Originally Posted by Jay_Benson
60mpg?? what car is it? I get 45 from my Rav and I thought that was good
But MPG wasn't the point i was raising, it was the reduction in C02 emissions.
Fuel economy with common rail injection went DOWN but so did the C02 emissions.
My Austin Rover Mystro 2000 diesel van did 50mpg fully loaded and pulled like a train. It would do 60mpg empty and on a cruse When they stopped making them (1991 i think) the AA bought Rovers entire remaining stock because they were so good of fuel it was saving them a fortune
But they stopped making them because of the C02 emissions from the direct injection diesel Perkins engine
Again, I call bull shit. You are comparing two different things and ignoring a very pertinent fact. The different things you are comparing are the emissions from the petrol engine and the emissions of manufacturing a whole car. The pertinent fact you are ignoring, and virtually all climate sceptics do this because it knocks such a large hole in their argument, is that the batteries can be recycled endlessly - petrol is a one use item.
No i am not I am saying that. The Mustang was already in existence so it would have been greener to drive the mustang than build the Rivan
But let me do the math for you again
Rivan = at least 50tones of C02 to build
Average petrol car 6 tones
SO a difference of 44 tones.
A modern petrol car emits (according to 2022 figures) an avg 116g per Km
So to produce 44 tones would take 379KM of driving
Sadly James Lovelock died today, the thinking man's environmentalist who wasn't too afraid to admit he'd made a mistake, he was the grandfather of global warming and the war on C02 basically creating the term
Some famous comments which endeared him to me:
The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened.
The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.
The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time ... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.
I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy"
In 2019 Lovelock said he thought difficulties in getting nuclear power going again were due to propaganda, that "the coal and oil business fight like mad to tell bad stories about nuclear", and that "the greens played along with it. There’s bound to have been some corruption there – I’m sure that various green movements were paid some sums on the side to help with propaganda"
He opposed the concept of "sustainable development", where modern economies might be powered by wind turbines, calling it meaningless drivel. He kept a poster of a wind turbine to remind himself how much he detested them.
It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion.
I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use ... The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are
As I said my kind of environmentalist
A pragmatic one
Actually, most of the raw materials come from South America.
Sounds reasonable to me.
It will be better to reduce individual car ownership in metropolitan areas (car clubs etc taking over) and improve public transport both in terms of numbers of services and fares.