EU 'should ban inefficient cars'

[Dieselman]

After all its not the motorists of the world that are causing the problems. Far from it.

Who says the motorist is the only party having sanctions emposed?

 

[Mr E]

It is such a shame that so many people have been taken in by the 'we must all do something or we will die' brigade. Sure, we should be aware of our impact upon the planet but lets be realistic about it and not simply blame the motorist. After all its not the motorists of the world that are causing the problems. Far from it.

Which - if you ignore the media headlines and actually look at what this article and other are advocating - is what the "experts" are telling us needs to happen. It's a reality (check the responses on this thread alone) that (generally speaking) we need to be forced to make a change that, although bringing about a collective good, do not appear to be good to the individual.

Ignoring global warming, climate change, ozone depletion, etc, would a move such as restricting emissions on cars, reducing energy consumption, forcing energy-saving features on new building, etc, (all from the article) be beneficial? Of course it would - any reduction in pollutants would be a good thing. But from the comments on here it's plain to see that relying on individuals doing the "good" thing just won't work.

That's the selfish side of human nature, unfortunately...

 

[glojo]

Ignoring global warming, climate change, ozone depletion, etc, would a move such as restricting emissions on cars, reducing energy consumption, forcing energy-saving features on new building, etc, (all from the article) be beneficial? Of course it would - any reduction in pollutants would be a good thing. But from the comments on here it's plain to see that relying on individuals doing the "good" thing just won't work.

That's the selfish side of human nature, unfortunately...

Very valid and constructive points, but would a carrot be a better incentive rather than a stick? instead of taxation, what about reward? readily available subsidy for cavity filling (for our teeth ) sorry about that. If we are serios about this then make energy saving items cheaper instead of making other things dearer by imposing taxation?

Here's a really radical thought anti PC thought
Instead of encouraging mother's with very young children to go out to work, how about encouraging them to remain at home and raise their own children? How many families now have gto have two cars because both parties go to work? How many nursery workers drive to the nursery where they will work all day looking after the babies that could remain at home?

Me and my mate are about to take cover

Regards
Johjn

 

[Alfie]

Hitting people with a stick doesnt always work. Witness the 'London driver tax' aka congestion charge. Done very little to ease congestion at all. People still pay it to drive in.

We (some of us) bring our kids up not to hit each other by not giving them the example of us hitting them when they are naughty. Punishment doesnt always work.

As John says, rather than hitting us with a stick until we are beaten into submission why not reward us instead. It's a simple principle that is being applied across the country in many schools and households yet we have a government who are hell bent on hitting us where it hurts!

I am not disagreeing that we have a responsibility to look after the planet. But we do need to get things into perspective by looking at the wider picture and not simply isolating an easily targetted taxation group.

 

[recycled]

Sir Mark said that we don't NEED a car that does 10-15 mpg - he's perfectly correct none of us need cars like that nor do we NEED 400 bhp.

What people want is very different from their needs

Sometimes we forget and get the two words mixed up

Andy

Agreed. we do not need gordon brown , houses of parliament or the royal family.

we also do not need the olympics or the increase in council tax that it would bring.

 

[recycled]

.

Whatever we may think and say (rant) we do indeed need to do something about fuel consumption and pollution so cars being a fairly major contributor are going to be targetted.
.

agree with diesel man here.
lets use all the petrol and oil so that it finishes.
We would now be forced by the unavailability and nature, to find new sources.
As long as oil is available and there is money to be made, from it by politicians and taxes, i am afraid we are all wasting out time .
So make petrol free now so it can all finish and run out soon.

The next cars will then have to run on crops or water or be undriveable period.

 

[recycled]

global warming/climate change (whatever it is called now) is directly linked with demand for energy resources by an ever increasing population.
Needless to say, if there are only 2 people in the planet, they will use less cars, drive less miles ,use less electricity and go on less holidays than 20million people.

See so let us start taxing big families instead of encouraging more children.
More kids more taxes and no more benefits paid to teenage mums. instead, tax them to death.

Not so easy is it? No easier to attack the soft option. Car drivers and law abiding citizens

 

[Birdman]

The research into climate was not anywhere near as advanced back then as it is now. Research into Global climate only started in earnest in approx 1990.
This is freely admitted by scientists.

And fifty years from now the same will be true of every piece of current published research on the reasons for climate change. Scientists' careers are driven by the same weaknesses as politicians and tradesmen - reward and public acclaim. Scentists will get the reasons for climate change all wrong because they are being pressurised by people, like you and millions of others, for quick answers to huge and complex issues that frankly they do not sufficiently understand. So, like doctors did until the early in the 20th century who used blood-letting to cure every condition including anaemia, they come up with the same wrong answers.

