[Closed] "Eco-Freindly"

Dihydrogen Monoxide is a killer too...be careful out there.

[url= http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html ]Here:[/url]

I feel the need to rant at the next person who tells me driving a diesel or even a Prius instead of a petrol car is Eco-Friendly!

Why ?

If they said driving a Prius instead of walking was Eco Friendly, then they would be wrong.

But when compared to a low MPG petrol car, a Prius [b]is[/b] more Eco Friendly.

they should be beaten up until they say that their car is "Eco-friendlier" then...

if you want to be "eco-friendly" don't drive a car

Well technically the most eco friendly thing you could do would be to die as you produce C02 by breathing

I think most folk realise eco friendly means less damaging rather than helpful especially in relation to transport

I've also been known to get annoyed when CO2 is described as toxic

But when compared to a low MPG petrol car, a Prius is more Eco Friendly.

No, it isn't environmentally friendly at all. You should only say it is less harmful to the environment. If it was environmentally friendly it would in the least leave less pollution behind it, it does not. It still creates pollution and the manufacture of the car probably created more than a small engined petrol car. This is the whole point of my pedantry - you have been brain washed.

Well technically the most eco friendly thing you could do would be to die as you produce C02 by breathing

You wait till you start rotting, methane breath!

have you tried breathing it to test this ludicrous claim?
It might turn out to be very eco friendly

You will certainly suffocate if it is present in large enough quantities, but the amount needed to do that isn't what would normally rate a substance or gas as toxic; it certainly isn't poisonous or carcinogenic which is what one would usually associate toxic as being.

i like the "eco-friendly" plastic bags that biodegrade. swathes of Madagascar is planted with some cactus like plant, rather than its native dense forests, so that we in the west can have a clean conscience when we go to Tesco's.

or when the government want you to trade in your old car for a new, more eco-friendly model ignoring the fact that the most eco-friendly thing to do is keep old cars on the road for longer and produce fewer new cars.

the Prius (and other e-cars) is also a joke as the batteries produce a lot of shitty pollution during their production.

😆 @PJM

My beef with these Eco variants is that they still essentially rely on driving efficiently, and the majority I see are being razzed around delivering equally shite mpg. Nearly all the benefits are aero so ranting them round town does nothing to help. I'm sure their owners think something magic is happening under the bonnet.

No, it isn't environmentally friendly at all. You should only say it is less harmful to the environment.

That's just splitting hairs I think. "Less environmentally unfriendly" = "More environmentally friendly" near as dammit in my book. Obviously the key word there is "more" though.

I don't think it's necessarily as simple as saying people are brainwashed either, or that biodegradable bags are bad, or electric cars are a waste of time. Obviously what alpin's talking about in Madagascar is bad, and so are the problems with making and disposing of batteries for Priuses(?), but the better alternatives have got to come from somewhere so it's not as easy as saying we should all just run our clunkers into the ground, although obviously that's the better [i]individual[/i] choice than going out and buying a new Prius.

Cutting down the amazon to plant bio fuels. Super eco.

You will certainly suffocate if it is present in large enough quantities, but the amount needed to do that isn't what would normally rate a substance or gas as toxic; it certainly isn't poisonous or carcinogenic which is what one would usually associate toxic as being.

No, it isn't environmentally friendly at all. You should only say it is less harmful to the environment.

Correct. It's a question of semantics, but most people are too thick to understand the consequences.

the Prius (and other e-cars) is also a joke as the batteries produce a lot of shitty pollution during their production

Not entirely convinced by that argument.

Wish I hadnt read this thread now. I too have got a big beef with anyone that owns or drives a Toyota Pious as I call them. winds me up when you see them thrashing the nuts out the shitty petrol engine that is dirtier than a lot of other modern engines so they can just pay zero/low road tax. I only ever seem to see them on the motorway at 90mph along with Smart cars and other 'Eco' badged variants with no spare tyres and a tin of sealant...........
Up until the other day when I read in the paper that Vauxhall had mde some false claims on the range of the 'batteries' of their new car I was half set to consider going 'eco' on retirement but on the back of all the lies I am now thinking of doing less miles but in a nice V8, without a gas conversion and spend the difference on at least one new bike from each niche market 😆

But when compared to a low MPG petrol car, a Prius is [b]more[/b] Eco Friendly.

No, it isn't environmentally friendly at all. You should only say it is less harmful to the environment.

I did.

I said it was [b]more[/B] Eco Friendly.

I'll say it's less un-Eco friendly if it really makes you feel better.

But it's essentially the same thing.

This is the whole point of my pedantry - you have been brain washed.

Have I ?

That's very observant of you. Considering you know nothing about me.

