Am I over sensative?

[De Ranged]

Hey just a random thought but land rover owners might actually be more environmentally friendly than say the hybrid crowd

Just something I was thinking about how long do we keep a landy..... do we throw it away after say 5yrs to buy the next great environmentally friendly car

surly the inefficient fuel consumption of a landrover is nothing on the carbon foot print of a new car or 3 given how long some hang onto old landy's lol and all they save with there attitude is another litre or two a 100 k's

Shame there arnt studies on this..... would be nice to hit the self righteous with a study that they were worse than us lol

[CwazyWabbit]

Of course the government wouldn't like that as it would lead to stagnation of the car industry as nobody would buy new cars. The environment is only important to them when they can use it to further their goals.

[ballcock]

Hey just a random thought but land rover owners might actually be more environmentally friendly than say the hybrid crowd

Just something I was thinking about how long do we keep a landy..... do we throw it away after say 5yrs to buy the next great environmentally friendly car

surly the inefficient fuel consumption of a landrover is nothing on the carbon foot print of a new car or 3 given how long some hang onto old landy's lol and all they save with there attitude is another litre or two a 100 k's

Shame there arnt studies on this..... would be nice to hit the self righteous with a study that they were worse than us lol

A few years ago in America they produced a report that claimed the Jeep Wrangler was more environmentally friendly than the Prius due to the fact of a 30 year life expectancy, recyclable materials and the manufacturing energy.

[Dan110]

I'm not going to argue, waste of my time

I'm not saying its impossible, but there is also a mountain of evidence going the other way.

The thing that annoys me, is when supposed scientists start with a theory and then try and prove it (as they have with climate change), whereas the true scientific thing to do is to investigate and test and THEN drawn a theory based on results.

But I digress

The scientific method is not to just look at data and then make theories, it is to develop a theory (for example, 'mankind's CO2 emissions are likely responsible for accelerating climate change') and then to come up with a way to test that theory fairly (i.e, analyse data, perform an experiment).

There is not a mountain of evidence against the theory that climate change is happening and that mankind is likely responsible, there are just noisy doubters with no evidence. It is for this reason that the scientific community are in closer agreement on this issue than on countless others which most people accept as fact.

The question about blind hatred of 4x4 or LR owners is a separate issue, and as i'm on a LR forum and am a LR owner, I fall into the category of people who believe that for the limited milage they do, there would be greater CO2 emissions in building me a brand new hybrid than in keeping my 110 on the road.

But lets not damage out reputation further by ignoring the almost insurmountable evidence and blindly shouting like the numpties they already think we are.

[A Twig]

There's 'no actual proof' that smoking causes cancer, but the statistics increasingly indicate this is the case.

Just saying, references from a recent scientific article, i.e. most definitely proof:

