Did you read it in a magazine that was full of adverts for new cars?
Sorry, cynicism strikes again...
Nothing will convince me that someone who buys a new car every two or three years is doing 'the planet' more good than someone like me with cars (with proper emissions control) now aged 10 and 15.
|
Did you read it in a magazine that was full of adverts for new cars?
lol, I think it was What Car, but I'm not certain.
They didn't give any real figures or anything, they just stated that it was 15%, but there is no way for us to verify that. Maybe I should write to them and ask for the facts?
When I buy my next car the environment will be an important factor for me. Unfortunately, my next car is likely to weight more than my current one, and use more fuel :(
|
On the one hand we have fridge and washing machine mountains, and calls for people not to replace these so often.
On the other, we have the government openly encouraging people to pile a load of perfectly serviceable vehicles.
Even if the figure is only 15%, there still seems to be a huge discrepancy in policy here.
|
Discrepancy in policy?
Lets cut our carbon footprint
Let expand Heathrow and increase flights by 50%.
It's called hypocrisy.
Like Ministers travelling around London in Jaguars.
Or policies to build new towns.. or build on flood plains.
Or to pontificate on global warming and then build coal powered power stations.
or encourage traffic calming measures that result in congestion..
|
Asthma is a terrible disease.
Asthma rates in the UK have soared in the last 5 years - coincidentally in line with the rise in diesel vehicles on the road.
Millions of Brits now suffer from asthma. It is costing the NHS billions in drugs and, worse, totally affects the lives of those who suffer it.
More and more medical research is linking asthma with diesel.
|
> More and more medical research is linking asthma with diesel.
Very interesting, and not surprising at all.
I'm sure more and more information will come to light about this filthy fuel.
|
|
If you want to save the 'environment', kill a cow!!
|
Or -- and this will sort out the world's ills in sooooo many ways, stop breeding.
Forget child benefit -- people should be taxed for having more than 2 kids (not retrospectively of course).
Get the human population back down to 1 billion worldwide, and we could all live in paradise.
|
Or -- and this will sort out the world's ills in sooooo many ways stop breeding. Forget child benefit -- people should be taxed for having more than 2 kids (not retrospectively of course). Get the human population back down to 1 billion worldwide and we could all live in paradise.
Spot on, getting the population down would solve many problems. We would then have enough resources for us to be driving gas guzzlers for many years without worry.
|
Spot on getting the population down would solve many problems. We would then have enough resources for us to be driving gas guzzlers for many years without worry.
But that would infringe the "human rights" of those who want large families and not have to work for a living....
|
|
I had a major discussion with a senior volvo person on this a while ago - he reckoned that production and disposal each accounted for 10% of the carbon footprint, and 80% was the in-life use. I was arguing that his figures for the build and distribution seemed low to me.
I was keen to find out whether he was including such things as the electricity used to make the aluminium - indeed, when you start to trace things back, where do you stop?
Aluminium is produced in three stages, all of which have serious negative environmental and social impacts. First bauxite ore is mined, which is then refined into aluminium oxide or alumina, which is itself smelted to produce ingots of aluminium metal. I wanted to know whether the 10% included all the costs of the three stages.
Not an answer to the question, but an insight into how complex the area is.
I notice from a recent commons select committee that they seem to buy into the 'new cars are better' argument, and were calling for incentives to melt cars down after a set number of years.
Me? I'm inclined to think that after my car has been built and transported round the world it has to be better for me to run it for as long as economically viable - especially as I've recently changed jobs and slashed my mileage.
Edited by Marlot on 17/08/2008 at 21:10
|
If they want to save the enviroment, all they need do is put up speed cameras on every road, anyone who is caught looses their license instantly and this will mean they will have to use the buses/trains, even if they arent that clean either, but they say they are :-)
Given that the majority break the limit and still will in the face of a camera, it should clear congestion completely and remove the need for any road building projects.
Then put a 50% tax on new cars, and give incentives to fit newer engines etc to old cars so you get the emissions without needing a whole new car, problem solved.
Of course, its a bonkers idea, but would stop road building, congestion and stop people buying new cars. Would be a disaster for the country economically, but bringing the country to a halt is the only way to really have any impact on the enviroment.
|
>>production and disposal each accounted for 10% of the carbon footprint
He would say that, wouldn't he?
Like so many of these green ideas, no-one can actually get hold of all the data they would need to assess whether an idea is truly good for the planet, or not.