(I drive either a petrol 4.2 V8 oracid work, a 2.5 Diesel that's been remapped and had the Catalytic Convertor removed, if that helps you jump to some other conclusions. ?)

the Prius (and other e-cars) is also a joke as the batteries produce a lot of shitty pollution during their production

Not entirely convinced by that argument.

Aye, me neither. As a 'stepping stone' technology it's probably a useful direction to take transport in, at least in the short term.

Can you imagine what horse riders/stage coach users etc... said when some chap came along with a new fangled vehicle without a horse that ran on a volatile solvent that had to be distilled out of black stuff that came out of the ground*?! He'd have to work really hard to flog that idea, especially when horses were easily available and could be fed on hay and grass!

* I suppose they could've used alcohol distilled from normal fermentation.

edited to add - How come in preview double quoting works fine, but in the real forum it doesn't?!

I too have got a big beef with anyone that owns or drives a Toyota Pious as I call them. winds me up when you see them thrashing the nuts out the shitty petrol engine that is dirtier than a lot of other modern engines so they can just pay zero/low road tax.

What about me then on the speed limit getting 63mpg yesterday going to my folks and back? 🙂 In a car I've had for 5 years and will have for many more. Don't blame the car for ****er drivers.

Did you know that most of the battery material is recycled btw? And that diesel is also harmful to manufacture and burn?

Anyway, not fair to derail the thread, the OP is quite right. But then again, marketeers trying to bullshit people is hardly new is it?

The official term I believe is "greenwash". At least in the corporate environment (if you'll excuse that pun!).

On a personal level, the lingo is "dark green" and "light green". Dark Green = The hardcore elite, those who make a significant effort to shun environmentally damaging products and behaviour. Light Green = those who reuse their carriers bags, and only drive when it's raining, or they have to carry lots of stuff, or the kids need picking up, or they've got a bit of dodgy ankle from the last badminton session, or... ...you get the picture I'm sure!

until hybrids or electric cars are powered/re-charged by green or renewable energy it's all a bunch of bollox as you are still burning dinosaurs in a cocking great big power station to generate the electricity.

want to have a carbon neutral footprint on the planet? just die now...but don't get cremated, or preserved with chemicals for standard burial....in fact just feed yourself to some hungry bears...it's the only green way to go.

I thought it was as follows:

Light green = using eco washing powder, reusable nappies, driving a Prius etc etc

Dark green = not owning a car, growing your own veg, being vegetarian, never flying etc.

until hybrids or electric cars are powered/re-charged by green or renewable energy it's all a bunch of bollox

Not quite bollox - they are just a bit more efficient that's all. It gets annoying when people assume you think you are saving the planet when you drive one though and hand out abuse accordingly.

That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at quite a complex issue Tazzymtb, but if you feel that way so be it!

Yeah, you're right molgrips, I was just being a bit more cynical!

just die now...but don't get cremated

Actually, the conversion of your body's carbon to CO2 by cremation would have a much smaller global warming effect than the equivalent amount of methane as you slowly rot.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Sorry nealg but a new built Prius is NOT as Eco friendly as a well maintained second hand diesel or petrol car. The traditional fuel car has already been built and although the fuel is not as clean as the electricity for the Prius the materials and energy required to build a new car has already been done and is therefore history. Building a new Prius when there is a perfectly good secondhand traditional car is less Eco friendly. Plus how long do the battery packs last? Then what do you do with all that lovel chemical based stuff when they stop working? There aren't many if any recycling options for acids.
The 2000 grant thing the government did a couple of years ago should have been used to service and sort out older cars so that they run as efficiently as they could. That would have been better for the environment and the economy.
Not that I've thought about this much.

nickhart +1

Well you don't really expect car owners to have some sense do you? I mean they must justify their laziness. I had this argument far too many times my my mum. She buy organic stuff and recycled loo paper etc etc, but she refuses to "be cold" during winter and she still drives to work every day.

Well you don't really expect car owners to have some sense do you? I mean they must justify their laziness

+1

Actually, the conversion of your body's carbon to CO2 by cremation would have a much smaller global warming effect than the equivalent amount of methane as you slowly rot.

maybe, but the increase in particulate emission, aldehyde and VOCs within the incinerator plume will also have a significant impact on the environment, hence the reason why that crem stacks are subject to regular emissions monitoring under the PPC regulations. Plus the energy used to run the crematoria still has a increased environmental impact from the power stations needed to supply the electricity. There aren't many crematorium or clinical waste incinerators out there that run a CHP plant off their own process to mitigate their energy needs.

see greener to rot, or maybe end up in a MBT-AD plant where the methane liberated is used for power generation.

