True, was a story by word of mouth. Does raise a smile in an ironic sense though.
seatbelts
Aug 05, 2006
52 Replies
How did that increase pollution? still the same number of cars per day, no?
That was tried on Rome too - everyone bought a second car too - and used them, hence inceasing pollution *and* congestion outside the zone since they needed somewhere to park their new second vehicle, and making one-car familes two-car - hey I've got a car now, I might as well use it...... As ever, such plans are made by people "working" in Civil Service offices who have little understanding of real peoples day-to-day lives and the trials and tribulations they face[1].
Richard
[1] Personaly, I'd stick them in a village in the middle of Cumbria, on mimimum wage, with no assets (car, house, wealthy parents, etc) for a year. At the year end I'd listen to what thay have to say. In fact, that should be a required qualification before anyone could become a "planner".Richard
|||| Japanese ruled that only even reg could be used on even date days |||| etc. So they bought two cars ( odd / even ) and hence increased |||| pollution !! ||| ||| How did that increase pollution? still the same number of cars per ||| day, no? ||| || || That was tried on Rome too - everyone bought a second car too - || and used them, hence inceasing pollution *and* congestion outside || the zone since they needed somewhere to park their new second || vehicle, and making one-car familes two-car - hey I've got a car || now, I might as well use it...... As ever, such plans are made by || people "working" in Civil Service offices who have little || understanding of real peoples day-to-day lives and the trials and || tribulations they face[1].
Not forgetting the massive pollution cost of manufacturing all the extra vehicles. Wasn't it 80% of all pollution caused by a vehicle in its lifetime comes from manufacture and disposal?
In 1990 it was 66%, but these days cars have more electronics and gadgets and do more to the gallon, so it's anyone's guess now. As for hybrids, with lots of heavy-duty electronics and batteries, talk about a triumph of marketing. The motor industry must be laughing itself silly.
On or around Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:27:08 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:
I've heard a figure of 50%, but I don't have any idea of the accuracy.
The original study that I heard of said 66% of the pollution over the lifetime of a car, but I don't remember what they regarded as the "lifetime", I assumed the usual 12 years that the industry seems to regard as their parts supply obligation.
I'll have to hunt a URL down for it sometime, it was some university either in the UK or US, sometime in 1990 IIRC.
OI, we don't want them up here thank you very much. We have enough problems of our own without a load of winging townies complaining that the sheep make a noise, that the tractors leave the roads muddy or that muck spreading smells a bit.
Having said we don't want 'em up here. I think it would be an eye opener to a lot of people to experience what it is like to like in a remote rural community, preferably in winter. Similary a month on an inner city council estate.
Says Dave, Alston, North Pennines, Cumbria, Englands Last Wilderness. We are 20+ miles (40mins+) from any sizeable town (Penrith, Hexham, Brampton) in the winter all the roads out (5) are normally closed 2 or 3 times due to snow for a few hours, some are blocked for days.
|| On 2006-08-07, Richard Brookman || wrote: || ||| Not forgetting the massive pollution cost of manufacturing all the ||| extra vehicles. Wasn't it 80% of all pollution caused by a vehicle ||| in its lifetime comes from manufacture and disposal? || || In 1990 it was 66%
Do you have a source for that statistic? I've looked all over but can't find one, although I suspect it's true (and the Series owner in me wants it to be true) or thereabouts. It's a bit like the "90% of all Land Rovers ever built are still on the road" thing. You know it's got an element of truth in it, but pinning it down to a authoritative source is nigh impossible.
I'm trying to hunt it down, I first found the link to it on some bunnyhugger site,
formatting link
I think, and am trying to track it down again. I'll have another crack tomorrow. It was a study done by some university team or another, while there's obviously bad science around it's entirely believable when you consider that not only has ore to be extracted, but it then has to be refined, turned into ingots, then into sheets, then pressed, then assembled, then sold, all of these steps likely to involve transportation of the materials in between, often to other countries, plus of course the chemicals and energy used to perform the job itself.
OK here's two, they're both summaries of reports but have references to the originals if you want to chase it further;
The first is a summary of the report I was talking about originally, which isn't in english so I can't have read the original The summary has what I reckon are a few ambiguities in the figures, for example it states that waste produced during manufacture is 25,000 kg while during use it's "1,5000", is that a misplaced comma (meaning 15,000) or an added zero (meaning 1,500)?
formatting link
The second is a different one that comes to similar conclusions, but still puts the majority of damage on the manufacturing stage;
formatting link
While driving the car accounts for the majority of fuel use, in terms of poisons released into the environment both reports put manufacture as the chief evil.
|| On 2006-08-07, Ian Rawlings wrote: || ||| I'm trying to hunt it down, I first found the link to it on some ||| bunnyhugger site,
formatting link
I think, and am trying to track ||| it down again. I'll have another crack tomorrow. || || OK here's two, they're both summaries of reports but have references || to the originals if you want to chase it further; || || The first is a summary of the report I was talking about originally, || which isn't in english so I can't have read the original The summary || has what I reckon are a few ambiguities in the figures, for example || it states that waste produced during manufacture is 25,000 kg while || during use it's "1,5000", is that a misplaced comma (meaning 15,000) || or an added zero (meaning 1,500)? || ||
formatting link
|| || The second is a different one that comes to similar conclusions, but || still puts the majority of damage on the manufacturing stage; || ||
formatting link
|| || While driving the car accounts for the majority of fuel use, in terms || of poisons released into the environment both reports put manufacture || as the chief evil. || || -- || Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
Interesting reads, both of them. Thanks for looking them up.
when you consider that not
Entropy - whatever you do increases disorder in the universe. Trying to reverse disorder requires more disorder than the order you restore - same reason it is not possible to create perpetual motion.
( Boy that wine was good :-))) )
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required