EU 'should ban inefficient cars'

[whitenemesis]

Human created emissions account for ~0.5% of total CO2 per annum.

Global warming is nowt but politics.

Fossil fuels will out last >5 generations.

Nuclear power (FBR) can supply the worlds needs many times over.

The nuclear "threat" is here now, building more reactors will do nothing to increase the threat.

The only thing holding humanity back from unlimited power, resource, mobility is...... politics

But I'm a research scientist, what do I know?

 

[Dieselman]

I accept that fossil fuel is not a bottomless reservoir which will never run out but are you suggesting there is a cause for concern?


Regards
John

Well, if we could obtain some truthful, meaningful statistics of actual reserves held from oil companies I think we would find we are well on the way to using up the resource.
As it is they overstate their reserves to bolster company value.

The price of oil has risen for a reason and the trend shows no sign of reversing.

 

[Dieselman]

But I'm a research scientist, what do I know?

Not sure, what do you know.? Can you qualify your statements.?

 

[whitenemesis]

Global warming was atheory put forward by a Swedish scientist 50yrs ago and discredited by the science community. It was lost until a politician ressurected it to suport his party's "green" campaign.

The panel of >2000 "scientists" that signed up to the "gobal warming" proclamation... ~20 were scientists the rest were non-science members of political panels..

Oceans generate more than 90% of CO2 emisions annually.

Ice core evidence does not support the theory that human industrialisation sparked the current increase in global temperatures, we are still emerging from the last ice age.

CO2 levels and temperature increase are approx 100yrs out of sinc.

 

[Dieselman]

Oceans generate more than 90% of CO2 emisions annually.

I'm sure you're wrong here, or at least making this too simplistic. The oceans do give off quantities of Co2 but they absorb the same amount.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/carbon_cycle/intro_global.html


I think you will find these people disagree with your point of view.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

 

[BTB 500]

So which is worse for the environment ... my gas guzzling 5 litre V8 that does around 2,000 miles per year (I commute by public transport), or a 35 mpg car doing 12,000 miles a year?

 

[dsolds]

can't agree here, I am dead against nationalisation, it doesn't work.

Who mentioned nationalisation? I certainly didn't. You're quite correct, it doesn't work.
But, to make our own industries competitive (and therefore able to survive) we need more efficient systems of transport and lower taxation. How about building railways that run through the centre of commercial areas?

We should look to reduce our own emissions irrespective of what others do and although we like to blame other countries that are building fossil fuelled power stations, it needs to be noted that they also have greater use of renewable energy than we do, and use less energy generally.

How many wind farms are there in China? (other than the ones they send to us in kit form that is.

If you can find any other machine that operates at 25% maximum efficiency then please present it.

You mean other than some of my colleagues? Or more seriously, the steam engines that dear Mr Dibnah (god rest him) loved so much.
Sure the IC engine is innefficient in raw terms but it is still the most practical solution. I am of the opinion that the hybrid thing is a gimmick. The batteries will probably be a bad headache when it comes to recycling time and the power used to charge them has to come from somewhere. Brake regeneration is one thing but just as an engine uses more fuel when the electrical load is higher, so will it when the alternator is charging the batteries, not to mention all that extra weight in the first place.
If we are serious about electrical power in cars then we have to become more nuclear otherwise the pollution is merely shifted from the tailpipe to the power station.

Facts are facts. We have to face them sometime as yopu rightly point out, but I suggest we should look at correct facts.
the days of everyone using the train to go everywhere are gone. That Genie is now out of the bottle and the car was largely responsible for that. But, we could get the commuters back on the train if it:
a. went where we wanted to go
b. was cost effective
c. was a clean, relaxing and pleasant experience

And, as WHITENEMESIS points out, not all CO2 is generated by humans. Perhaps if we all became veggies then those nasty methane-producing cows would not be adding to the problem. Not to mention all the carbon offset from growing all the extra veg.

Not intending to sound sarcastic here (honest) but where do we start and stop? I suggest the IC engine is the least of our worries.

 

[Dieselman]

So which is worse for the environment ... my gas guzzling 5 litre V8 that does around 2,000 miles per year (I commute by public transport), or a 35 mpg car doing 12,000 miles a year?

Bill, you know better than to compare apples to oranges.

Per mile your V8 5 litre is worse.

 

[whitenemesis]

Well, if we could obtain some truthful, meaningful statistics of actual reserves held from oil companies I think we would find we are well on the way to using up the resource.
As it is they overstate their reserves to bolster company value.

