Bad News For Motorists..

[Tuna Sandwich]

I just used the calculator on that site LONAN3 posted to see how bad my impact is, knowing I am well below average. It is only interested in the number of flights you take per year and the car you drive. It does not matter what else you put in regarding oil and gas consumption, even if you put it to the maximum. What a load of crap!

[Miss Take]

THIS ONE?

 

but THIS might be worth a look first!

 

I suppose at the end of the day, it comes down to whose 'facts' you choose to believe

[The Bastard]

You shouldn't believe all the "Climate Porn" you read in the media - there's scarcely a story on the BBC website that doesn't mention the big, bad global warming wolf somewhere these days.

 

Climatology is an inexact science. As has already been mentioned, the climate has varied considerably in the last thousand years - grapes were being grown almost 400 miles north of their current range during the middle ages, followed by a "mini ice-age" where temperatures slumped well below their current level.

 

I'd argue that Carbon Dioxide is a possible culprit for climate change, but one amongst many. For most Governments, Global Warming hysteria is a nice little earner - taxing vehicles and waste will bring in lots of cash, but has relatively little actual effect on the amount of global warming pollutants. Environmental policy is driven by economics - every week, container-loads of UK rubbish go to Asia so that the UK can stay within its agreed waste limits. All that shipping must create a large amount of emissions, and at the end of the day the rubbish is still disposed of in pretty much the same way.

 

A single cow produces half a million cubic centimetres of methane per day, and methane is several magnitudes greater than Carbon Dioxide in producing global warming. But we're not interested in that stuff - it's all about extra taxes on 4WD's and lip-service to an environmental fad.

 

Why should the IOM take unilateral action anyway ? The amount of miles most of us drive is insignificant in real terms, compared with somehwere like the UK or USA. The IOM isn't even a drop in the ocean compared to big polluters. Why aren't we devoting our efforts to lobby the big polluters, which would be far more effective ? Isn't it all just lip service to a fad - a need to appear to be doing something, whilst having sod all actual benefit ?

[Stu Peters]

Forgive my cynicism, but isn't Al Gore the former Vice President and the leading Democratic Party hopeful for 2008?

 

All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.

 

The United States is unusual among the industrial democracies in the rigidity of the system of ideological control - "indoctrination," we might say - exercised through the mass media.

 

Noam Chomsky

[Albert Tatlock]

...A single cow produces half a million cubic centimetres of methane per day...

[matty]

You shouldn't believe all the "Climate Porn" you read in the media - there's scarcely a story on the BBC website that doesn't mention the big, bad global warming wolf somewhere these days.

 

Climatology is an inexact science. As has already been mentioned, the climate has varied considerably in the last thousand years - grapes were being grown almost 400 miles north of their current range during the middle ages, followed by a "mini ice-age" where temperatures slumped well below their current level.

 

I'd argue that Carbon Dioxide is a possible culprit for climate change, but one amongst many. For most Governments, Global Warming hysteria is a nice little earner - taxing vehicles and waste will bring in lots of cash, but has relatively little actual effect on the amount of global warming pollutants. Environmental policy is driven by economics - every week, container-loads of UK rubbish go to Asia so that the UK can stay within its agreed waste limits. All that shipping must create a large amount of emissions, and at the end of the day the rubbish is still disposed of in pretty much the same way.

 

A single cow produces half a million cubic centimetres of methane per day, and methane is several magnitudes greater than Carbon Dioxide in producing global warming. But we're not interested in that stuff - it's all about extra taxes on 4WD's and lip-service to an environmental fad.

 

Why should the IOM take unilateral action anyway ? The amount of miles most of us drive is insignificant in real terms, compared with somehwere like the UK or USA. The IOM isn't even a drop in the ocean compared to big polluters. Why aren't we devoting our efforts to lobby the big polluters, which would be far more effective ? Isn't it all just lip service to a fad - a need to appear to be doing something, whilst having sod all actual benefit ?

 

 

Kind of like saying "I'm not as bad a polluter as him, therefore there's no need for me to do anything".