1. Doll, R. and R. Peto, Epidemiology of Cancer. Oxford Textbook of Medicine, ed. D. Warrell, et al. 2003, Oxford: OUP.
2. IARC, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. . Vol. 83. 2004, Lyon: IARCPress.
3. Sasco, A., et al., Tobacco smoking and cancer: a brief review of the epidemiological evidence. Lung Cancer, 2004. 45: p. S3-S9. PubMed
4. Peto, R., et al., Mortality from smoking in developed countries, 1950-2000. . 2nd ed. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Parkin, M., et al., The fraction of cancer attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors in the UK in 2010. BJC, 2011. 105, Supp. 2, 6 December 2011.
6. Vollset, S. E., et al., Smoking and deaths between 40 and 70 years of age in women and men. Ann Intern Med, 2006. 144(6): p. 381-9. PubMed
7. Doll, R., Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years' observation on male British doctors. BMJ, 1994. 309: p. 901-911. PubMed
8. Peto, R., et al., Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950-2000: Indirect estimates from National Vital Statistics. 1994, Oxford: OUP.
9. CancerStats. Lung Cancer and Smoking - UK. 2004 Link
10. Doll, R. and A. Hill, Smoking and carcinoma of the lung; preliminary report. Br Med J, 1950. 2: p. 739-48. PubMed
11. Doll, R., et al., Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ, 2004. 328: p. 1519. PubMed
12. Doll, R. and R. Peto, Cigarette smoking and bronchial carcinoma: dose and time relationships among regular smokers and lifelong non-smokers. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1978. 32: p. 303-13. PubMed
13. Bjartveit, K. and A. Tverdal, Health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day. Tob Control, 2005. 14(5): p. 315-20. PubMed
14. Polesel, J., et al., Tobacco smoking and the risk of upper aero-digestive tract cancers: A reanalysis of case-control studies using spline models. Int J Cancer, 2008. 122(10): p. 2398-402. PubMed
15. Bjerregaard, B. K., et al., The effect of occasional smoking on smoking-related cancers : In the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Cancer Causes Control, 2006. 17(10): p. 1305-1309. PubMed
16. Wiencke, J., et al., Early age at smoking initiation and tobacco carcinogen DNA damage in the lung. J Natl Cancer Inst, 1999. 91: p. 614-9. PubMed
17. Gandini, S., et al., Tobacco smoking and cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer, 2008. 122(1): p. 155-64. PubMed
18. Kenfield, S. A., et al., Smoking and smoking cessation in relation to mortality in women. JAMA, 2008. 299(17): p. 2037-47. PubMed
19. Botteri, E., et al., Cigarette smoking and adenomatous polyps: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology, 2008. 134(2): p. 388-95. PubMed
20. Nieters, A., et al., Smoking and lymphoma risk in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Am J Epidemiol, 2008. 167(9): p. 1081-9. PubMed
21. Brennan, P., et al., Cigarette smoking and bladder cancer in men: a pooled analysis of 11 case-control studies. Int J Cancer, 2000. 86: p. 289-94. PubMed
22. McLaughlin, J., et al., International renal-cell cancer study. I. Tobacco use. Int J Cancer, 1995. 60: p. 194-8. PubMed
23. Johnson, N., Tobacco use and oral cancer: a global perspective. J Dent Educ, 2001. 65: p. 328-39. PubMed
24. Bosetti, C., et al., Tobacco smoking, smoking cessation, and cumulative risk of upper aerodigestive tract cancers. Am J Epidemiol, 2008. 167(4): p. 468-73. PubMed
25. Iodice, S., et al., Tobacco and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2008. 393(4): p. 535-45. PubMed
26. Ladeiras-Lopes, R., et al., Smoking and gastric cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Cancer Causes Control, 2008. 19(7): p. 689-701. PubMed
27. Johnson, K. C., Accumulating evidence on passive and active smoking and breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer, 2005. PubMed
28. Lim, U., et al., Alcohol, Smoking, and Body Size in Relation to Incident Hodgkin's and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Risk. Am J Epidemiol, 2007. PubMed
29. Luchtenborg, M., et al., Smoking and colorectal cancer: different effects by type of cigarettes? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2007. 16(7): p. 1341-7. PubMed
30. Ha, M., et al., Smoking Cigarettes before First Childbirth and Risk of Breast Cancer. Am J Epidemiol, 2007. PubMed
31. Wakai, K., et al., Decrease in risk of lung cancer death in Japanese men after smoking cessation by age at quitting: Pooled analysis of three large-scale cohort studies. Cancer Sci, 2007. 98(4): p. 584-589. PubMed
32. US DHHS. The Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation: A report of the Surgeon General. . 1990 Link
33. Godtfredsen, N. S., et al., Effect of smoking reduction on lung cancer risk. Jama, 2005. 294(12): p. 1505-10. PubMed
34. Tverdal, A. and K. Bjartveit, Health consequences of reduced daily cigarette consumption. Tob Control, 2006. 15: p. 472-480. PubMed
35. Hoffman, D. and I. Hoffman, The changing cigarette: Chemical studies and bioassays. , in Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine (Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13). 2001, NCI: Bethseda. p. 159-191.
36. Fowles, J. and E. Dybing, Application of toxicological risk assessment principles to the chemical constituents of cigarette smoke. Tob Control, 2003. 12(4): p. 424-30. PubMed
