Greenpeace protest?

[Scoboblio]

Just read this on BBC news:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4550593.stm

 

The bit that I'm confused about is;

 

"Making cars like this for urban use is crazy when 150,000 people are dying every year from climate change," said Greenpeace's Ben Stewart.

 

 

Did I miss something? Have there actually been any deaths proven to have been caused by climate change? The last I heard people were still arguing over whether or not global warming was even to blame for climate change

 

I know this will probably be one of those 0 reply threads, but it's 02:37 in the morning and I'll be annoyed if I like

[Matt T]

Tw@ts, they are basically saying 150,00 people a year die from Land Rovers

 

What a load of shite

[Digsy]

...Brand new Land Rovers which have to pass tighter emissions legislation than the 5th hand crapheaps those protesters probably drive.

[tbourner]

Greenpeace are generally idiots anyway, I don't agree with much they have to say.

[SupraStar 3000]

...Brand new Land Rovers which have to pass tighter emissions legislation than the 5th hand crapheaps those protesters probably drive.

 

thats what I thought too!!!

 

Go and save some whales GreenPeace and stop bothering Land Rover

[Supragal]

I think they were on about the amount of petrol they use not the emissions. Fair point about the "urban use, don't go off-road" slant for sure but OTT none the less.

[JustGav]

I used to be a fairly strong support of greenpeace myself, HOWEVER they are realists.... they moan and whinge about cars, but I'm willing to bet that their VW camper van has got more lead paint on it than anything else, burns more oil than petrol on the way there, and they smoke more green than bob marley polutting the atmosphere...

 

Okay...okay... so I'm going a little OTT.. but generally they are a bit hipocritical...

 

Gav

[MARTIN R]

It is OTT and yeah it is unproven

[Green Peace]

thats what I thought too!!!

 

Go and save some whales GreenPeace and stop bothering Land Rover

 

OK Sorry...

 

Personally I'm not entirely convinced that Global warming is totally due to fuel emissions.

 

 

Greenpeace are a great pressure group and I have a great deal of respect for them normally as I do with Amnesty International too...But fook me they couldn't have picked a worse time.

 

 

..AND Why Land Rover, what about blooming Chevrolet or Hummer...I mean surely nothing is more of a 'Bummer' to the atmosphere than a 'Hummer'

 

However...one day all the oil will run dry...so in a way it does 'In reality' seem a bit mad to build bigger thirstier engines, i think its the Governments of the World that are responsible for encouraging the developement of ecological fuels and the 'pressure' should be diverted towards them.

[Pete]

I've got nothing against banning landrovers.

Just leave the sportscars alone is all I say

[Digsy]

I think they were on about the amount of petrol they use not the emissions. Fair point about the "urban use, don't go off-road" slant for sure but OTT none the less.

But how can the amount of fuel going in affect climate change unless it is correlated somehow to the stuff coming out of the tailpipe?

 

EURO emissions regs only split cars and light trucks into three categories based on weight, not engine size. Plenty of scope for large engines in small or medium sized cars, but each category has to comply with the same regs, regardless of engine size.

 

It seems to me like someone somewhere in GP may know stuff like this, but they tend to keep strangely quiet. Unlike the "chain myself to railings" mob who spout whatever "facts" seem necessary at the time to make their point.

[Rob]

With all the Green Party coverage in the election run-up, I get the impression these green types want us to step backwards in development rather than forwards. They talk of travelling less, reducing air travel, working at home, cottage industres, it's all going back to pre-industrial revolution.

 

You didn't see IK Brunel worrying about coal resources, he just forged (pun) ahead and improved the whole blooming country.

[tbourner]

With all the Green Party coverage in the election run-up, I get the impression these green types want us to step backwards in development rather than forwards. They talk of travelling less, reducing air travel, working at home, cottage industres, it's all going back to pre-industrial revolution.

 

You didn't see IK Brunel worrying about coal resources, he just forged (pun) ahead and improved the whole blooming country.

 

 

Completely agree with this logic, same as reducing preservatives and stuff - we've spent the last hundred years and more developing a tin of fruit that can stay in your cupboard for 3 months and be fine to eat, and now they want us to go back 100 years and go shopping every day cos everything at home's gone off!!!

 

We've devoloped a brilliant transport system (as a species), that has helped to mix the worlds races, no more in-breeding within towns as we can fly wherever we want and drive to the other side of the world if we like, why are they now so determined to get rid of what we've achieved!!

[Kopite]

i just always think back to Top Gear when they showed that a train full of people used more fuel than if everyone on boards had driven a car the same distance. When TG put that to Friends of the Earth, their response was something like "the greenest journey is the journey that is never made"..........

[Tannhauser]

Just read this on BBC news:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4550593.stm

 

The bit that I'm confused about is;

 

"Making cars like this for urban use is crazy when 150,000 people are dying every year from climate change," said Greenpeace's Ben Stewart.

 

 

Did I miss something? Have there actually been any deaths proven to have been caused by climate change? The last I heard people were still arguing over whether or not global warming was even to blame for climate change

 

I know this will probably be one of those 0 reply threads, but it's 02:37 in the morning and I'll be annoyed if I like

 

OK, to clear something up in your penultimate paragraph, 'global warming' and 'climate change' are loosely synonymous. Some prefer 'climate change' because the effects of an *average* increase in global temperature is, perversely, likely to make some places colder.

 

I presume what you mean is that there is still disagreement over whether human activity causes climate change. This was debated on a thread on here recently. Science is very rarely completely agreed on complex issues - it's the nature of the beast. But over the last few years, a very strong consensus has emerged that it IS human activity that has caused the change. The nay-sayers tend to get more publicity than they might do partly because the US energy industry spends money publicising any research findings that say 'all is well'. This might trickle down to the UK media.

