Why buy new diesel cars?

[Dodgy]

Because many people simply don't believe statistics anymore. Each group giving them out seems to have an agenda and a twist.



If it was that bad it would not be allowed.

If you don't believe a statistic, try and find out if it's true or not. Often it's not that hard.

I found out today that one of the main sources of insight into the health effects of pollution is a study that says this: "Applied to environmental policy, taking a permanent 50% to 70% reduction of PM10 as a reasonable goal, one finds a corresponding increase of average life expectancy in urban areas of EU and USA by roughly four months."

Given that diesel is just one of many causes of pollution, the effect must be pretty small.

Here's a question: how does something become "not allowed" unless it's already done enough damage to overcome our skepticism about statistics?

I've heard that wood burning stoves are pretty bad pollutants, and we seem to be going through a fad of fitting them everywhere we can.

All said and done, it comes down to whether each person wants to make a contribution to having cleaner air. Arguing about petrol and diesel isn't the answer. My plug-in hybrid isn't the answer. An electric vehicle could be, although I suspect that fewer coal-fired power stations would be helpful as well. I wouldn't be surprised if improving the insulation of your house is the best thing to do.

Ramble over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markjay]

The answer is pretty obvious: a clean future involves nuclear power stations and electric vehicles.

But getting manufacturers, oil companies, politicians, environmental pressure groups, consumers, local government, farmers, motorist, etc etc etc to get there... is like herding cats.

So it will take a few more decades.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

The answer is pretty obvious: a clean future involves nuclear power stations and electric vehicles. But getting manufacturers, oil companies, politicians, environmental pressure groups, consumers, local government, farmers, motorist, etc etc etc to get there... is like herding cats. So it will take a few more decades.

The trouble with herding cats is that they leave a lot of sh1t on the way.

 

[mbenz1]

To add to Markjay 's comment, 'oil companies and politicians / governments' are ultimately interested in money and what benefits them most, IMHO. So until this greed doesn't vanish from their blood streams, I believe the world will only act when serious consequences become apparent and there are no other options available...

In reality, for how long can they keep running this 'broken bicycle' for...

Sent from my GT-I9505 using MBClub UK

 

[Dodgy]

Because many people simply don't believe statistics anymore. Each group giving them out seems to have an agenda and a twist.

If it was that bad it would not be allowed.

And I saw an article about type 1 and type 2 thinking today. Type 1 thinkers make decisions quickly based on instinct. Type 2 thinkers make decisions slower and want evidence and argument. The article said there are more type 1 thinkers, so politicians and businesses target them with simple statements that don't need to be true:

• Take back control of our borders
• Dirty diesel
• Make America great again
• Parliamentary supremacy
• Clean diesel
• Lock her up
• 60mpg combined urban and extra-urban

Why only doubt statistics? I think the answer might be To doubt everything you hear until you've thought about it and found an alternative view to consider. Not something type 1 thinkers are going to enjoy...

 

[Tim203]

Because many people simply don't believe statistics anymore. Each group giving them out seems to have an agenda and a twist. If it was that bad it would not be allowed.

This is the crux of the problem and as another said money. I struggle believing the medical profession with certain statistics.
Every few years something will be deemed bad for you but balances of diet and exercise etc. are often ignored to suit an argument money driven or otherwise.
Perhaps people are better educated nowadays but that makes some even more devious in manipulating us audibly, textually and more recently visually, the last one being most annoying for me when you see so many manipulated photos and videos.
Maybe a 'no bullsh1t statistics group is needed '
As for Diesels and emissions in general I believe Ke's post has shown by the responses alone most people's awareness and/ or concern about the whole subject. One thing is clear though. The motor industry is very powerful and of course is driven by money and employment .

 

[Tim203]

I've heard that wood burning stoves are pretty bad pollutants, and we seem to be going through a fad of fitting them everywhere we can. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haven't heard this one but remember in Germany you should by law use seasoned logs for that reason.

 

[Peter103]

Why only doubt statistics? I think the answer might be To doubt everything you hear until you've thought about it and found an alternative view to consider. Not something type 1 thinkers are going to enjoy...

Never believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see, and you won't go far wrong.

 

[grober]

I'm not a fan of the current trend to believe/trust no-one. That in itself is a form of manipulation. Its usually put forward to place doubt in legitimate sources of information by people who also have an agenda i.e. to benefit from any subsequent anarchy of thinking or confusion that might ensue.
A better survival tactic might be my post 34
It's a pretty simple rule of thumb really, in todays world of conflicting realities :-- people who tell you awkward or unpleasant things--- stuff that's difficult to deal with ---are probably telling you the truth. People who tell you stuff that makes you happy--- that everything's fine ---- the stuff you want to hear--- are usually lying- to you and maybe to themselves.

ps its highly unlikely that todays politicians will fall into the former category- after all that's not what we elected them for.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

I'm not a fan of the current trend to believe/trust no-one. That in itself is a form of manipulation. Its usually put forward to place doubt in legitimate sources of information by people who also have an agenda i.e. to benefit from any subsequent anarchy of thinking or confusion that might ensue. A better survival tactic might be my post 34 It's a pretty simple rule of thumb really, in todays world of conflicting realities :-- people who tell you awkward or unpleasant things--- stuff that's difficult to deal with ---are probably telling you the truth. People who tell you stuff that makes you happy--- that everything's fine ---- the stuff you want to hear--- are usually lying- to you and maybe to themselves. ps its highly unlikely that todays politicians will fall into the former category- after all that's not what we elected them for.