37. Doull, J., et al., List of ingredients added to tobacco in the manufacture of cigarettes by six major American cigarette companies. . 1994, Washington DC: Covington and Burling.
38. Bernhard, D., et al., Increased serum cadmium and strontium levels in young smokers: effects on arterial endothelial cell gene transcription. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, 2006. 26(4): p. 833-8. PubMed
39. Korte, J. E., et al., The contribution of benzene to smoking-induced leukemia. Environ Health Perspect, 2000. 108(4): p. 333-9. PubMed
40. Kilthau, G. F., Cancer risk in relation to radioactivity in tobacco. Radiol Technol, 1996. 67(3): p. 217-22. PubMed
41. Little, J. B., et al., Distribution of polonium-210 in pulmonary tissues of cigarette smokers. N Engl J Med, 1965. 273(25): p. 1343-51. PubMed
42. Winters, T. and H. Franza, Radioactivity in cigarette smoke. N Engl J Med, 1982. 306(6): p. 364-365. PubMed
43. Grasseschi, R. M., et al., Cadmium accumulation and detoxification by alveolar macrophages of cigarette smokers. Chest, 2003. 124(5): p. 1924-8. PubMed
44. US Surgeon General, Smoking and health: a report of the Surgeon General. 1979.
45. dell'Omo, M., et al., Blood cadmium concentrations in the general population of Umbria, central Italy. Sci Total Environ, 1999. 226(1): p. 57-64. PubMed
46. Holtzman, R. and F. Ilcewicz, Lead-210 and polonium-210 in tissues of cigarette smokers. . Science, 1966. 153(1259). PubMed
47. Wallace, L., et al., Exposures to benzene and other volatile compounds from active and passive smoking. Arch Environ Health, 1987. 42(5): p. 272-9. PubMed
48. Nazaroff, W. W. and B. C. Singer, Inhalation of hazardous air pollutants from environmental tobacco smoke in US residences. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, 2004. 14 Suppl 1: p. S71-7.PubMed
49. WHO, International Programme on Chemical Safety: Environmental Health Criteria 134. Cadmium. . 1992, Geneva: WHO.
50. Guo, H., et al., Risk assessment of exposure to volatile organic compounds in different indoor environments. Environ Res, 2004. 94(1): p. 57-66. PubMed
51. Denissenko, M., et al., Preferential formation of benzo[a]pyrene adducts at lung cancer mutational hotspots in P53. Science, 1996. 274: p. 430-2. PubMed
52. Feng, Z., et al., Chromium(VI) exposure enhances polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA binding at the p53 gene in human lung cells. Carcinogenesis, 2003. 24(4): p. 771-8. PubMed
53. Hartwig, A. and T. Schwerdtle, Interactions by carcinogenic metal compounds with DNA repair processes: toxicological implications. Toxicol Lett, 2002. 127(1-3): p. 47-54. PubMed
54. Vleeming, W., et al., The role of nitric oxide in cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction. Nicotine Tob Res, 2002. 4(3): p. 341-8. PubMed
55. Yamaguchi, H., et al., Toluene at environmentally relevant low levels disrupts differentiation of astrocyte precursor cells. Arch Environ Health, 2002. 57(3): p. 232-8. PubMed
56. Kumar, V. and O. P. Tandon, Brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs) in tobacco smokers. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol, 1996. 40(4): p. 381-4. PubMed
57. Royal College of Physicians, Nicotine Addiction in Britain: A report of the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. 2000.
58. Epping-Jordan, M. P., et al., Dramatic decreases in brain reward function during nicotine withdrawal. Nature, 1998. 393(6680): p. 76-9. PubMed
59. Russell, M., et al., Relation of nicotine yield of cigarettes to blood nicotine concentrations in smokers. Br Med J, 1980. 280: p. 972-6. PubMed
60. Hammond, D., et al., Smoking Topography, Brand Switching, and Nicotine Delivery: Results from an In vivo Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2005. 14(6): p. 1370-5. PubMed
61. Benowitz, N., et al., Smokers of low-yield cigarettes do not consume less nicotine. N Engl J Med, 1983. 309: p. 139-42. PubMed
62. Kozlowski, L., et al., Prevalence of the misuse of ultra-low-tar cigarettes by blocking filter vents. Am J Public Health, 1988. 78: p. 694-5. PubMed
63. Benowitz, N. L., et al., Carcinogen Exposure during Short-term Switching from Regular to "Light" Cigarettes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2005. 14(6): p. 1376-83. PubMed
64. Djordjevic, M., et al., Doses of nicotine and lung carcinogens delivered to cigarette smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2000. 92: p. 106-11. PubMed
65. Kuper, H., et al., Tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption and their interaction in the causation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Cancer, 2000. 85: p. 498-502. PubMed
66. Boyle, P., et al., European Code Against Cancer and scientific justification: third version (2003). Ann Oncol, 2003. 14(7): p. 973-1005. PubMed
67. Castellsague, X., et al., Independent and joint effects of tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking on the risk of esophageal cancer in men and women. Int J Cancer, 1999. 82: p. 657-64. PubMed
68. Sjodahl, K., et al., Smoking and alcohol drinking in relation to risk of gastric cancer: A population-based, prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer, 2006. 120(1): p. 128-32. PubMed
69. Darby, S., et al., Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studies. BMJ, 2004. Epub ahead of print. PubMed
70. Taylor, R., et al., Meta-analysis of studies of passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent. Int J Epidemiol, 2007. 36(5): p. 1048-59. PubMed