Sorry nealg but a new built Prius is NOT as Eco friendly as a well maintained second hand diesel or petrol car

What about a well maintained second hand Prius? All cars are new at some point, and someone has to buy them otherwise there won't be any used ones.

Plus how long do the battery packs last? Then what do you do with all that lovel chemical based stuff when they stop working? There aren't many if any recycling options for acids.

They are NiMH batteries, and I've read that most NiMH battery materials are recycled to begin with, and at the end of their lives. The Prius battery is carefully managed to last the lifetime of the car. They are even guaranteed for 10 years in the US (or maybe just California not sure). There are some failures of individual cells in the battery pack, which are similar in size to C cells.

Sorry nealg but a new built Prius is NOT as Eco friendly as a well maintained second hand diesel or petrol car. The traditional fuel car has already been built and although the fuel is not as clean as the electricity for the Prius the materials and energy required to build a new car has already been done and is therefore history. Building a new Prius when there is a perfectly good secondhand traditional car is less Eco friendly. Plus how long do the battery packs last? Then what do you do with all that lovel chemical based stuff when they stop working? There aren't many if any recycling options for acids.
The 2000 grant thing the government did a couple of years ago should have been used to service and sort out older cars so that they run as efficiently as they could. That would have been better for the environment and the economy.
Not that I've thought about this much.

That's fine. So we don't need to look at what's going to come next then, we'll all drive used cars instead.

I've never owned a car, and I'd sure like to see a lot less of them on the roads. But there needs to be some R&D on what's going to come next, unless you believe everyone will stop using cars in the future. They won't be perfect, and the first generations will probably be a long way from perfect, but I think it's about the long game rather than saying "Yeah, but Priuses take loads of energy to make- suckers!"

Obviously the scrappage scheme was nuts IF it was about being more eco-friendly though.

"Yeah, but Priuses take loads of energy to make- suckers!"

Which isn't particularly true anyway. Most of the rumours come from a report that was published years ago that was almost complete nonsense.

Obviously the scrappage scheme was nuts IF it was about being more eco-friendly though.

It wasn't of course, it was about helping the car industry. However, given that in normal economic conditions people would have been buying new cars at the usual rate, all it really did in terms of energy spent on new cars was reduce the DROP in emissions* that a recession would normally see. And given that the incentive was only on old cars, not 3 year old ones, it might actually have helped compared to normal conditions since fewer people would be replacing decent cars. Having said that, those 3 year old cars would have been sold on anyway. Complciated.

* of course, when factories close down or shed staff in difficult conditions, those people often end up having to travel a long way to new jobs because they can't afford to move or their partners don't have the flexibility to move jobs due to the market. So having a factory close (and reduce the number of cars made) could have a negative impact on travel emissions. Just a thought, but my point really is that it's almost impossible to predict the effect things have on emissions.

Ah mr salmon I was answering or commenting on the original post. The transport industry need to start with a blank piece of paper and come up with something completely different to be truly successful. Either that or we should go back to living the lives we used to which meant we lived and worked within walking distance. As a teacher it pains me most days that I drive past several schools before getting to work, mind you I wouldn't want to teach my own kids either.
Our style of life which includes so much travel is, in my mind unsustainable, I will live it until I can't anymore but I will teach kids to think about change so that when it's needed they can.
If this thread was a general Eco thread then I'd rant about the smart metre British gas installed. Great idea but then why do they expect us to have a electrically powered readout which was made outside of the uk and then shipped here running 24/7?

Moelgrips, I applaud your proper use of the right vehicle for the right job so as to speak and perhaps you are right, maybe the majority of the Prius owners I have ever seen are just ****'s 😆
Still not that impressed with the real life mpg though, not when my 1998 VW tdi (well maintained and serviced)on a similar run averages near enough the same mpg.

FOR ONCE WHERE HERE WERE PLEASANT FIELDS,
AND NO ONE IN A HURRY,
BEHOLD THE HARVEST MAMMON YIELDS,
OF SPEED AND GREED AND WORRY.

John Betjeman

FOR ONCE WHERE HERE WERE PLEASANT FIELDS,
AND NO ONE IN A HURRY,

except for those working the land trying to fend off starvation and disease.

I've got the soul of poet 😀

well.. perhaps you stole the soul of a poet once and crushed it in your hammy fist, before sticking it in a jar of vinegar at the back of your collection of exotic condiments .. 😀

What about me then on the speed limit getting 63mpg yesterday going to my folks and back?

