Greenpeace at it again ;-)

In news:d6dijg$hi3$ snipped-for-privacy@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com, Badger blithered:

Thanks Badger, I wonder from where the 'facts' the OP was quoting came?

In news: snipped-for-privacy@movingvision.demon.co.uk, Moving Vision blithered:

They probably do, but your emotive statements avoided that particularly important observation, prefering to claim turboprop good all else bad!

In news:d6dklq$bjk$ snipped-for-privacy@news6.svr.pol.co.uk, Larry blithered:

I'm going to retire from this debate before I get upset about sweeping subjective conclusions. Let us try to limit ourselves to comparing apples with apples. Greenpeaces apples were clearly a different variety than ours. A '"very"' valid point was made regarding the longevity of LandRover products rather than concentrating on sensationalising debatable emmisions of an isolated product of their range!

In article , GbH writes

I might have misunderstood the reason for turbo props being 'greener' than jets, perhaps it's only because of operational altitude that their relative environmental impact differs, but would that amount to a decreased impact of 85%? Clearly in such a case the turbo prop would indeed be much better for the environment.

My emotiveness was in response to the emotiveness of earlier posters whose assertions imply along the lines that Green Peace are merely a bunch of nutters who have all sorts of evil personal motives that have nothing to do with the environment and who have contributed nothing to the belated U-turns of hypocritical Governments and their narrow minded and self serving establishment cronies.

In news:oa8XZ$ snipped-for-privacy@movingvision.demon.co.uk, Moving Vision blithered:

Aye John, Sorry if I went off a bit over the top there. I'm a professional MoG and it seems to go with the territory. I think we've largely had a reasoned discussion on the subject and I'm of a similar mind to yourself, how come the TP is seen as so green? Seems to lack logic somewhere. As to compaison of apples and pears, I suspect if one was to figure in the total emmisions on say a transatlantic route, your 747 would win hands down over yer average series lll merely because the lll likely wouldn't make it in this lifetime, besides its pollution would probably be bits fallen off! As someone pointed out mairitime propulsion seems initially to be highly polluting.. Now I lost the thread of my argument.

No worries my friend, though I'm intrigued as to what an MoG is?

Now if that Series lll was pulling a trailer with 300 souls aboard, in low first of course....................

While the longevity of the series and Defender models is without doubt, what about the others? Much of the reason for the longevity of series and Defenders comes from the owners wanting to keep them going, but is the same true of Range Rovers and Discoveries? All the electronics and trim will fail before the raw mechanicals, at which point given the kind of user these vehicles attract, they'll just be scrap. I don't think we'll be seeing many current Range Rovers on the green lanes in 10 years' time, the chassis and drivetrain may well be fine but the trim and gadgets will probably condemn them to an early death.

There will of course always be exceptions, but I doubt that the proportion of Discovery/Range Rover production still alive in the future will ever come close to that of the Series, 90/110 and Defenders.

Not based on any numbers of course, just limited observations.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@movingvision.demon.co.uk, Moving Vision blithered:

Miserable old Git!

Mind you, if progress in the countryside continues at the current rate, green lanes will be a figment of the past!

What was the name of that Shell Platform that was going to kill everyone with the massive release of toxic nasties as it was being broken up ?

Except it didn't have the nasties on board, or at least not in the huge unmanageable quantities indicated, despite Greenpeaces assertions.

Steve

And? They were going on the figures published by, erm... Shell.

No, AFAIR, they made a big public raid on the platform, and then used their own specialists to make the measurements - can't trust the oil company's figures.

Steve

Correct, but the raid was based upon the (higher) figures publicly made available by Shell. Greenpeace actually demonstrated that Shell didn't know, and had incorrectly guessed the measurements. Now, had Shell underestimated...

Greenpeace generally are not green and not peacefull.

They are probably one of the organisations that cause the most polution. Why do I say this? Well they are against the cleanest and safest fuel, so we are reducing the use of this fuel and not increasing it.

It's nuclear fuel. Very clean on the enviroment and the number of folk killed in the industry is the lowest.

I would call myself a green person, I use solar energy, but don't want to be classed in with the 'greens'.

Alan