Sorry, just a pet peeve ( and before anyone has a go, been there, done it for a long time, as have many people I love )...

[A Twig]

Back on topic, IMO, humanity is changing the climate. However, effective solutions (nuclear power/fracking) are being shot down by hipster NIMBYs - so dooming us to ever high bills to support inefficient and ineffective "renewables", which are completely irresponsive to demand. Heard that the National Grid is paying some wind farms not to produce electricity because the grid couldn't cope with it being produced when there wasn't any demand?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8770937/Wind-farm-paid-1.2-million-to-produce-no-electricity.html

"So fix the grid," I hear you cry - but do you really want the cost of that added to the extras on your bill that you are already paying to subsidise inefficient renewables? When there are cheaper and more effective solutions (MSRs for example) that are cheap and demand responsive...

Besides, owning a dog produces more "greenhouse gases" that driving a 4x4 http://www.ecoworld.com/animals/dogs-pollute-more-than-suvs.html so IMO 4x4s are the least of our problems!

Cat meet pigeons...

[Satybarole]

Hi,

I think the if you want to save the planet then use bicycle one day in a week, It's not too much but still something.

...........

Engineering Services

[Snagger]

The thing is that the pro warming/weirding climatologists are being extremely unscientific in being so selective/manipulative about historical data and looking at the Earth in isolation. Apart from ignoring fact like extensive vine and olive groves in middle-age England, and the 10 degree temperature drop in the early-mid 17thC that allowed bubonic plague to travel so easily on a mushrooming rat population, and the sea level drop indicator of the village where the Romans landed in Kent in 72AD being 5 miles inland, they are not considering the recently increased storm activity on all of Sol's planets or the ice cap recession on Mars to be relevant to Earth's alleged climate change. I would argue that if Earth's climate is changing, and it is a big if, then it has very little to do with mankind and a great deal more to do with received solar radiation, which can be the only explanation after all for the other planets' changes (as much as the media would wish to portray the effects of three all-wheel drive Rovers for Mars' storms and ice cap). And so, shouldn't the money being used to tiddle into wind and stop the inevitable be spent on mitigation of climate change, like developing better GM crops to grow in the new climate, building more resilient infrastructure and creating reserves?

We have three Rovers in the household, but given that I drive jets for a living, anti-4wd sentiment is just one facet. The airline industry is equally vilified, but what long range travel mechanism is more environmentally friendly? How many thousands of tonnes does a train weigh, and how many hundreds of thousand a cruise ship? Compare that to a fully loaded 747 set for a maximum-range flight weighing in at about 400T, which is going to take the most fuel to shift? And which system needs the least physical infrastructure? How many millions of miles of tarmac do roads make up, or millions of miles or rail track with all that environmental damage of grading the land, laying the ballast and smelting millions of tons of steel track? An aeroplane just needs a mile to a mile and a half runway and a parking spot! Any warming effect that jets have by CO2 emissions are more than offset by the insolation reduction caused by the reflective quality of the contrails they emit. But hey, why would the media or politicians let the truth get in the way of "A Convenient Lie"?

The reality is that politicians, media organisations and many industries like car and domestic appliance manufacturers, energy companies, transport companies, food, entertainment, home improvement and other businesses are all making money from this scam. The pro change climatologists are all on the payroll of beneficiaries of the climate change hysteria, and those who oppose the theory are treated as heretics, consigning their scientific careers to the dustbin, so how balanced can the scientific argument be? Now, what if all this is really a cover story for the fact that oil is running out faster than admitted, with the collapse of society and civilisation coming sooner if alternative energies aren't found? It could simply be an attempt to prevent panic and hoarding on vast, corporate scales.

[Mo Murphy]

What snagger said ^^^^^^^^^^

Cyclic climate change. In 500 years we'll have global cooling caused by the extinction of the cow and not burning enough hydrocarbons.

I can guarantee you that Johnny Politician will be jumping on that bandwagon too.

And don't get me started on Lies and the Iraq war ...

Mo

[Bowie69]

Where's that damned like button....