Not a pop at you but is that considered good for a Prius then, I'd have hoped for more if I was going to make that kind of outlay? From a 55 plate 2.0TDCI C-Max I'll get 60mpg on a pure motorway trip (low 60s even if the weather is really fine). Low 50s isn't hard day to day (although my wife only seems to get high 30s from it in town even though I get close to 50 in town)

The best MPG of my Prius is indeed not spectacular, but there are a few things to consider.

A. It's petrol which is cheaper, cleaner to burn, produces less CO2 and could take a lot less energy to make.

B. Mine is the MKII, the latest one is more economicak, bigger, nicer and quite a bit faster.

C. And this is the biggest difference - when you start driving round town in traffic that might only drop to 55mpg. My Passat can do 60mpg on the motorway but that can drop to 38 or so in heavy traffic. The trip to my folks went through hereford which was busy, would have trashed the average in a diesel. If you get stuck in a motorway traffic jam in my Prius less than 20 mins or so the MPG actually goes up.

I CAN get 50 in the Passat in town but only if it is open suburban stuff. I will definitely get at least 52 in the Prius even if it's solid traffic, cold and hilly.

You will certainly suffocate if it is present in large enough quantities, but the amount needed to do that isn't what would normally rate a substance or gas as toxic; it certainly isn't poisonous or carcinogenic which is what one would usually associate toxic as being.

People like the OP annoy me, there is evidence for CO2 being toxic.

Clinical studies involving test animals exposed to high concentrations of Carbon Dioxide indicate teratogenic effects

bwaarp

Thanks for the link, very informative.

It does actually state;

REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY INFORMATION: Listed below is information concerning the effects of Carbon Dioxide on the
human reproductive system.
Mutagenicity: Carbon Dioxide is not expected to cause mutagenic effects in humans.
Embryotoxcity: Carbon Dioxide has not been reported to cause embryotoxic effects; see next paragraph for information.
Teratogenicity: Carbon Dioxide is not expected to cause teratogenic effects in humans. Clinical studies involving test
animals exposed to high concentrations of Carbon Dioxide indicate teratogenic effects (e.g., cardiac and skeletal
malformations, stillbirths).

So it's not expected to be teratogenic to humans? Probably because the levels at which it would may have caused the mother to suffocate first? Therefore I'm not sure why my statement should annoy you.

I have seen nothing to suggest CO2 is toxic to humans in the conventional sense of the word. Just about too much of anything will kill a person but when was the last time you were warned tap water was toxic?

The thread was started more off the back of the Green Wash type of thing - people are continually told something is Environmentally Friendly when it blatantly is not; these objects are then sometimes given "eco" labels which some people then translate as meaning we can have as many or use as much of them as we please without caring about their impact. It's marketing BS and it annoys me, especially when it get's rammed down my throat.

Thanks to all for your replies, some have provided food for thought and prompted me to read some interesting websites such as;
[url= http://stopgreenwash.org/introduction ]StopGreenWash[/url]

With regards to Prius vs other cars, in my opinion its about picking a tool for a job. I'd much rather have my old 2.5 litre V6 MG ZT but I'm now driving 450-500 miles a week so I swapped it for a 2004 407 1.6 HDI. Due to the mileage I'm now dumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere with the 407 than I ever did in the same timespan with the ZT yet the only tax I pay which is [i]directly[/i] linked to CO2 emissions was £260 for the MG and £135 for the Pug. Where is the logic in that? Surely a CO2 emissions based tax should be added to the fuel - if you drive more, you pay more...

So it's not expected to be teratogenic to humans?

There's no evidence because no ones exposed pregnant mothers to high levels of Co2 during pregnancy in a study, due to ethical reasons.

Serious birth defects can result from acute exposure to atmospheres containing more than 10 percent carbon dioxide. However, applicators are not likely to encounter these levels if they use the fumigant products in accordance with approved labeling

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B50Jad7552MC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=%22carbon+dioxide%22+birth+defects&source=bl&ots=27zWRqjomE&sig=lvvOPwOthC1F5ny_gPMnxf2kgSM&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22carbon%20dioxide%22%20birth%20defects&f=false

How much are CO2 levels elevated in congested cities? It would not surprise me at all that any rise could contribute to an increase in birth defects among humans.

Also I'm not really a greeny, not because of the science (I believe most of it) but a host of other ideas and reasons.

Also I apologize for saying you annoyed me. You didn't, I was just being a smart arse cock.

Surely a CO2 emissions based tax should be added to the fuel - if you drive more, you pay more...

The problem is the issues are not black and white (or green).

Half the time we use reusable carrier bags but other times I dont as it can't be worse than buying bin bags.
The problem with most cars is the fact that they are used when they don't need to be - expecting this statement to be quoted out of context.
I don't care if a Prius will do 50mpg, if thats 50 mpg for 1 person then thats not good. An older car with 4 people is is better. Behaviours and habits need changing. Not driving the 50miles in the first place would be even better.