 

The 150,000 deaths figure comes - I think - from an estimate for the year 2000 and its from WHO. They estimate that the relatively modest increases from the 1970s have resulted in that number of 'extra' deaths. Most of these are from better conditions for viral diseases and insect vectors. It's still an estimate of course, but given that the WHO aren't exactly amateurs and it's published in The Lancet means that it wasn't just dreamed up.

 

Of course, to what extent this is attributable to car emissions is a separate issue.

 

Cliff

[Soo]

Hi Cliff, hows you ?

 

Not seen you about in ages....

[Tannhauser]

With all the Green Party coverage in the election run-up, I get the impression these green types want us to step backwards in development rather than forwards. They talk of travelling less, reducing air travel, working at home, cottage industres, it's all going back to pre-industrial revolution.

 

You didn't see IK Brunel worrying about coal resources, he just forged (pun) ahead and improved the whole blooming country.

 

But 'development' doesn't run off fresh air. The energy for it has to come from somewhere. At the moment, it comes from finite resources, such as coal and oil. We haven't got any viable alternative to these. So maybe it would make sense to try to reduce the speed that we're getting through non-renewable resources.

 

As for Brunel, I suspect you're being ironic. But maybe there's another irony there too: Brunel was so obsessed with his great projects that he worked himself to ill health and death; a reminder that progress always depends on resources - and if you use them up too quickly, you're stuffed.

 

Cliff

[Tannhauser]

Hi Cliff, hows you ?

 

Not seen you about in ages....

 

I'm like my tyres...

 

 

 

 

...keeping a low profile.

[Scoboblio]

I presume what you mean is that there is still disagreement over whether human activity causes climate change.

 

Yup that's right... without wishing to start another global warming argument I'd like to know why greenpeace have decided to lay blame for 150,000 deaths per year on the door of Landrover, while I'm seeing adverts on TV for disposable toilet brushes, disposable nappies, disposable dusters (FFS!) disposable portable toothbrushes and disposable feck knows what else.

 

We're constantly being told day after day that our cars are destroying the earth, that it's up to us to make a difference, while manufacturers think up more and more ingenious ways to waste packaging and promote the "use it once and throw it away" culture.

[Tannhauser]

Yup that's right... without wishing to start another global warming argument I'd like to know why greenpeace have decided to lay blame for 150,000 deaths per year on the door of Landrover, while I'm seeing adverts on TV for disposable toilet brushes, disposable nappies, disposable dusters (FFS!) disposable portable toothbrushes and disposable feck knows what else.

 

We're constantly being told day after day that our cars are destroying the earth, that it's up to us to make a difference, while manufacturers think up more and more ingenious ways to waste packaging and promote the "use it once and throw it away" culture.

 

Oh, absolutely. I've no idea to what extent car emissions contribute to the problem relative to other sources. I bet it's a fair bit, though.

 

In my opinion, car enthusiasts tend to get very defensive about climate change. We'd all like to believe that it's somebody else's fault, or that it isn't happening at all. And it's human nature when we're accused of something to say indignantly "It's not just me!" - a trick we learned as kids. But that's like chucking a piece of litter out of the car window in West Bromwich (my scruffy, litter-strewn home town) - just because every other f**ker is doing it doesn't make it right.

 

With regard to running a Supra, I don't think I've got a leg to stand on, ethically. I put my selfish pleasures before my concerns about the damage I'm doing..and it's as simple as that.

 

Right, off to eat my lentils and mung bean stew

 

Cliff

[Bobbeh]

Maybe those Green protesters can hit up the local bus depot with their smelly ass buses running 95% empty all the time and stinking up the town, ruining the roads and environment

[Tannhauser]

...Brand new Land Rovers which have to pass tighter emissions legislation than the 5th hand crapheaps those protesters probably drive.

 

Just out of interest, this is from Defra's site:

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/cm4913/4913html/14.htm

 

"Although there have been substantial improvements in engine efficiency during the past decade, these have largely been offset by the effects of greater vehicle weight, due to increased size, better safety standards and the provision of additional features, such as air conditioning, some of which also require power to operate them. Tighter environmental standards for local air pollutants have also increased fuel consumption to some extent. The mandatory fitting of three-way catalytic converters to all new petrol cars since 1993 has had significant air quality benefits and is an important tool in the delivery of the Government’s air quality strategy. This measure has, however, resulted in an increase in emissions of both carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide."

[Tannhauser]

i just always think back to Top Gear when they showed that a train full of people used more fuel than if everyone on boards had driven a car the same distance. When TG put that to Friends of the Earth, their response was something like "the greenest journey is the journey that is never made"..........

 

Yes, I saw that one. I thought they compared emissions, though, not fuel consumption. I thought that it (their statement) just couldn't be right.

 

Turns out that even with 'average occupancy', the only thing trains emit more of compared to cars (per passenger-kilometre) is sulphur dioxide. Sulphur dioxide is nasty, but it's not such a major cause for concern as a greenhouse gas (afaik) compared to CO2 and nitrogen oxides.

 

The Committee for Integrated Transport's study estimates that, for example, a journey from London to Manchester produces 52,943g of CO2 for a single occupancy car compared to 12,920g for an average occupancy high speed train. Also, the car produces ten times as much NOx.

 

They say:

 

"......car transport has very much higher emissions of PM10, CO, HC, and NOx than either rail or air. Domestic aircraft and cars have similar emissions of SO2, though both lower than rail. Cars have similar CO2 emissions to domestic aircraft on longer flights, but lower CO2 emissions on shorter trips. Rail has significantly lower CO2 emissions than either mode."

 

You can find it here:

 

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/reports/racomp/03.htm

 

I like Top Gear, but there's a lot of bollocks on there.