Forum search & shortcuts

"Eco-Freindly&...
 

[Closed] "Eco-Freindly"

Posts: 52609
Free Member
 

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

It is or have you not noticed the tax on fuel.

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.


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 12:49 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Cheers Molgrips, good break down!


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 6:52 am
Posts: 91169
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 9:19 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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… 😉


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 10:39 am
Posts: 91169
Free Member
 

BAN HIM!


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 10:40 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 10:57 am
Posts: 91169
Free Member
 

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 🙁


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 11:00 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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...


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 11:18 am
Posts: 11
Free Member
Topic starter
 

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.


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 11:26 am
Posts: 91169
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 11:27 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 12:15 pm
Posts: 91169
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 12:23 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

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".


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 12:38 pm
Posts: 9238
Free Member
 

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 🙄


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 12:39 pm
Posts: 52609
Free Member
 

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


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 1:02 pm
Posts: 91169
Free Member
 

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.


 
Posted : 03/09/2012 2:18 pm
Page 2 / 2