 

I think it is something we could all work on, IMHO the sooner they put a huge road tax on the 'Chelsea tractors' the better - there's absolutely no excuse for mothers taking one or two kids to school in a huge 4WD, double parking, making the roads much more dangerous for other users, it's the height of arrogance and selfishness!

 

There is absolutely no need to have a 4WD unless you own a farm, or have a valid need for one for work (builder/contractor etc).

 

I say tax all 4WD's somewhere between £1000 to £2000 a year unless it has a valid work purpose (you should have to prove it is needed for 'off road' use in your employment).

 

This way, the people who actually need one of these vehicles for work, can carry on, and the people who have them just for pose/ponce value.

 

Might make the roads abit safer for all of us!

[Lost Login]

Not Really The Competitive Institute is heavily funded by petroleum companies etc and the author of the piece has a reputation for selecting parts of scientific papers to support his case which are a total misrepresentation of the paper. The following is an example

 

http://munews.missouri.edu/NewsBureauSingl...cfm?newsid=9842

 

This includes the example used by those who state that Global warming is a myth and this can be shown as the ice sheets are not melting. The author of the report is a bit miffed as:

- His study only reported growth for the East Antarctic ice sheet, not the entire Antarctic ice sheet.

- Growth of the ice sheet was only noted on the interior of the ice sheet and did not include coastal areas. Coastal areas are known to be losing mass, and these losses could offset or even outweigh the gains in the interior areas.

- The fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global climate warming.

 

This though is at odds that Global warming is a myth so only a part of a report is quoted to deliberately give a misleading impression.

 

THIS ONE?

 

but THIS might be worth a look first!

[Amadeus]

I think it is something we could all work on, IMHO the sooner they put a huge road tax on the 'Chelsea tractors' the better - there's absolutely no excuse for mothers taking one or two kids to school in a huge 4WD, double parking, making the roads much more dangerous for other users, it's the height of arrogance and selfishness!

 

There is absolutely no need to have a 4WD unless you own a farm, or have a valid need for one for work (builder/contractor etc).

 

I say tax all 4WD's somewhere between £1000 to £2000 a year unless it has a valid work purpose (you should have to prove it is needed for 'off road' use in your employment).

 

This way, the people who actually need one of these vehicles for work, can carry on, and the people who have them just for pose/ponce value.

 

Might make the roads abit safer for all of us!

The problem is, where do you stop with limiting free choice? First 4x4s, then why not include big Mercs, or Porsches - way to big and fast - no need...

 

Although I also think that something like an X5 has very limited use, it's still a free country (well, supposed to be, anyway) and if we go by that suggestion, then we're all gonna drive Toyota shoeboxes soon. Plus, don't forget that car manufacturers usually introduce new safety and technology developments in their big and expensive models first - once the development has been paid for by them, you get the stuff in the smaller models.

 

I'd rather see a push towards more walking schoolbuses and kids cycling to school again, which could reduce the 4x4 schoolrun rally considerably...

[Stu Peters]

Kind of like saying "I'm not as bad a polluter as him, therefore there's no need for me to do anything".

 

I think it is something we could all work on, IMHO the sooner they put a huge road tax on the 'Chelsea tractors' the better - there's absolutely no excuse for mothers taking one or two kids to school in a huge 4WD, double parking, making the roads much more dangerous for other users, it's the height of arrogance and selfishness!

 

There is absolutely no need to have a 4WD unless you own a farm, or have a valid need for one for work (builder/contractor etc).

 

I say tax all 4WD's somewhere between £1000 to £2000 a year unless it has a valid work purpose (you should have to prove it is needed for 'off road' use in your employment).

 

This way, the people who actually need one of these vehicles for work, can carry on, and the people who have them just for pose/ponce value.

 

Might make the roads abit safer for all of us!

 

Bit mean Matty - I'm no fan of 4 x 4's either, but it's not really fair to discriminate against people who ARE. What next - sports cars ('nobody needs that kind of performance')?

 

The other problem with your argument is that you're messing with a primal force. Motherhood and the genetic programming to protect your offspring at ANY cost.