Agreed, but also it's not good to believe everything on face value. That's where the gullible fail. People believed Blair when he reported on WMDs in Iraq and totally backed the attacks. Look where that got the world. More recently of course were those who believed the £360m a week for the NHS that Brexit would bring. Sticking your fingers in your ears to ignore what you don't want to hear does nobody any good, but neither does blind acceptance without reasoned challenge. I spent the first 14 years of my career as a research engineer so it became natural to question everything before acceptance. I still do.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

It's a pretty simple rule of thumb really, in todays world of conflicting realities :-- people who tell you awkward or unpleasant things--- stuff that's difficult to deal with ---are probably telling you the truth. People who tell you stuff that makes you happy--- that everything's fine ---- the stuff you want to hear--- are usually lying- to you and maybe to themselves.

That statement is contradictory, what if you're a pessimist and always think negatively? Then the unpleasant things are what you want to hear aren't they? So by that statement they're usually lying?

The truth is that pretty much everyone is in it for themselves nowadays, if you scratch hard enough at most "findings" the chances are it'll be in that particular organisations interest to put their slant on things. When do you ever hear of, say Greenpeace, coming out and saying "oh, hang on a minute, we might have got XYZ wrong"? You don't. When someone says "see the other side of the argument" what they're really saying is "agree with me now".

 

[Deleted member 65149]

^^ How is in the interests of organisations like the fully independent private Transport Research Laboratory to produce slanted results to their studies? Any evidence of such actions would surely put them out of business.

 

[Delayed Steve]

Haven't heard this one but remember in Germany you should by law use seasoned logs for that reason.

I haven't heard it but can believe it. I live in a area where everybody has got to have the same or better than their neighbors, they've done BMW and Audi and the latest thing is wood burners, they burn any old crap on them, it's like Victorian London for smoke at night.:fail

 

[Deleted member 37751]

^^ How is in the interests of organisations like the fully independent private Transport Research Laboratory to produce slanted results to their studies? Any evidence of such actions would surely put them out of business.

I read on their own website that they were privatised in 1996, so how are they funded?

 

[David404]

I spent the first 14 years of my career as a research engineer so it became natural to question everything before acceptance. I still do.

If only everybody were this sensible and applied logical thought process...

 

[Deleted member 65149]

I read on their own website that they were privatised in 1996, so how are they funded?

It says on their website that they charge for their services. Their clients include Department for Transport, Shell, Jaguar Landrover and Highways England. They have over 1000 customers across 145 countries.

 

[Teflonso]

Forget diesel and petrol, they're as bad as each other. Forget EV too, Li-Ion batteries cost the earth (literally) to manufacture and they have to be charged from the grid, which comes predominantly from fossil fuel. Nucelar powered cars are too scary.

The only way forward was invented in war time. Drive round with a big bag of gas on top of the car, but fill it with methane from rotting organics at the tip. The CO2 produced is far less intensive as a greenhouse gas than the methane, so it's a win-win.


.

 

[TheFoX]

Is there a rational solution to our transport problems?

I was once told that people should always look for work on their doorstep, but this only works when you are a general labourer. If you have a specific skill-set then you have to go where the work is. After all, why veg pick or cage push when you have a qualification that can benefit you and your employer?

People also need to travel. Can we really expect the masses to remain in one location to 'help the environment'?

The simple fact is that we, as a society, have progressed to a level where we can expect a certain level of luxury in our lives. Do we really want to go back to the days when we were subservient to our masters, rather than equals?

How do you reverse the direction society is going in?

No. We are stuck with our lifestyle choices. To start a process of denying us what we expect would result in revolution. Who would accept being denied our freedom of choice?

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Is there a rational solution to our transport problems?

I was once told that people should always look for work on their doorstep, but this only works when you are a general labourer. If you have a specific skill-set then you have to go where the work is. After all, why veg pick or cage push when you have a qualification that can benefit you and your employer?

People also need to travel. Can we really expect the masses to remain in one location to 'help the environment'?

The simple fact is that we, as a society, have progressed to a level where we can expect a certain level of luxury in our lives. Do we really want to go back to the days when we were subservient to our masters, rather than equals?

How do you reverse the direction society is going in?

No. We are stuck with our lifestyle choices. To start a process of denying us what we expect would result in revolution. Who would accept being denied our freedom of choice?

Aha!

I've become eco friendly.

I work within 2 metres of my home, my clients come to me and I can walk to the shop and/or pub.

I am a visionary!

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Technology allows lots of people to work successfully from home, thus cutting out lots of travel.

When I used to have to commute round part of the M25, I wondered how many of the people travelling in the opposite direction did the same sort of job as me. Could we swap to save on travel? Just remained a thought of course.