Emissions, Politics, & Economic Car Life

[Toadshall]

Bureaucrats are hell-bent on reducing car emissions to the point of absurdity, and in the process forcing manufacturers to produce marginally reliable cars that are expensive to fully develop/test and for the owner to maintain/repair. Toyota and Honda are recent casualties in this process which is of marginal benefit for consumers. They are motivated and encouraged by the EU and central government, eager to reduce emissions associated with global warming

It is clear that running an older low technology car for a long time, even with its greater VED, makes economic sense, as the high cost of maintaining modern cars and their emission systems greatly exceeds the reduced VED benefit, and the financial loss each time a new car is purchased. The carbon cost of manufacturing a car and the eventual carbon cost of destroying it, greatly exceed the emissions saved during its life by way of its complex emissions control gear, assuming a car has a shelf life of seven years.

Governments have a conflict of interest by wishing to grow our national economy, eg by promoting Industrial growth, consumerism etc whilst promoting ever greener credentials. The by product of Industrial growth is raised carbon output, directly and indirectly, no matter how tightly controlled.

I wish to contribute to a lower carbon economy, but in a well considered and cost effective manner. Domestic and industrial waste needs to be reduced for example, which in effect means a reduction in our consumer economy. Let us also not forget that the principle source of CO2 in the world is by mammalian respiration, which I mention with a certain irony.

I own two cars, a 2001 Mercedes and a 1990 Astra SRI, both well maintained, but which add CO2 to the environment. I fervently believe that promoting lower levels of emissions control, and as a by-product, owners feeling more comfortable to keep simpler, more reliable technology for much longer, A huge improvement in reducing car emissions could be achieved. That of course would not be in the governments "tax take" or "economic growth" interest.

Lastly, may I remind everyone that the current Icelandic volcanic eruption has wiped out a decade of the worlds attempts to reduce harmful gas emissions by whatever means available to mankind.


Regards to All,


Toadshall

 

[Toadshall]

Thank you Shorty.

We, society, can never stop progress and should not try, but such ill informed decisions by politicians do little to benefit society and much to undermine it.

Cars today have shorter and shorter economic lives, as manufacturers have added ever greater technical complexity in there search to reduce engine emissions and beat EU minimum emission standards.

Much as I like my Merc', I would equally enjoy driving a Morris Minor if a modern but simple varient existed.

Regards,

Toadshall

 

[Neilos]

Thank you Shorty.

We, society, can never stop progress and should not try, but such ill informed decisions by politicians do little to benefit society and much to undermine it.

Cars today have shorter and shorter economic lives, as manufacturers have added ever greater technical complexity in there search to reduce engine emissions and beat EU minimum emission standards.

Much as I like my Merc', I would equally enjoy driving a Morris Minor if a modern but simple varient existed.

Regards,

Toadshall

Nobody in the government, or anyone likely to get in, really gives a stuff about the environment, they are just using the dogma to fill the coffers.

 

[grober]

Not sure what you are advocating? Stopping or markedly reducing new car manufacture or switching production to lighter simpler cars that last a very long time ? There are quite few of these around now if you care to look. Problem is not everyone wants to buy them?

p.s. Toyota and Honda still make the most reliable cars on the planet no matter what the media machine of a bankrupt American car manufacturing industry would like you to think .

 

[wemorgan]

I feel that a more naturally phasing out of older vehicles would have been more sensible than the Scrappage alternative, where otherwise roadworthy vehicles were crushed, but yet not always replaced with more economical cars.

 

[Toadshall]

Placing a quota on utilities usage above which consumers pay an increased tarriff would reduce consumption and focus minds

Reverting to simpler emissions systems of the type used in the 1980's: single point injection, mechanical cable operated throttles, flap type air mass meters, smaller capacity engines - combined with HMG encouragement to keep our cars longer.

The above may just be greener and simultaneously reduce our car maintenance bills per annum overall.

Regards

Toadshall

 

[Stratman]

They could make airlines pay their way but they won't.

I'd love to know why governments the world over hammer road transport in all its forms but run scared of taxing aviation fuel, or more precisely jet fuel.

 

[grober]

They could make airlines pay their way but they won't.

I'd love to know why governments the world over hammer road transport in all its forms but run scared of taxing aviation fuel, or more precisely jet fuel.

Never understood that one either.

 

[Colin_b]

Never understood that one either.

30 years ago my father said there were two things any government could safely tax without any fear of recrimination. Sex and driving.

He was right about one of them!

 

[wemorgan]

I'd love to know why governments the world over hammer road transport in all its forms but run scared of taxing aviation fuel, or more precisely jet fuel.

Is it because if aviation fuel taxation is too high people will stop or reduce the number of foreign holidays they take and therefore reduce the number of planes bought/sold, so having a high knock on effect on jobs.

But if you increase car fuel tax people may reduce their car use, but they will still own a car, so the number of cars bought/sold would be largely unchanged, so the same number of automotive jobs remain the same.

Just a thought.