Was that scientists claiming that? I thought it was computer engineers and marketers..

No, it was computer designers, computer scientists, computer engineers, system analysts, corporate management, software developers (I worked with all of the above) and of course politicians on the make and off it, end of the millenarium nutcases, newspaper proprietors looking to sell papers, television producers, management consultants....everyone 'in the know' got suckered into it (except the Italians, the Chinese and the rest of the developing world).

 

[Dieter]

Hi Birdman,

I think you are being a tad disparaging of scientists.

Let's be fair when blood letting was 'all the rage' there was very little known about human physiology.

You must agree that technology has moved on and whilst I agree scientists are only human they don't just 'come up' with these hypotheses whilst sitting on the 'bog'. They look at the data (satellites, CO2 concentrations, Arctic/Antarctic ice sheets etc. etc.) and from this data a concensus hypothesis "that man may be significantly contributing to a phenomenon termed 'global warming' " has been presented.

Of course that's not proof........ and personally I feel that this problem is insoluble because it's a side-effect (of the World's ever increasing population).

Unfortunately it's left to Politicians to make decisions as to how to react to this hypothesis and, I think most of us agree, that they (Politicians) don't appear yet to have a rationale, holistic approach (apart from tax (car use ) and waste)

Either the scientists, who you so disparage, come up with viable alternative energy sources or we're all (eventually) f..... (for it )

Cheers,

 

[scumbag]

Needless to say, if there are only 2 people in the planet, they will use less cars, drive less miles ,use less electricity and go on less holidays than 20million people.

they would probably kill each other with bare hands.

 

[Mr E]

Hitting people with a stick doesnt always work. Witness the 'London driver tax' aka congestion charge. Done very little to ease congestion at all. People still pay it to drive in.

We (some of us) bring our kids up not to hit each other by not giving them the example of us hitting them when they are naughty. Punishment doesnt always work.

As John says, rather than hitting us with a stick until we are beaten into submission why not reward us instead. It's a simple principle that is being applied across the country in many schools and households yet we have a government who are hell bent on hitting us where it hurts!

I am not disagreeing that we have a responsibility to look after the planet. But we do need to get things into perspective by looking at the wider picture and not simply isolating an easily targetted taxation group.

Unfortunately the so-called stick approach is the one that's proven to work. All the congestion charge has proved is that it is wrong - the market can afford to buck the system. Something more radical such as higher taxation of business in city centres, more control on commercial city centre development, etc, would prove better. We need to break the mould of outdated work practice that requires us to enter offices when we don't need to. Give people the choice (in a general sense) and they look after a selfish interest (I want to do/own something, I don't want to change 'cos that's difficult, etc) - force people to do it and although they'll kick and scream the job gets done and it settles down.

To stick to motoring matters, consider drink/driving and seatbelts. Who would argue nowadays that these are not good, yet it required the stick of legislation to achieve.

 

[recycled]

not for me mate. i would always wear a belt stick or not and i do not drink anyway .
I just want to enjoy the fruits of my hard labour and listen to the throb of a V8.
As the saying goes do not tax or kill the technology, just change the technology.
On pimp my ride there was a 800bhp car that thrashed a gallardo and it was powered by rapeseed oil.
my point is the greed of politicians is too much so engineers are getting frustrated.
When they change it, they will still be another excuse to tax it.
first it was leaded petrol, then unleaded came, still taxed, then hybrids , even if a car runs on water, some scientist will say the water levels are dwindling or there is too much steam in the air. TAx it.
We all know toyota, BMW and GM have cars that run on O2 and hydrogen. where are they all hiding the cars or is this another ecclesgate tobacco?

 

[glojo]

If we have this expert praising tis eco friendly economical car then why is he pushing that particular set-up and how comes that particular arrangement is favoured over a diesel\electric car. Surely a low revving diesel with lots of torque would be a much better option than a higher revving lees Torquay (get it) petrol? Could it be that fashion or fad has over-ruled economy, less wear, and perhaps less pollution? As usual I fera we are being used. The Prius and the Honda equivalent are more status symbol than the best step forward into conserving our fossil fuels or is it me being cynical? Big bad Americans are still not happy about using diesel cars ad we mustn't upset them must we? Far better for us to make the sacrifices that our masters are not prepared to take?? Is a diesel a better choice for these dual powered vehicles?

Regards
John

 

[Dieselman]

We all know toyota, BMW and GM have cars that run on O2 and hydrogen. where are they all hiding the cars or is this another ecclesgate tobacco?

