H

Hirsty's

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6082690.stm

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.

--


" ..... it is the provenence of knowledge to speak, and it is the privelage
of wisdom to listen"


 
On 2006-10-25, Hirsty's <magnum.458@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> They dont even realize that "gas guzzlers" can be more efficient
> than small cars.

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

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
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


"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnejumgc.ljp.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2006-10-25, Hirsty's <magnum.458@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> They dont even realize that "gas guzzlers" can be more efficient
>> than small cars.
>
> More fundamentally they've not made the link between pollution and
> miles driven!
>
> --
> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!


 
On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:35:27 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<news06@tarcus.org.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-10-25, Hirsty's <magnum.458@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> They dont even realize that "gas guzzlers" can be more efficient
>> than small cars.
>
>More fundamentally they've not made the link between pollution and
>miles driven!

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"
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditations, VIII.16
 
On 2006-10-25, Austin Shackles <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:

> well, the emissions figures are g/km.

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.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 

"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnejv6us.ljp.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2006-10-25, Austin Shackles <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote:
>
>> well, the emissions figures are g/km.
>
> 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.

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...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.




 
On 2006-10-25, William Black <william_black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> Wrong.

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.

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

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

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 

"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnejv98v.ljp.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2006-10-25, William Black <william_black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Wrong.
>
> 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.
>
>> A standing vehicle rots away, the engine will drop to bits in a year if
>> it
>> isn't used.
>
> That's funny, I've had vehicles not used for a year that started fine! A
> miracle!
>
> --
> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

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.


 

"Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnejv98v.ljp.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2006-10-25, William Black <william_black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Wrong.
>
> 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.

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

>
> > A standing vehicle rots away, the engine will drop to bits in a year if
it
> > isn't used.
>
> That's funny, I've had vehicles not used for a year that started fine! A
miracle!
>
> --
> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!


 
Gary G Jones wrote:

> 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).
> GGJ

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.
 
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


"Hirsty's" <magnum.458@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:eRI%g.15558$gO3.12467@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> Why o why do we continue to be controlled by ar........es with no idea of
> green or planet saving ideas.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6082690.stm
>
> 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.
>
> --
>
>
> " ..... it is the provenence of knowledge to speak, and it is the
> privelage
> of wisdom to listen"
>
>
>


 
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 :eek:)

GGJ

>
> 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.


 
On 2006-10-25, Gary G Jones <ggjggjnospam@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> Ban ships :eek:)

ISTR that a flight to Miami produces as much ****e 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.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 

"Gary G Jones" <ggjggjnospam@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:l7Gdnck1SruFLaLYnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d@bt.com...
> 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 :eek:)

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.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.




 

"William Black" <william_black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ehocuu$6ql$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Gary G Jones" <ggjggjnospam@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:l7Gdnck1SruFLaLYnZ2dnUVZ8tqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> 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 :eek:)
>
> 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.
>
> --
> William Black
>
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.
>
>
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


 
On 2006-10-25, William Black <william_black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> In reality personally produced pollution is trivial besides that
> produced by industry.

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

> 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.

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.

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

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.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
Ian Rawlings wrote:

> On 2006-10-25, William Black <william_black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In reality personally produced pollution is trivial besides that
>> produced by industry.
>
> I don't think it's trivial, however it does depend on how you count, see
> below;
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

See below

>
>> A fifty year old but well maintained Series II probably almost no
>> environmental impact.
>
> 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.
>
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
 
On 2006-10-25, JD <jjd@spamlesstpgi.com.au> wrote:

> Calculations as to how much energy a car uses in its lifetime are
> pretty slippery

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

> 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.

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 ****e, 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.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On or around Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:42:57 +0100, "William Black"
<william_black@hotmail.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

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

that, I have to say, is crap.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)
 

"Cyberwraith" <jfnfy4evr@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0FN%g.43282$L.33773@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Ian Rawlings" <news06@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnejv98v.ljp.news06@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
>> On 2006-10-25, William Black <william_black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>> A standing vehicle rots away, the engine will drop to bits in a year if
>>> it
>>> isn't used.
>>
>> That's funny, I've had vehicles not used for a year that started fine! A
>> miracle!
>>
>> --
>> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
>
> 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.
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


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
OT Methane emmissions & MoT
Replies
6
Views
572
slob
S
H
Ramblers can't help themselves !!!
Replies
15
Views
896
Austin Shackles
A
H
OT Spam query ?
Replies
2
Views
410
Derek
D