global warming is a natural process that has occured for millions of years afterall we did have an ice age which was obviously global cooling.

The thing that drives me nuts is the fact that the statistics clearly show that it takes more CO2 to build a car than it creates in its lifetime. If your hybrid Eurobox only lasts for 10 years and covers 100,000 miles it has to be bad for the planet but because we drive landrovers which according to statistics 75% of all vehicles ever made are still on the road then we are the polutors. Not a snow balls chance in H**L of being the case.

The politicians have got the wrong end of the stick again :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is for the goverment this gobal green thing is a dream come true. They can make up green taxes and increas tax on other stuff. Under a gobal green issue. Or because they have to (as they say) to protect the world.

But when does and what do they do with this money which is helping the world with gobal warming . Bugger all thats what.

But as a govermant it is a wet dream all this as they put up tax on fuel and other stuff and say it to stop gobal warming and its not PC for people to conplain about it. So they get away with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that gets missed in all the press coverage of the hybrids are their battery packs. These use a lot of resources to make and at present need to be replaced about every 5 years. An article a while back in one of the national papers pointed out that the most enviromentally friendly car over about 5 years average useage was a Jeep Wrangler. :D The Prius was miles down the list and even the range rover sport was quite a bit further up!

Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Margret Thatcher's government is unfortunately to blame for the current CO2 histeria.

The reason is because she wanted to strangle the coal miners unions, so had boffins

do some research. they concluded that Britain should be less dependant on coal (a warning to the miners)

and build nuclear power plants as this was the future.

One consequence of this report was that it included benefits from an environmental viewpoint= less CO2.

This started the political affiliation with environmental concerns, to their own benefit, not the environments.

As always politicians don't have the interest of the country/ population/ economy at the forefront of their planning and

scheming, simply how they can benefit from the position they are in.

Politicians don't care, never have and never will.

Same here in Norway, the new budget was announced and hailed as environmetally sound with various

tax increases and inducments, extra funding, etc. Except someone worked out that the governments "spending"

on environmental issues, will be recouped within 27 days of oil revenue.

Don't trust politicians, they're not looking out for your well being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The through-life energy use of a new car isn’t as great in comparison to the fuel used in driving. You’ll never see a hard figure because it’ll be an estimate but papers I’ve read suggest that production energy is around 10% of the whole-life CO2 ‘footprint’ of a vehicle. To extend that lifetime through replacing parts, newer engines etc is good news as a cottage industry but the flexibility and scale of the same issue for large-scale vehicle remanufacturing will never become mainstream. At best, it’s an offset for 4x4 drivers (although it’s a strong one too) and it’ll never make your impact on the environment smaller than someone in a Ford Ka.

We’re now starting to see manufacturers ‘investing’ carbon and that confuses politicians. For example, it takes more energy to build a vehicle which can be more easily disassembled at end-of-life for recycling. It would be cheaper, and use less energy, to just glue it all together but there’s a strong argument that the carbon output should be moved forward to give a whole life cycle reduction.

I like my LandRover, I just don’t drive it so much any more and tend to use public transport where I can. For those on here who don’t know, I work in public transport and my new job is looking at reducing our environmental impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that gets missed in all the press coverage of the hybrids are their battery packs. These use a lot of resources to make and at present need to be replaced about every 5 years. An article a while back in one of the national papers pointed out that the most enviromentally friendly car over about 5 years average useage was a Jeep Wrangler. :D The Prius was miles down the list and even the range rover sport was quite a bit further up!

Ed

The link refers to a document that sets out the "dust to dust" energy requirements for 400 vehicles and expresses them as a monetry value. The higher the monetry value the bigger the cost to the environment. The Hummer worked out at $1.89 per mile while the Prius came in at $2.86 per mile. Part of the reason for this is the cost of the nickel for the batteries and again we are not talking monetry cost but environment cost.

The nickel for the batteries is mined in Canada, shipped to Wales for processing, shipped to China for more processing before being delivered to Japan for manufacture a journey of 10,000 miles which is undertaken in ships and trains that use vast amounts of heavy fuel oil.