The price of oil has risen for a reason and the trend shows no sign of reversing.

The reason is OPEC control the flow of oil and therefore the price. Reserves far outstrip demand but how quickly do you want to deplete them?
For OPEC, as slowly as possible. For the rest of us, the sooner we switch to renewable, or more realistically, nuclear power, the better.

Remember 80+% of what we pay is tax, nothing to do with availability.

Desperation drives invention, the sooner oil (fosil fuels generally) runs out the quicker we will embrace alternatives, with whatever compromises that entails.

 

[whitenemesis]

I'm sure you're wrong here, or at least making this too simplistic. The oceans do give off quantities of Co2 but they absorb the same amount.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/carbon_cycle/intro_global.html


I think you will find these people disagree with your point of view.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Of course they will, scientists have their views as much as any other. Theories and postulations are there to be challenged. Theories gain acceptance only when the majority have challenged them and failed.

To challenge "global warming" is currently career suicide

 

[grober]

But I'm a research scientist, what do I know?

Well I for one am quite intrigued. You certainly speak with authority and may well have some unique insight into these problems. You say you are a research scientist. What's your current line of research? Do you work in private industry or for a government agency or university? Are you working the field of climatology or environmental science? Have you had any papers on the subject published recently in high impact journals?

 

[dsolds]

The reason is OPEC control the flow of oil and therefore the price. Reserves far outstrip demand but how quickly do you want to deplete them?
For OPEC, as slowly as possible. For the rest of us, the sooner we switch to renewable, or more realistically, nuclear power, the better.

Remember 80+% of what we pay is tax, nothing to do with availability.

Desperation drives invention, the sooner oil (fosil fuels generally) runs out the quicker we will embrace alternatives, with whatever compromises that entails.

Something else which occurs to me, (and Dieselman, you are correct that a 5.0 V8 is worse pro-rata, but not overall) is this.
There are currently approx 20-something million cars on UK roads if memory serves.
the AA reckon on 12k / year as average mileage.
That's 240000000000 miles
at an average of, say, 25mpg that becomes 9,600,000,000 gallons or 43,584,000,000 litres.
at 1.05 / litre of which approx 75% is tax that is roughly £36,610,560,000.00. 36 billion quid in tax.
Right. So we all start doing 35 mpg.
I reckon on approximately 10 billion as a hole in the finances. Where will this come from? Probably more tax on petrol I guess.
All this before we take into account the lorries and coaches etc who use one heck of a lot of fuel as well.
Hey, how about this for an idea?
36 billion a year = almost 100 million quid a day. If we all stay home and don't use our cars, how long would it take to put the public finances right off track. :bannana:

My point is this. What Sir Mark would have us believe is rhetoric. The government couldn't afford the loss in revenue. Thus the only explanation is that it is yet more spin, and nowt to do with climate change.

 

[BTB 500]

Bill, you know better than to compare apples to oranges.

Per mile your V8 5 litre is worse.

So on that basis historic cars in museums (which do no miles at all) should be crushed because of their poor "per mile" emission figures?

That's clearly nonsense, it's only the ACTUAL emissions that matter to the environment. And those are based just as much on miles covered as they are the "per mile" emission value. To take either in isolation is meaningless.

 

[whitenemesis]

Well I for one am quite intrigued. You certainly speak with authority and may well have some unique insight into these problems. You say you are a research scientist. What's your current line of research? Do you work in private industry or for a government agency or university? Are you working the field of climatology or environmental science? Have you had any papers on the subject published recently in high impact journals?

I am not connected with any government agency. My research is not climatology. I am privy to papers and discussion in the field. My contracts preclude me from publishing.
I recognise I argue from a position of weakness.... but not ignorance.

 

[hawk20]

My point is this. What Sir Mark would have us believe is rhetoric. The government couldn't afford the loss in revenue. Thus the only explanation is that it is yet more spin, and nowt to do with climate change.

I am afraid that is just not correct. It is exactly the argument lots of people used to say the govt would not ban smoking in public places etc etc. It matters not a jot if the revenue from fuel falls as the govt can always raise the revenue with different taxes. It could be taxes per mile, taxes on new cars, vehicle excise, etc etc. Lots of ways.