I tend to think that minimising expenditure is closely allied to being green, and that if something costs more, then it probably isn't as green as the sellers might make it out to be: hence, I hope that our 13 year old E300D will make it to a decent age and mileage.
|
It would also help if the government hadn't put a tax on mobility - in the form of stamp duty. My work tends to move around the country and previously I would move with the work.
I commuted from Hampshire to Coventry for three years until earlier this year because it was more economical than selling and moving up there, thanks to the new 3% and 4% stamp duty rates. The £20k I saved by not moving (based on a £500k house) buys a lot of fuel [enough to travel 180,000 miles at 45mpg!!]
I think stamp duty is an extremely crude tax and could be replaced by some other method which encourages people to live closer to their work!
Edited by Marlot on 17/08/2008 at 21:28
|
|
If you want to save the 'environment' kill a cow!!
I'm no veggie and enjoy a good steak, but rather than killing a cow the best thing to do is reduce the amount of meat we eat.
|
|
|
|
> More and more medical research is linking asthma with diesel. Very interesting and not surprising at all. I'm sure more and more information will come to light about this filthy fuel.
Sorry but there is no statistical link to diesel cars, though lorries/buses maybe... I've had asthma all my life and diesel cars for the last 15 years and no effect whatsoever...
I think that you'll find that air pollution has got considerably worse with the massive increase of motor vehicles in general, not just diesel cars, as far as I was aware asthma is affected more by the smaller particulates seen in petrol exhausts than the larger ones from diesel btw....
What doesn't help is the increase in fumes from large road vehicles such as buses and lorries which have increased considerably recently and I suspect is far more dangerous than those from most cars?
|
Just to add to my last post, I suggest the diesel-haters amongst us try reading the following link from Asthma UK about the causes of asthma... I suspect that the hygene/lifestyle will have had more effect than pollution - people don't build up immunity these days like they used to....
I wonder how more "polluted" our air is to what it was in the 50s with coal fires, steam engines, etc, etc.... for instance where have the pea-soupers gone that we used to get? I wonder if the air is actually cleaner now than it was???
|
I wonder how more "polluted" our air is to what it was in the 50s with coal fires steam engines etc etc.... for instance where have the pea-soupers gone that we used to get? I wonder if the air is actually cleaner now than it was???
My gran suffered from severe asthma all her life, and always thought the pollution from coal fires etc that she had endured during her childhood had a far worse effect on her asthma than that from modern cars.
|
And another:
www.asthma.org.uk/news_media/media_releases/commen...l
"Leanne Male, Assistant Director of Research at Asthma UK says: ?Asthma UK welcomes this new study which is unique in using a famously busy road to confirm previous research suggesting that exposure to diesel exhaust fumes is linked to asthma symptoms."
|
And another: www.asthma.org.uk/news_media/media_releases/commen...l "Leanne Male Assistant Director of Research at Asthma UK says: ?Asthma UK welcomes this new study which is unique in using a famously busy road to confirm previous research suggesting that exposure to diesel exhaust fumes is linked to asthma symptoms."
Which is interesting as other research has shown that the "small particles" are produced in greater quantities by petrol engines than diesel... someones got themselves in a tangle methinks...
Having said all that it rather does prove the point I made earlier which was the diesel engine problem isn't from car engines which tend to be very clean (if you can use that word for any i/c engine exhaust!) - the problem is from larger bus/truck engines and taxis which are not as well controlled as cars... the location rather gives it away as those are the main polluting vehicles which use that route....
I would suggest to you that if all vehicles suddenly switched to petrol power tomorrow the Asthma problem would not go away and would be just as bad as it is now... the problem is the exhausts from i/c cars - petrol isn't the "clean" fuel you diesel knockers seem to think it is - its just as bad, but in different ways...
Edited by b308 on 18/08/2008 at 10:13
|
b308 - you are the one who has decided to bring in a link between cars and lorries and then commenting that you do not think that diesel cars are the problem.
If you think about it logically, that is just a nonsense statement. Why should a diesel lorry be the problem but not a diesel car? If you try and argue that some cars have particulate filters then the reality is that very few diesel cars have particulate filters and you can still buy many brand new diesel cars without them. Criminal!
Anyhow, in my post I mentioned diesel vehicles and, just to clarify, by that I mean any vehicle which runs on diesel.
I am not someone who has much faith in Asthma UK personally. However, they seem to be finally catching up with the research linking asthma and diesel - better late than never I suppose. I personally find Asthma UK a very conservative organisation with too much emphasis on the line touted by the drug companies - i.e. concentrating on the medication, which does not cure but which only moderately controls and costs the NHS over a billion pounds per annum - rather than on the causes.