[HPLP]

In my view we do not change the climate, we change the eco-system structure. It has been going on since we learned to light fire and cut down trees and is not a simple, last 100 year problem. The sun provides an input and relates to the worldwide temperature which is continually changing. This we are not able to make any difference to, but we can and have changed the nature of the climate on a huge level. Most of what has changed has been caused by the removal of vegetation (forests, bush, jungle, etc). This in turn has altered where there is water and in turn where life is sustaining. There is evidence everywhere around the world and the main problem is humans, and is exacerbated by the number of us. Population growth and pressure is overlooked and seems to be a unmentionable issue. There simply is too many of us....

In reality we will never restore the world to a untouched state unless we all die, so we should be more concerned with trying to live a low resource dependent lifestyle, maximizing what is available to us.

Also when something as major as this is oversimplified, it grows legs and usually ends up wrong.....

[TheRecklessEngineer]

Don't you know it's the reduction of pirates that's causing climate change?

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[CwazyWabbit]

......

Also when something as major as this is oversimplified, it grows legs and usually ends up wrong.....

This is most certainly the problem....

Then people twist something they don't understand to push their own agenda, which a large amount of the population doesn't question. 'It was on telly it must be true'

[missingsid]

My fave is the originating boffins left the program because of the bull, then they became the target of hate from the come lately bandwagon boffins.

[discomikey]

The way I see it no one will be able to afford to drive in 30-40 years anyway so what does it matter?

As it happens my Defender is fairly environmentally friendly owing to its age and it's protected lifespan but that's not why I drive it - I drive it because I like it!

here here...

on another note. i did some research not that long ago, and i cant remember exactly where i got the figures i did some digging and found a fair few websites all stating similar figures.

using these carbon figures i worked out that a prius would have a larger carbon footprint than my series 3 which absolutley chucks diesel smoke out for fun, mile for mile, untill both reached roughly 100,000 miles, where they would then be even and the prius would start to be more green.

HOWEVER... lets say, on average, you do 10,000 miles a year. thats 10 years of ownership of the prius before my land rover (at 100,000 miles) would start to have a larger carbon footprint, only very marginally though.

with a prius, the batteries only last 7 years, cost you £7,000 to replace and adds massively to the carbon footprint again, these are the main factor for its redicously large carbon footprint anyway.

so the LR is back on top.

then lets take into account the fact that cars get old and rusty.

what happens to the prius, 10 years old, starting to show signs of age, and needs £7,000 worth of batteries? who wants a 10 year old prius which needs that kind of money spending on it???

of to the scrapyard then. meanwhile mr Land rover driver has just welded up his chassis and bulkhead, fitted a replacement wing from the breakers, (which by the way is recycling )

and off it goes for the next 100, 000 miles (remembering what little carbon footprint from the first 100,000 miles calculation some of it was its manufacturing process) can now be ignored. its purely on fuel burning now.

that little prius owner has to buy a brand new one, and now drive over 100,000 miles in that one too before it can become equal to the "greener" series 3 of 35 years.

sorry, rant over, but you get my drift

i just enjoy saying that as its just funny how poeple want to be seen as being "green" without a thought of what goes on behind the scenes, before the showroom etc.

so yes. i will continue to cover your prius in diesel smoke whilst overtaking you, with a trailer on, and another big 4x4 on that too, as i am more environmentally friendly FACT.

plus... most LR owners have a mend and make do attitude that streches far beyond that of just the green oval products themselves. we can rewire that toaster instead of throwing it away, we can mend that broken chair, and make it stronger than it ever was before... LR drivers generally are not throw-away poeple.

can prius owners say the same?

[Snagger]

Construction of a car in the 1990s took about three times the energy that the car would consume in its service life. Modern cars have so many extras and electronics now that you could safely estimate that a typical car built in 2013 used four time the energy in its construction than the 1990s car consumed in fuel (maybe 5 times what itself would consume, given improved engine efficiencies).

For the Toyota Pious (that is a much better spelling, considering the nature of their drivers), the batteries alone mean that the vehicle must cost about 7 times that 1990 in-service fuel consumption. It's life is shortened by the lack of longevity of its LiIon batteries - we all know how laptop and phone batteries, using the same technology, die after a few years, and that will happen to the Pious. Scrapping will be an environmental nightmare because of their toxic and hazardous nature.

In other words, modern cars are consuming vastly more energy and resources than older vehicles over their entire life. Still, it's supported by the automotive industry, obviously, as they are making money from the con, and it's supported by politicians who are benifitting from the increased tax revenues on car sales and the employment by the car manufacturers.

Incidentally, I met someone who builds wind turbines. He said that they also cost more energy than they produce...