Environment v Ego

quote:

Originally posted by FISBEY:
Obviously some people have a need for cars that consume a large amount of petrol - but other than that is it just a fashion/ego thing?

Well it's a bit of both. I would make the unpopular and unfashionable point that people need big cars because they've bred excessively. The reason man's activities are having such a pronounced effect on the environment is because, in the last analysis, there are too many of us. If you don't have so many kids you won't need such a big car, won't burn so much petrol, won't produce so much CO2, won't consume so much food etc etc.

EW

But of course, without importing more manpower we're going to run short of workers.
On the sugject of big cars though, they do feel safe and calming compared to an underpowered buzz-bomb, and one large vehicle is preferable to a collection of specialist vehicles, eg. an estate for taking the family, shopping etc, a small hatch for quick town runs, a Smart for popping round to see a friend....

Tony

I think that there is no excuse for a Humvee like monster on urban roads.

Nick

Turn it around a bit. If we absolutely had to change, because fossil fuels were banned on 1st January 2006, then we would. We'd innovate and adapt. For the moment had-wringing eco-sensitive liberals like me continue to perform token gestures to save the planet, whilst in truth changing very little.

The issue is not size of car, but wether we even need to make a specific journey.

Bruce

Neither do I, especially as there isn't even any space inside. Awful vehicle.

Tony

Why ?
Personal choice thats why we do it, be it smoking (killing 300 plus per day in the UK alone) or PXing your CDP for the 555.
Martin

Doesn't economic reality take care of this though? I mean, for instance, large 4WD vehicles consume a large amount of fuel; the fuel is expensive because of its scarcity; therefore the operators of the thirsty vehicles contribute by having to spend more money. Every rise in fuel affects the operators of those vehicles more than operators of small and efficent vehicles.

They are also subject to road pricing by nature of how heavily taxed fuel is anyway.

I favour abolishing arbitrary taxes on car ownership and replacing them with taxes that are based on total environmental damage [e.g. No more car tax but more tax on fuel], improving the public transport system and finding ways to help more people work and shop from home.

Since car manufacture and disposal is environmentally expensive, encouraging the manufacture of long-lasting cars, perhaps by requiring manufacturers to offer longer guarantees, seems to make sense.

And then there's public transport...

I don't see any benefit in being concerned about the small proportion of cars that use twice as much fuel as average.

quote:

Originally posted by JeremyD:

And then there's public transport...

Not in this neck of the woods.


Willy.

I'm certain that I have read somewhere that one of the largest producers of 'greenhousr gases' are the heards of beef cattle throughout the world. Surely doing away with MacDonalds & Burger King would have a bigger impact Or is it an ego thing to eat there?

There is data that suggests ypu'd have to run a very poorly maintaned banger for a lot of years before you got close to producing the pollution caused by the manufacture of one shiny new replacement. But that wouldn't be too good for business would it?

If you're driving a properly serviced car and doing a minimum of necessary miles (whatever that is - beware of other people who tell you how you should live your life) then you're doing all you can, regardless of what you drive. Any accusation that you're wrecking the world by your greed is just ploitical speak and an attempt to blame you for the sins of the really big polluters.

Cheers

Farts don't add to atmospheric CO2. They have a time delay of a few hours at most and derive from the breakdown of vegetable matter which grew in our own time. Fossil time-delays cause the present excess CO2 in our atmosphere. There is no counterbalancing CO2 plant absorption for the massive release of CO2 caused by the rapid burning of fossil fuels today.

The human race can't release the carbon in the fossil fuels made over millions of years in less than three hundred without unhinging nature... Till the human race learns that there is no hope of change or salvation from the impending doom [without massive changes to our current life-styles], nothing will be done, so nothing will be done. But why worry? No one else does apparently.

First step; ban Aircraft tomorrow.

Next step; adopt a totally nuclear electrical generation scheme for the world over the next ten years.

Third step; price fuel at say 10 GBP per litre. Then ban the use of oil for any perpose other than lubrication. It is far too valuable.

No I see no chance so of it, I hope I fade away before the plannet dies. The chaos will be unimaginable...

Fredrik

Why does it surprise me not that no one ventured to reply to my little post immediately above?

Could it be that the truth is so obvious that all we want to do is burry our heads and hope it will go away.

And then people call me a pessimist. Realist I would say, but what the heck.

Fredrik

Fredrik

Odd people used to go round with sandwich boards claiming that the end of the world was nigh. The practice seems to have died out. But if you ever find yourself with some extra time on your hands I have the perfect hobby for you.

Dear Nime,

I am sure you would understand that these people were usually religeous types thinking along the lines of the Revelation and the Day Of Judgement.

I think the Global Warming (who would buy real-estate in Bangladeh just now?), Fossil Fuel Shortage, Economic Failure (as a result of ever higher oil prices), Chaos Situation, which I really do think is neither well enough understood, generally, or the real changes necessary, appreciated.

I have no idea of the time scale: 15 years? 40, ... 60? But this problem really is not going to go away!

On the other hand, it is good to see some gallows humour in the Doom Thread. [I think canibalism was not unheard of in concentration camps...].

Fredrik

Dear Nime,

In 1974 or 75, reports came out about the ozone-hole and CFCs in airosoles. I was far too young to be interested in such issues by normal standards, though I was also already deeply concerned then by the then Cold War Nuclear Threat. Obviously I could nothing about the Atom Bomb, but I have refrained from airosole usage ever since. I believe airosoles are CFC-free now...

I do take these things seriously, and it is often born out with time. I do think that the worst case scenario with Global Warming is not the mostlikely, but we nead considerably more vision than Bush, Blair or in fact any leading figure on the World Stage is showing today. It seems these people are more concerned with silly things like surveilance of the perfectly innocent, in some massive power centralising opperation than anything so important as the state of the Earth when our children and grandchildren have to sort out the mess, if they can. That is what worries me really. I am not so wrong about this am I?

Fredrik