quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

A pushbike is not carbon neutral, unless you fancy making it out of wood and string. Find me one motor car that comes close to carbon neutral? Sure it may emit less when running, but what about the manufacturing and disposal processes, or in the case of electric cars just moving the carbon from the kerbside to the power plant? As mentioned my motor is capable of running on carbon positive fuel (taxed exactly the same rates as dino-fuel, even when taken as a waste product), however I would imagine a good many years of running to get close to neutral overall, if ever. Building process, disposal, the use of things like tyres, lubricating oils, seat
cushions.

Todays techonlogy revolves around carbon consumption, to get away from that (not move the carbon emissions around the table a little) requires either a whole new swathe of technology, or a return to horsepower in the literal sense.

Which is better, an engine that does 20mpg for 200k miles, or one that does 40mpg for 100k miles?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

Without their car, they loose their job. And they don't have the money to go out and buy a fuel-efficient car.
smaller efficient cars and car share costs less than owning large gas guzzler. set incentives to invest in fuel efficient vehicle - doubling pprice of gas in next three years would be an example - spend additional tax on health care and reducing other taxes for middle and low earners.

It will be 30 years at least before the world is able to switch to alternative energy. It took Brazil over 30 years to get off oil dependance. So by the time the world makes the changes that this climate report is demanding, it will be well past the point of no return. Reducing use rather than alternative use seems ...........quicker.

This should have been done when Jimmy Carter was talking about it in the 1970s. The governments around the world dropped the ball. Climate chanhge science in the 70s - well in the 80s absorbtion by the oceans was going to solve the proble. Once the problem has been identified and quantified then you can act. - thats the last 5 years
 
 

And how do you expect people to reduce consumption? If someone has to travel 30-45 minutes or more per day to get to and from work, what do you want them to do? Walk? Quit their job? Public transit usually takes more than twice as long, sometimes not even possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Obviously you don't believe humans are having an effect on the climate or if you do you think its just going to be tough for the succeeding generations. Hopefully not everyone is going to be as selfish as you when they realise their grandchildren are going to be in the deep deep shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac
Sleazy - from your discription I'm guessing its a Landrover - work hourse type not executive toiy type. The "greeness" of older vehicles depends on how many miles each year you travel. 35 mpg !!!!! - steady 55 with no breaking I presume.......  :). 

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac
Sleazy - from your discription I'm guessing its a Landrover - work hourse type not executive toiy type. The "greeness" of older vehicles depends on how many miles each year you travel. 35 mpg !!!!! - steady 55 with no breaking I presume.......  :). 

The 35mpg figure was I stated was an average consumption over almost 1000 miles motorway (at nearer 70 & 80 than 55) slow country backroads and some serious off road work, but then I already stated that. As for my motor it is (or was when built) one of the executive toy type! It is only in recent years landrovers have become more toy less workhorse under the skin and 35mpg as a combined average for a well maintained 2.5 litre turbo diesel engine is nothing special at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac
Sleazy - from your discription I'm guessing its a Landrover - work hourse type not executive toiy type. The "greeness" of older vehicles depends on how many miles each year you travel. 35 mpg !!!!! - steady 55 with no breaking I presume.......  :). 

The 35mpg figure was I stated was an average consumption over almost 1000 miles motorway (at nearer 70 & 80 than 55) slow country backroads and some serious off road work, but then I already stated that. As for my motor it is (or was when built) one of the executive toy type! It is only in recent years landrovers have become more toy less workhorse under the skin and 35mpg as a combined average for a well maintained 2.5 litre turbo diesel engine is nothing special at all.

I've got to admit I'm as sceptical as Dtesmoac on this one.

quote:



Even so, SUVs and other 4x4 are environmentally unfriendly in urban areas, cause more road damage
than small cars and hence contribute to faster road wear and the need for greater road repair frequency which causes carbon emissions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

The real road killer is........... the bus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Please note, I said the bus kills the road, no reference to emissions or the carbon cycle. You claim to have lived in London therefore I would assume you have seen the massive ruts in the roadway caused by ten-twelve tonne (empty) busses running around. 

As for running any motive transport on grid electric all that does is move the emissions from one place to another. Diesel/SVO is already the most effecient motive power method around, thats why large vehicles use it.