Hydrogen power isn't ever going to happen because it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen then it gives back burning it. Add to that the lack of range and storage issues and you can see it's impractical to say the least.

Maybe the lure of hydrogen cells is the motor manufacturers way of keeping the IC engine going for longer.

 

[Dieselman]

Is a diesel a better choice for these dual powered vehicles?

Of course it is but selling into the USA has strangled development so far.

Mercedes and Cirtoen have them on the blocks but release dates are not soon.

 

[recycled]

Hydrogen power isn't ever going to happen because it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen then it gives back burning it. Add to that the lack of range and storage issues and you can see it's impractical to say the least.

Maybe the lure of hydrogen cells is the motor manufacturers way of keeping the IC engine going for longer.

not impractical.It is challenging but not impractical.
Lack of range is the unwillingness to build service stations which is not our fault.
people have lpg tanks and they are about the same size for hydrogen.
extraction can be done with electrolysis from water.
Surely taxing is not the way forward.
We have been taxed for decades and the temperatures are still rising but some people are getting very rich.
this is not about climate change, it is about money making.
If there is a billion dollar grant and a tax free to any car that goes hydrgen cell power announcement, there will be one built by a manufacturer in six months believe me.
The hybrids toyota makes was because of the congestion charge yet they are more polluting than the VW blue motion which has to pay.

 

[Alfie]

To stick to motoring matters, consider drink/driving and seatbelts. Who would argue nowadays that these are not good, yet it required the stick of legislation to achieve.

Disagree with the comparison. And it certainly hasn't been achieved.

Taxation of the motorist is unavoidable. They tax we have to pay. IF you dont wear your seat belt then you run a risk of a fine if caught. Hardly likely these days as there are very few police officers on the roads. Ditto if you drink and drive. Very unlikely to get caught these days unless you have an accident. Besides DD is responsible for 8% of all accidents. What have the government done about the other 92% of incompetants on the road. Nowt.

As an aside, we kill more people in hospitals because of Cdif and MRSA than died last year in all the plane crashes in the world added up plus all the motoring deaths on the UK roads! But hey, lets all berate the motorist for polluting and driving too fast. But then again you cant raise taxes from killing people in hospitals can you.

 

[Dieselman]

not impractical.It is challenging but not impractical.
Lack of range is the unwillingness to build service stations which is not our fault.
people have lpg tanks and they are about the same size for hydrogen.
extraction can be done with electrolysis from water.
Surely taxing is not the way forward.
We have been taxed for decades and the temperatures are still rising but some people are getting very rich.
this is not about climate change, it is about money making.
If there is a billion dollar grant and a tax free to any car that goes hydrgen cell power announcement, there will be one built by a manufacturer in six months believe me.
The hybrids toyota makes was because of the congestion charge yet they are more polluting than the VW blue motion which has to pay.

Lack of range and a large super strong tank in the boot are a significant problem so is the actual delivery and storage.
Delivering fuel takes energy and costs money, it doesn't make sense to have an inefficient fuel.
Imagine a tanker delivering hydrogen actually running on it. It would use the load before it got to the filling station.

Electrolsys is how hydrogen is made, but it requires more energy to extract it than it yeilds when burnt. I can't see how this can be worthwhile.

Taxation is the only way most people will change lifestyle. We see that on this forum.

Have we been taxed with regard to emissions for decades.? I certainly am not aware of that.

Toyota don't make hybrids to combat our congestion charge, if they did they would cost about £1M each. They are made for the USA market and outsell ours by about 1000 to 1.

 

[recycled]

are you suggesting that if we continue to be taxed like this it will sort out global warming?
No it would just make the rich pollute more and the poor will suffer for it as they cannot afford private heath care.
like everything else that is wrong in a capitalist society the rich do what they like and the poor suffer for it.
As for the hybrids in the USA i see it has not sorted their climate problem has it?

The nerve the west has trying to blame india and china for pollution. an area with like half the worlds population is causing less than half of the poluution in an area that has less than a quater of the worlds pollution.

africa is as hot as can be but there are countries where you do not se a car or vehicle for days.

As you say hydrogen does not work. so since other causes like industry, tv on standby and heating homes are also to blame, let us tax families according to size and quantity to discourage large families because the more people there are,the more they will demand energy.
I suggest £200 a year for each child going up to £300 if he/she has a weight of over 85kg. equivalent to charging V8 car higher.

In other words what i am saying is no matter what i do in my own little way, the rich will continue polluting (i am not rich) while the poor (i am not poor) will keep paying the price in higher bills they cannot afford and higher public transport.

 

[Dieselman]

are you suggesting that if we continue to be taxed likr thios it will sort out global warming?

No...We need much higher taxes to sort that out......