OT Emissions in London ?

Why o why do we continue to be controlled by ar........es with no idea of green or planet saving ideas.

formatting link
better to buy biscuits with only one wrapper and no useless cardboard box. They dont even realize that "gas guzzlers" can be more efficient than small cars.

Reply to
Hirsty's
Loading thread data ...

More fundamentally they've not made the link between pollution and miles driven!

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

One of the so called local council members was on TV today defending the idea and saying that " it had nothing to do with raising extra revenue" (sounds like a load of bull to me). So, if that's true then I suggest that they go right ahead with the idea, and all extra money that they make they hand over to a cancer research charity. Before they go ahead though I want to see them on TV stating that all money raised will be given to charity. Lets see them put the money where their mouths are and stick with it.

GGJ

Reply to
Gary G Jones

On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:35:27 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

well, the emissions figures are g/km. There's a tendency for high-emission vehicles to be larger, although that's not an unvarying truth. And anyway, since we're talking about parking, they should give people a reduction if they do more miles, the thing's parked less of the time.

one thing that does make more sense is 50% surcharge on 2nd and subsequent permits.

heh. looking at the document, they have examples of cars in the different bands, including "Range Rover 4.4 V* petrol auto"

Reply to
Austin Shackles

What I meant is that a non-moving vehicle doesn't pollute much, so if they're going to charge people for owning cars that are less efficient, they should take into account how many miles they actually do. I've got four cars but work from home so don't commute, and yet on most of these daft schemes I'd get charged more than someone with a VW Lupo who does 60,000 miles per year. Daft.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

Wrong.

A standing motor vehicle does deteriorate faster than one that is used now and again.

A standing vehicle rots away, the engine will drop to bits in a year if it isn't used.

Well over half of the environmental 'cost' of a vehicle is in the manufacture and not the running costs so the longer your vehicle lasts the lower the overall environmental 'cost' per year.

Of course with 75% of all Land Rovers still on the road that marque has undoubtedly the lowest environmental 'cost' of any motor vehicle...

Of course this will be the marque most heavily taxed under the new scheme...

Reply to
William Black

Look up the meaning of the word "much"...

If it's not moving, it's not polluting significantly, and also who mentioned anything about a vehicle that's just left to rot? Those of us with more than one vehicle don't just use one vehicle and leave the rest to die.

That's funny, I've had vehicles not used for a year that started fine! A miracle!

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

What would be nice would be for the WHOLE government, and council officials to have to drive around in small more economic, environmentally friendly cars! Some how I doubt this would ever happen. They should lead by example and then just p**s off.

Reply to
Cyberwraith

Absolutely, and the one I am running at the moment, diesel Range Rover is very frugal, therefore not a 'gas guzzler' so it doesn't apply to me. ;-)

Martin

Reply to
Oily

It's obviously revenue generation.

The effect on total emissions of any change in behaviour that this proposal may bring about will have absolutely no effect until the americans, chinese etc. and air travellers in general do something about their carbon dioxide generating habits.

If the proposal won't bring about the change on which it is being sold there must be another reason and it's very obvious what that is.

Reply to
Dougal

One of the so called local council members was on TV today defending the idea and saying that " it had nothing to do with raising extra revenue" (sounds like a load of bull to me). So, if that's true then I suggest that they go right ahead with the idea, and all extra money that they make they hand over to a cancer research charity. Before they go ahead though I want to see them on TV stating that all money raised will be given to charity. Lets see them put the money where their mouths are and stick with it.