Public transport and rail need sorting out.

Cheers Molgrips, good break down!

Blimey.. a thread about greenwash even including Priuses , and it ends in cordial thanks and apologies fir any offence. What is STW coming to?

Blimey.. a thread about greenwash even including Priuses , and it ends in cordial thanks and apologies fir any offence. What is STW coming to?

Oh **** off you… 😉

BAN HIM!

It wasn't of course, it was about helping the car industry. However, given that in normal economic conditions people would have been buying new cars at the usual rate, all it really did in terms of energy spent on new cars was reduce the DROP in emissions* that a recession would normally see.

Which was (is?) still a huge wasted opportunity to change people's attitudes and actually do something real to benefit the environment by encouraging people out of their cars. Particularly given there is another driver in the (perceived) high fuel prices, which is certainly sufficient to make people drive slower.

Which was (is?) still a huge wasted opportunity to change people's attitudes and actually do something real to benefit the environment by encouraging people out of their cars.

Well ideally, yeah, but the recession was a sudden thing, and integrated transport policies take many years or even decades, and carefully planned well thought out long term planning. And motivation, which we don't seem to have around here 🙁

Diesel may be better for the environment, but there's growing evidence to suggest its screwing up our health...

[URL= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_08_12_fo4_dieselpollution.pdf ]File on 4 - Aug 7th[/URL]

Just to throw a cat into the works...

I couldn't agree more on the need for a proper combined transport solution. I commute into London and I have two options to use public transport (two different rail networks). I rarely use either because one route is substantially more expensive than running a car and renting a parking space next to the office, and the other is so much slower.

Whilst there are visible signs (in the SE at least) that public transport is improving the annual above inflation price hikes really don't help. I'm not sure I can offer any possible solutions but one thing is clear; the government and local councils need to look past the short term and NIMBY issues that bog them down to try and insure they get re-elected.

Diesel may be better for the environment

It's a tough one, overall. Generally results in less CO2 and less fuel used, but it's bad for the local environment (as you say) and also it can involve splitting heavy oils to make, which takes a lot of energy. So it may not be better on CO2 anyway.

the government and local councils need to look past the short term and NIMBY issues that bog them down to try and insure they get re-elected

Yep. Transport policy desperately needs a long term non-political body to oversee it in the best interests of the economy and the people.

Wow! Top thread - educational, informative and polite! 😯
Feeling a whole lot more self congratulatory now, having walked into work.

Sadly, before we beat ourselves with the big green hammer there is the problem of the larger global issues to take a peek at - China is a nightmare of epic proportions against which most of what we can achieve by reducing car usage pales into insignificance.

Our industry has been getting itself into a real tizz about being green and the fact that 'sustainable' is a better word, is more inclusive and covers some of the points of environment in conjunction with economics and social.

If there is a Govt dep with a long term view, it should have a wider remit than just transport.

China is a nightmare of epic proportions against which most of what we can achieve by reducing car usage pales into insignificance

Well, not necessarily. Why is so much energy being used in China? To make the shite we buy from them, of course. And in any case, saying that someone else is worse is no excuse for being bad yourself.

There's also the innovation aspect to consider. If we figure out how to make stuff with lower environmental impact or invent clean coal power stations, then the Chinese can buy or license it from us, where they might not have the incentive to develop it themselves.

Feeling a whole lot more self congratulatory now, having walked into work

I'd love to walk to work. It'd take about four days though.

EDIT: 40 hours according to Google, so maybe two and a half would do it.

Well, not necessarily. Why is so much energy being used in China? To make the shite we buy from them, of course. And in any case, saying that someone else is worse is no excuse for being bad yourself.

Bit of a sweeping generalisation re China's output. It may have been true a decade ago, but as China's infrastructure and domestic economy increases much of the energy consumption is now being used to satisfy that need.

Agree we do need to improve but we do need to look clearly at the relative situation and try to help emerging economies mitigate the effects of their own passage through an "industrial revolution".

I have a kettle that was marked as environmentally friendly. It even had instructions to explain that I could boil only the water I need not fill it each time 🙄

I also feel better about walking to work, I would ride but the bars wont fit down the stairs to the office in the basement 🙂 and stopping to open the door doubles the commute time.

On the down side I fly everywhere else I have to go for work

try to help emerging economies mitigate the effects of their own passage through an "industrial revolution"

I think we are, aren't we? And China do seem to care a bit, whilst still wanting development.

Obviously that's not to say nothing further needs to be done, of course it does.