 

The big lie of course is that big Jeepsters are safer, because they're built from girders. Anyone who understands basic vehicle dynamics will realise that primary safety involves manoeverability, which these monster trucks are spectacularly incapable of. They don't go round corners very well, don't brake particularly well, and overtake so slowly that you're in danger for longer.

 

I'm with you on the arrogance of some of their drivers - and that should be curtailed by the cops and some high visibility bookings. But I don't think they produce many more emissions than lots of other vehicles.

[Albert Tatlock]

Bit mean Matty - I'm no fan of 4 x 4's either, but it's not really fair to discriminate against people who ARE. What next - sports cars ('nobody needs that kind of performance')?

SUVs should be off the road, primarily because they are not compatible with other cars. Look at the height at which they hit other cars

and

.

 

You have little chance in a normal vehicle if you get hit by one of these things. People might say 'so what about trucks and vans etc.' - but the difference is that SUVs are driven just like other cars - and do not have restrictions on them like trucks and vans. I think on the compatibility basis alone they should be discouraged for everyday usage.

[Lost Login]

I quite like the idea of banning all petroleum based cars in the Island. OK I appreciate that is not practicle in tems of back and forth to the UK, deliveries etc but I would guess the majority of cars do not leave the Island or do much mileage. We are not there yet but I think electric cars are now doing 200 miles on a charge and I presume this will increase greatly over the years and prices will come down.

 

At that point a gradual phase over would be nice and for those of us who think of cars only as a means of transport it might be quite nice walking along the prom without traffic noises, badley maintained cars belching out fuels. They could be recharged overnight when the electricity demand is low keeping the power station busy and rather buying petrol we would have higher electric bills helping the MEA pay off its loans.

 

Ok a bit tongue in cheek but with fuel cells research etc who says in 50 years petroleum will be the primary fuel source for cars.

 

 

 

Bit mean Matty - I'm no fan of 4 x 4's either, but it's not really fair to discriminate against people who ARE. What next - sports cars ('nobody needs that kind of performance')?

[Max Power]

Quite a few 4x4's are as economical as some medium sized estate or saloon cars, so the current media witch hunt and rabble rousing exercise is not totally factual.

Also consider large hybrid vehicles which are quite high performance and low emissions with good economy?

 

All this nonsense is just the usual ploy to get the poor old gullible general public to rise up against a percieved threat from wealthier than average citizens who choose a vehicle which gets the goat of the average joe!

 

Why not back up all these claims with meaningful accurate statistics, instead of quoting the Daily Mail?

 

We really are heading back to 1984 with all this crap and PC rubbish, no individuality can't be allowed to think differently than the all powerful Big Brother state!

[Tuna Sandwich]

THE TRUTH???

 

If Diesel engines had to conform to anywhere near the standards imposed on petrol. manufacturers would not bother. Electric systems require an overnight charge. That will come from the gas powered, Pulrose station. Where is the saving there? The lost energy between the burning of the gas to driving the car the following day is massive. Generally 40%. That is why they are not everywhere.

 

4X4 "things" are great for farms and proper off road issues. They are the worst thing ever thought of for the school run. They have fuck all visibility. According to Top Gear (cannot find the link quickly) they account for around 50% of pedestrian "accidents", most involving children, other peoples children. Remember, your children maybe the "other peoples children" next time you see an X5 outside the school

[Alias]

Generally 40%.

Petrol engines have an efficiency of about ~30% and diesels about ~40%.

 

At least with mains power you can easily plug in renewable energy sources, and gradually lessen your dependence on fossil fuels.

[maggle]

Ah! the 4x4 rant. I was wondering when this would pop up.

 

Having owned a number of 4x4 "monster trucks" I tend to agree with the whole school run thing and driving around town, these cars were not designed for such a job. However, the person who has bought the car has probably done so by choice, exercising their freedom to choose the car they want, I don't have a problem with that. You can drive what you want , if you want a 4x4 gas guzzler that eats tyres and returns shitty MPG, fair enough, you have made your choice. What pisses me off with the whole 4x4 issue is people who think it is their god given right to criticise others for making a choice. They paid their money, they bought the car. There are more important things to be concerned about in life.