What motorists need to accept is that unless we can disprove the theory that global warming is partly caused by humans then we are definitely in for more and more restrictions from Westminster and Europe. You can either clobber less well off people with taxes and reduce CO2 that way (drive lower income people off the road -or at least cause them to drastically cut their mileage as Ken does in London) or you can use regulation instead of (or as well as) taxation. High band G taxes will force many out of bigger cars but not the rich. Should we let them go on buying gas guzzlers even though that will mean harsher measures to reduce our CO2? NO. I think the ex Chairman of Shell makes a perfectly valid point. Ban new cars -after fair warning- with CO2 levels above a certain level; ban the production of stupid and useless cars that do speeds that are not legal in almost all Euro countries, and maybe have limiters on all cars (as Mercedes tried to get all to do). The more we do in these ways the less we need to be clobbered by taxation to meet British, EU, and world targets.

Can anyone seriously support the childish and damaging arms race between Merc and BMW and also others. The E class used to have 2.8 litres as its biggest engine. Now it is 6.2/3 litres. All to please the US and to show who can make the biggest.

 

[scumbag]

Can anyone seriously support the childish and damaging arms race between Merc and BMW and also others. The E class used to have 2.8 litres as its biggest engine. Now it is 6.2/3 litres. All to please the US and to show who can make the biggest.

Surely thats because they can sell them to make money? If you take away the market, nobody will make them. But as they do, the suggestion is, ban them being made, then it doesn't matter what they want, they can't have.

The mission creep on congestion charging, is now clearing the air in London. So the rest of the UK can have filthy emissions and thats okay it seems. According to Ken it is. Then we will all move to london and live in his Utopia?

Man has lost the plot with that one.

But at what speed do we set the upper limit?
155mph that is the norm for all but the low volume specialist stuff like Astons, Bentley etc and the Odd Vauxhall? 70mph to save fuel. 50mph to save more, why not 20mph or is that daft?

What do these gaz guzzeller types think about the Lotus Elise? Even lotus admits you would be hard pressed to find a road long enough to get the latest SC verison to 150mph.

You can reduce petrol consumption and still have terrible emissions. You can reduce the emissions by cleaning the gases and still have bad consumption.

But why not make them clean and efficient and still have big thumping V8's

If they are setting CO2 reduction limits, why not set MPG targets too?

you could do a under 100bhp, over 90mpg, less than 100g/m CO2.
Over 100-300, 80mph less than 105 co2. 300+ 60mpg less 120co2.

and see what happens.

Banning big car engines just puts small engines back in big cars. Banning big cars, just puts more small cars on the road.

Charging people to drive them just puts more money in the coffers.

Setting targets, and requiring them to be met, allows market forces to dictate how many are sold, and gives consumers choice and prevents damage to the earth and its natural resources, which in turn does away with the argument that all these lefty greeny types keep banging on about. Then they may just start tackling yob culture, the NHS, racial divide, poor-rich economic wealth spread, curing cancer AIDS etc.

You can't smoke, you can't drink. Now you can't buy big engined cars? They will be telling us next you can't play with guns

 

[Robbo]

Can anyone seriously support the childish and damaging arms race between Merc and BMW and also others. The E class used to have 2.8 litres as its biggest engine. Now it is 6.2/3 litres. All to please the US and to show who can make the biggest.

Surely this will have to stop sometime in the near future. I hope so.

I wont be buying a big petrol engined car again, that's for sure.

 

[mattc]

I will be buying big engined cars in the future! As long as they are second hand and have taken a massive hit on the depreciation. I do 6-7K per year and, frankly, can afford the juice.

I look at many peoples "lifestyles" and see the senseless waste in them be that in terms of leaving heating, lighting, wasted journeys (how many of you say "I just pop and get...") instead of waiting 12hrs when you HAVE to do another journey? I see the rubbish that people put in their shopping trolleys and the food miles on that makes me cringe.

so thank you everyone else - I will have my vecarious pleasure from my car - i will pay the tax for it and will play along with the BS that is "global warming and climate change when governments the world over get their acts together (good job i am not holing my breathe waiting for that eh!)

the absolute reality is the planet does ont care what we do - i will continue. we might extinguish life on this planet and its a barren wilderness for a billion years - it WILL come back .

i refuse to believe half the lick spittles who come on the tele pontificating how we need to live our lives i really wish they would disappear up their own cavities.

Glad i got that off my chest - time for some toast

 

[dsolds]

Love to see someone having a rant!

well said and i concur wholeheartedly.

Ahem.....

 

[mattc]

Ahem.....

I tell you what; this glass house i live in is very draughty at the moment