As an asthma sufferer yourself may I suggest that you do some serious objective research into an illness which, basically, was virtually unheard of a 100 years ago and which, some would say, the drug companies have no vested interest in finding a cure for? I don't think diesel is the sole cause of the dramatic rise in asthma in the UK but it is, according to more and more independent research, one of the major causes.
Peace, love and light to you.
|
I don't think the research did what you say it did, tawse. It identified ultra fine particles as an issue. These occur in all exhausts, including petrol, as well as other sources. From the abstract: "Our observations serve as a demonstration and explanation of the epidemiologic evidence that associates the degree of traffic exposure with lung function in asthma."
Traffic seems to be the issue: what aspect is not examined in detail. Further comment is here: tinyurl.co.uk/71ci
I suggest that making emotive attacks on diesel as the major "cause" is not sensible.
Edited by nortones2 on 18/08/2008 at 13:40
|
I forgot to cite the abstract of the NEJM article: tinyurl.co.uk/2sdp
Obviously diesel engines put out UF particles: it is not however possible to say that diesel alone causes respiratory harm. Similar studies in California have associated traffic and asthma: the source there is predominantly gasoline.
|
New Medical Study Says Diesel Exhaust May Cause Asthma, Not Just Aggravate It
www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/020213b.asp
New link between asthma and diesel fumes shows the campaign must go on
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbe...l
"Diesel, which is being heavily promoted by ministers as a "green" fuel that can help combat global warming, is most to blame.
"These microscopic particles are a major threat to human health," said Professor Stephen Holgate, one of the Government's most senior advisers on air pollution, who is opening a major conference on asthma backed by The Independent on Sunday on 28 April (see below).
"There is a strong suspicion that particulates in air pollution are playing a much greater role in the causation of asthma than has previously been realised," said Professor Holgate, who chairs the official Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards.
"The latest scientific evidence suggests that particulates are now the most important type of air pollutant that threatens human health."
The new findings raised serious questions about the safety of diesel cars, said Professor Holgate. He was talking ahead of a new effort to push asthma to the top of the Government's agenda later this month, when some of Britain's top asthma experts and campaigners will meet at London's Royal Society of Medicine for a conference on the disease."
Diesel fumes trigger heart attacks and strokes, researchers find
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbe...l
Actors and authors put weight behind the battle to breathe
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbe...l
All you have to do is Google and you will find report after report linking diesel with asthma. The Yanks are now cracking down on diesel in big way often fining diesel vehicles which have their engines left running, bringing tougher regulations on diesel engines, etc, etc, etc.
|
|
And have been forgetting the elephant in the room.
|
Very recent research has found that poorly maintained vehicles emit considerably more problematic particles and vapours than well maintained vehicles.
tinyurl.co.uk/d4h2
A brief extract: "To show the potential health importance of the "double whammy" of the higher emission rates plus the greater toxicity of emissions from the high-polluting vehicles, both the toxicity and the emission rates of the other samples were ranked relative to the normal gasoline sample, which might be considered the normal "baseline" case.
Thus, considering both emission rates and toxicity, emissions from the black smoking gasoline, high-emitting diesel, and white smoking gasoline vehicles presented approximately 10, 30, and 70 times the health impact per unit of vehicle travel (e.g., per mile)!"
The subject is complicated. Single causative factors are unlikely.
Edited by nortones2 on 18/08/2008 at 14:22
|
b308 - you are the one who has decided to bring in a link between cars and lorries and then commenting that you do not think that diesel cars are the problem. If you think about it logically that is just a nonsense statement. Why should a diesel lorry be the problem but not a diesel car? If you try and argue that some cars have particulate filters then the reality is that very few diesel cars have particulate filters and you can still buy many brand new diesel cars without them. Criminal!
Actually, no, T, the original comment was a "generalist" comment re diesels, I chose to differentiate between cars and other road vehicles because cars have had a lot more done to their emmissions than lorries, buses and taxis - all those three would have produced the majority of the "pollution" on Oxford Street... not cars... so I feel the diferentiation was valid...
|
Actually no T the original comment was a "generalist" comment re diesels I chose to differentiate between cars and other road vehicles because cars have had a lot more done to their emmissions than lorries buses and taxis - all those three would have produced the majority of the "pollution" on Oxford Street... not cars... so I feel the diferentiation was valid...
Ah, OK then :-)
|
|
aware asthma is affected more by the smaller particulates seen in petrol exhausts than the larger ones from diesel btw....
Diesel still has plenty of small particulates as well...
|
|
|
|
|
|