GGJ

Reply to
Gary G Jones

One thing that nobody mentions these days about emissions is "ships and shipping" a few years back I remember someone on an early morning radio show stating that, if I remember correct that "just one days worth of worldwide ship emissions is the same as every car in the uk for a years worth". Ban ships :o)

GGJ

Reply to
Gary G Jones

ISTR that a flight to Miami produces as much s**te as a year's worth of driving your car in the UK, despite this it was surprising to see that it's not just the much blamed "filthy rich" who jet off to the USA for a weekend's shopping, it's apparently very popular even amongst relatively low income groups as they save a mint on shopping in the UK even when taking the fares into account. You can even get package deals, fly to an airport near a major shopping centre with a hotel nearby, land, do your shopping, stay in the nearby hotel, sod off again back to Blightly. The shops even deliver the goods you buy direct to the airport.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

It is currently very fashionable to promote the 'we are all guilty' view.

In reality personally produced pollution is trivial besides that produced by industry. The earlier example I gave of a car producing half its pollution when it is being manufactured is probably the best one as it means that cars that last a long time actually have the smallest environmental impact.

A twenty-five year old Jag has a sight less environmental impact than some ghastly 'lean burn' Honda that lasts seven years and drops to bits.

A fifty year old but well maintained Series II probably almost no environmental impact.

Reply to
William Black

Absolutly spot -on a producing a new car produces 42 tons of CO2 using it an average of twice the weight of the car annually in the case of a Landy

4.5 tons so if you extend that owning a car which lasts more than 9 years is really not producing any more C02 compared to a 1 ton piece of enviro- conning machinery which is scrap in 7 in fact it uses 18 tons more. Derek
Reply to
Derek

I don't think it's trivial, however it does depend on how you count, see below;

Sort of, in energy consumption terms a car eats more fuel while it's being driven than it does while it's being manufactured, the "environmental impact" of manufacturing it comes from the chemicals and pollutants being spewed into the environment, which is much more than that produced while it's being driven.

So basically driving a car for the average lifetime of a car eats more energy than making it, but making it produces more chemical pollutants than driving it.

The best thing to do is to make working from home the default, almost anyone who works at a desk can do their job from home, although teleworking does make it easier to outsource your job to someone in Outer Mongolia working for toffee apples.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

See below

Calculations as to how much energy a car uses in its lifetime are pretty slippery - the energy calculation in manufacture has to decide, for example, whether the steel used is made from ore or recycled steel (usually a mixture - but what percentages do you use?) and the energy costs will vary according to how much transport there is in the raw materials for example. Then you have to decide what happens to the vehicle when it is scrapped - how do you treat reuse of parts, for example? In practice these sort of calculations use estimates or averages (guesses) for all these figures. Then of course there is the biggie - how long the vehicle remains in service. This is what kills hybrid cars from the energy point of view - the battery life is usually less than 100,000 miles and the cost of replacement is so high that the vehicle is usually scrapped then. JD

Reply to
JD

Heh, when lumping all cars together into a large mass, what calculation doesn't become pretty slippery ;-)

Well you won't need to convince me of the fallacy of hybrid cars, the battery issue being a major problem what with the amount of nasty chemicals that go into making them, and all modern cars that have so much more electronics than the cars in the 1990's, which is when the calculations about how much energy etc a car took during manufacture were made. Today's cars don't seem likely to last as long and have a lot more plastic and electronics than their earlier equivalent, hybrid cars even more so.

Best bet IMHO is to leave the driving to those who need to or want to do it and to stop this daft commuting s**te, it's dangerous, wasteful, damaging and stressful to a lot of people. Bosses don't seem to like it though, the main reason I still work for my current employer is because I've not been into the office for years, I've turned down jobs worth more than an extra 30% a year because they wanted me to commute to London for a year before they'd let me work from home. Working in Dorset with no commute versus commuting to London and working in London, no contest. I wish industry would stop wasting our time, endangering our lives and causing chaos on the roads by being so bloody minded.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:42:57 +0100, "William Black" enlightened us thusly:

that, I have to say, is crap.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

case in point a certain grinning idiot was boasting how he had just changed the light bulbs in number 10 newsflash I did that 7 years ago how much has he wasted by not doing the job when I did- actually now I come to think of it that sums the guy up totally

Derek

Reply to
Derek

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.