Is the world going mad!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the world going mad!!!

Unfortunately, the mass populus have swallowed the marketing of all manufacturers and the world is of the opinion that consumerism is good, whether thats the purchase of a shiny new Prius, or the 'need' for the latest flat screen plasma TV.

The governements have a vested interest in 'funding' global warming research, especially if its to prove a point!

And i expect that most researchers, despite the science ethic of following the evidence, will be inclined to prove the theory that their paymaster prefers.

Its a Governments delight, basically the whole population are captive, as summed up below!

post-2166-1192008397_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only used to have vehicles that were powered by love..

but having watched Potteris 400hp V8 nail it past deathtruck and Roopes even more ridiculous engined loony mobile Im switching to vehicle that consumes ever larger amounts of fossil fuels :)

tax me. I dont give a monkeys...the money hurts but try and tell me its for the good of the environment and I'll smile politely and call you a liar.. compared to the huge wastes that go on in this world its like a fart in a hurricane. do WE want to make a difference? stop consuming cheap produce from China.. the knock-on will slow down thier appetite for coal fueled power stations and the mega amounts of go-go juice being pummelled into smoke by the shipping industry..

will it change? nah..... coz everyone wants a bargain. will any coloured govenment approach problems rationally? nah....... they are self serving politicians. will we put up with it? yes....... because Brits complain and take no action.

If theres a problem - solve it, or we only have ourselves to blame.

this soapbox is available to hire, its panda fur lined and with its twin turbos consumes 3 gallons per speach (lots of dolphins were needlessly eaten during the making of this post).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's the nail hit on the head.......stop buying from the China.

I might be naked, shoeless and broke....and somewhat unproductive 'cause I spend so much time dillying around trying to find anything that is made locally ( which, other than biodiesel, is difficult to the extreme) but I cannot support this lunacy any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China uses lots of oil and produces lots of CO2. Should we :

throw our hands up, accept we're all buggered and get a good tan

OR

reduce our own output through development of technologies that will feed down to their 'volume market' in time, reducing global demand for energy and make us (the West) money in the long term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China uses lots of oil and produces lots of CO2. Should we :

throw our hands up, accept we're all buggered and get a good tan

OR

reduce our own output through development of technologies that will feed down to their 'volume market' in time, reducing global demand for energy and make us (the West) money in the long term?

OR

Just nuke most of them before they become a serious nuclear threat to the world, as well as am environmental threat?

Personally, i'm up for the good tan option...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im going with the tan option too B)

I work with companies developing products for sale to Chinese manufacturers only to watch them being ripped off left right and centre by Chinas wonderful lack of copyright enforcement (sound familiar?) its all said tongue in cheek but if you think we are going to make money from the Chinese and steer them down the path to enlightenment I think your dreaming - we are feeding a super Godzilla but this time hes farting CO2

sounds a bit like our wonderful "special arrangement" with the USA..... :lol:

either we need Mothra with laser beam eyes or its time to grab the noodles while you can - and lets arm the suntan bomb :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should all send a copy of that article to our MPs and see who gets the most amusing reply. Could be good for a laugh.

Will :)

EB

I really like that idea and may even do it asking what the Government will be doing to reduce the harmfull effects of Hybrid cars. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should complain to the advertising standards people with regard to this its obviously false advertising

I like that one too but I would guess that the ads are very carefully worded. :hysterical::hysterical: But the outcome could be fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is, the posters on PriusChat are right - that report, while it may well have some truth in it, is junk science with little hard fact :( It would be nice to see some properly put together figures on what vehicles really cost (in environmental impact) to build and operate, but I can't see it happening. Way too many vested interests. I strongly suspect that hybrids like the Prius would come out very badly - after all, how do you justify a car full of heavy metals that has worse fuel economy than quite a few comparable standard cars... :rolleyes:

My gut feeling is that the 'greenest' option is probably a relatively old small car, but that's based on about as much empirical evidence as that report!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy