https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
The old tu quoque is doing some heavy lifting on this thread.
Even in the shitiest most backwards system of ethics justifying the rightness or wrongness of an action based on what someone else does is bonkers.
Imagine stealing someone's lunch out the fridge at work, and when they protest tell them you saw them taking a pack of selotape home at Christmas so it's cool.
Or try shagging your mates wife and when he's smashing your face in protest that you saw him chatting up a lady in a bar last year so it's no problem.
SUVs suck. They suck in many and all ways environmentally. They suck for pedestrian impacts. They suck for resource use. These facts in no way detract from other things that suck.
SUVs suck
Whilst that may be true, it is also simultaneously true that SUV’s rock.
It’s a dilemma I’ll grant you but I’m happy with my choices.
Yeah by all means go for it but don't justify based on other unethical choices.
don’t justify based on other unethical choices.
Like having too many children?
Pretty much every choice we make is on a sliding scale of ethics.
Environmentally, all cars suck, but for lots of people they represent a necessary evil. You make your choice and you live with it.
All life is compromise. Unless you live an entirely uncompromising lifestyle then the only person you’re entitled to judge is yourself.
You're completely misunderstanding ethics and just switching the argument with another tu quoque about the number of kids.
By extension your ethical system would let you justify just about anything, which is why it is a terrible system of ethics.
What's ethics got to do with it? This is an issue of science and engineering. We need to reduce (not completely cut out) our CO2 emissions and we need to establish where we're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and working to reduce that...targeting the largest emitting parts of our lives and doing what we can to reduce.
And in the UK we are not having enough children to sustain our population which is in decline if you take away immigration - our birthrate is about 1.8 children per woman which is not enough to be growing the population...it would need to be over 2 per woman. So you can stop rolling that old chestnut out. The UK's population is increasing not because we're having too many children..it's because of net immigration. It's the same story globally for most developed countries.
So SUV's in the grand scheme of things are not the evil they're made out to be. For many they're replacing older less efficient cars with more modern and efficient SUV's..which has to be a good thing. And their next cars will most likely be EV's.
It is most certainly an issue of philosophy and ethics. If you were a nihilist death cult with an alternate system of ethics you might be cheering this along to hasten the end of days. Even if you don't know it, if you've decided that climate change is worth acting on you have a philosophy directing that.
Science can't really exist without ethics, or at least it would be a lot easier to create bespoke babies that shoot lasers from their eyes and flying AI death drones if it didn't.
So, should I get rid of my SUV and buy a new similarly sized vehicle?
Even if the new vehicle is lower emissions, how long is it going to take to “get back” the co2 used in its creation?
So SUV’s in the grand scheme of things are not the evil they’re made out to be. For many they’re replacing older less efficient cars with more modern and efficient SUV’s..which has to be a good thing. And their next cars will most likely be EV’s.
False statement, just look at the data, there's enough of it out there. With SUV's being 10-20% worse for the environment than their generational car equivalent, most people replacing a car with an SUV will not see any gain in efficiency. People should be replacing an older car if needed with a 'modern and efficient" CAR, not an SUV. At the current rate of SUV uptake we will struggle to meet our climate commitments.
Like having too many children?
And buying an SUV for the school drop off. Double points!!
My wife's 4x4 is about as economical as my 15 year old Focus. Where this leaves me in the STW naughty list I have no idea?
Where this leaves me in the STW naughty list I have no idea?
Certainly below the guy sitting in his massive Chrysler with the engine running waiting for whoever to come out of the shopping centre when we parked up. He was still outside with the engine running when we got back two hours later!!!
My wife’s 4×4 is about as economical as my 15 year old Focus. Where this leaves me in the STW naughty list I have no idea?
Obviously on it. Because if she didn't have a 4x4 she'd be using less fuel. It's not complicated.
Which, as pointed out, repeatedly, is stupid because they’re not comparable. Now if you were to compare a 2004 CR-V with a 2004 Civic Type S, which the CR-V is based on, the results are very different (31mpg @ 216g CO2/km vs 37mpg @ 178g CO2/km).
But the CRV has a slightly bigger boot than the Accord Estate. Hence why the article is comparing the two. My mum has a Civic and I used to have a Accord Estate, the reason I bought the accord estate and sold my 306 was quite simply space for a pram and baby stuff. I didn't look at a Civic and think, I can't fit a pram I'll swap my 306 doesn't fit a pram .. I bought a car that takes a pram and all the other crap.
Again the same environmentalist maths … knock down clean gas powered power and instead of spending the money making it cleaner and carbon capture
I think you’re confusing gas and coal. To my knowledge no gas plants have been decommissioned that weren’t already due but plenty of coal has.
Again you miss the point... cut down millions of trees and dig up CO2 peat bog sinks instead of modernnsing gas fired stations.
If this was published by a company rather than an environmental pressure group they would need to show their calculation, you can’t just say 9x because a bunch of environmentalists decided “10 sounds too high let’s say 9”.
Actually, no, you’re getting that arse backward again. Companies can publish whatever the hell they like, so can fringe groups but the ones that want to be taken seriously take their findings from peer reviewed research and make sure people know it. You can’t just publish what you want (in real journals anyway) without decent evidence to back your findings.
Strange because this is exactly what the climate change deniers are doing, they just selectively quote. Then the "environmental lobby" do the same... ultimately some government advisor gets asked which is correct and they end up saying "they are both mis-quoting"... this leads to ...
environmentalist cars are designed to fail 100k before that so we can all “benefit” from scrapping the cars already built and build new ones
You’re confusing environmentalism with capitalism now.
Do you actually have any **** idea what you are talking about?
Look at the title of the thread. Inevitably every environmentalist policy just ends up being capitalism until the 2 are indistinguishable.
They all lead to pushing the product of the day and trying to get people to get rid of their old and perfectly functional old product to buying something new to signal their virtue.
Since we are talking cars .. first we had the environmentalists trying to get everyone to scrap petrol and turn to diesel.. and by "everyone" I mean everyone including many for whom a diesel was wholly inappropriate. Lots of mis-quoted papers saying how diesel was better and ultimately the environmental groups got preferential road tax ... millions of cars "scrapped" and certificates of recycling yet no actual auditable proof what has been recycled and millions of new cars made to replace them. Then ... using the same papers the same environmentalists decide diesel is bad... lets scrap all the diesel (wait haven't we been here before)... and now selectively quote particulates to ignore those from tyres and brakes but now that has to be ignored because EV's have tyres and brakes...
I must admit to being a bit duped with the diesel good thing. When we purchased our SUV (Mitsubishi Outlander) it's was to replace our heap of junk Citroen Picasso. They reasoning was that diesel was perceived as being better, buying a Mitsubishi rather than something like the Citroen was that the Mitsubishi would last longer. No excuse for the 4x4 nature of the car but it was what my wife wanted and there was practical things that suited, with the load carrying and 7 seats, the 4x4 has only been used a handful of times. It's 10 years old and we'd hope to have it another 10 and really at the time didn't really think that the detriment to the planet was that bad.
Fwiw we have a Fiat 500 and both generally record the same mpg.
Any justification above of why we won't be changing anything for the foreseeable is a bit moot anyway as I have 3 motorbikes and they all go braaap braaap and I love it.
This thread reminds me of this
Strange because this is exactly what the climate change deniers are doing, they just selectively quote.
Ok so we can ignore them then and do what the **** we like and wreck the environment?
Environmentally, all cars suck
Yes, but some suck more than others. So get the less sucky ones, they do the same job for most people. It's that simple.
Yes, but some suck more than others. So get the less sucky ones, they do the same job for most people. It’s that simple.
But only if you’re buying a new one? If you’ve already got one you should keep it?
That Tesla video - looks like that guy from Apex Twin went out and got some meaty pedal pins.
Out of curiosity....
How does the lifestyle van of choice stack up against the lifestyle SUV of choice?..
Flipping awfully....especially when kitted up with the fully tilled up luxury kitchenette/ shower-room and bespoke wood finishings necessary to truly get out there and experience 'Nature'....
So get the less sucky ones, they do the same job for most people.
Most.
Not all and not me.
But the same argument extends to anyone who drives any car, not just SUV's.
Why drive an estate when you can drive a more aerodynamic saloon?
Why drive a Passat, when you could drive a Golf?
Why drive a Golf when you could drive a Polo?
Why drive a Polo when you coudl drive an UP!
The issue isn't that SUV's are inherently bad. They're just a tool like any other.
The issue is people choosing the wrong tool for the job.
Most.
Not all and not me.But the same argument extends to anyone who drives any car, not just SUV’s.
Why drive an estate when you can drive a more aerodynamic saloon?
Why drive a Passat, when you could drive a Golf?
Why drive a Golf when you could drive a Polo?
Why drive a Polo when you coudl drive an UP!The issue isn’t that SUV’s are inherently bad. They’re just a tool like any other.
The issue is people choosing the wrong tool for the job.
Perfect example of selective assumptions... Volvo always said they raced the V70 estate because it was ever so slightly more aerodynamic than the saloon. (but it was really such a small difference it was as much why not). I drive a saloon and its pretty rare I dont have bikes on... usually full suss (handfull of times a year I don't) I'm pretty certain I'd get better mpg with a estate..quite prbably an efficient SUV.
90% of my driving is motorway/NSL, locally I cycle ... we can analyse to whatever degree but the best way I can not pollute is simply to give up MTB... 90% of my journeys and probably 98% of my yearly miles... a bit fuzzy if you count visiting my mum as that's both in the same trip.
Most.
Not all and not me.
I've always acknowledged there are uses for high up 4x4 vehicles, just as there are uses for helicopters and container ships and all the rest of it.
But I'm sure you'll agree that most SUV drivers do not need them so it's a bit of a red herring.
Strange because this is exactly what the climate change deniers are doing, they just selectively quote.
Ok so we can ignore them then and do what the **** we like and wreck the environment?
I'd suggest ignoring both and get on with doing what you can. The environmental lobby is indistinguishable from greenwashing to 90% of the population being fed memes
Start off by regulating recycling and get the current recycling firms out of business.
First make them accountable to the same monitoring and laws as every other company. When they pollute fine them and close them down. If they give fake certificates close them down and bar the directors from ever owning or being director a company. Appoint a watchdog preferably an ex oil company CEO or similar to hold them to account.
In parallel with this change the public perception of recycling from an excuse to pollute. The environmental lobby have embedded this lie so deeply it will take a long time to change. My 10yr old got told at school last year that "the more we recycle the better" FFS... result he thought it's better to produce as much recycling as possible. When buying 2-3 carrots he firmly beleived we should find ones with recyclable packaging as its "better" than no packaging.... I thought he had misunderstood so I challenged his teacher who repeated the same shit. More unneeded packaging and junk mail is apparently better for the environment than not creating it if it can be recycled..?? (oh and the school are paid by weight... but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it? )
Stop believing the environmental campaign groups are anything but capitalist exploitation.
Audit every "green" claim by companies and public bodies BEFORE they do the damage. FFS cutting down millions of trees and digging up peat bog for example. I could go on... how are the turbines made, maintained... and we wouldn't be in this mess had it not been for the anti-nuclear green lobby.
Insist on FULL facts...
and be realistic
. The title of this thread being an example.
Comparing a X5M to a Civic or Fox is disingenuous... honestly even the dumbest tabloid reader realises that! In the same way comparing a civic and CRV is equally disingenuous... the carrying capacity (prams?) is completely different. Demonising a body style is ... well stupid
Renault Captur 1.5 dCi 78.5mpg
Vauxhall Crossland X 1.6 - 78.5mpg
Peugeot 2008/Citroen C4 Cactus 1.6 BlueHDi 76.3mpg
Renault Kadjar 1.5 dCi Expression+ 5dr - 74.3mpg
but that is only 1/4 of the facts. What is the lifetime? What are the costs for making and transporting? Given the ones above is a 70mpg+ diesel more or less polluting on a 200/500 mile motorway round trip?
Before the Civic my mum had a Fiat 500... looked good on paper but after 350 miles on the motorway it required 1l of oil.... my brother had to top up before she set off and I had to add a litre before she could drive home (at a steady 65mph) Whatever the figures say a car burning a litre of oil in 350 miles is pouring out crap... I'd be pretty confident "more crap" than say the Captur???
According to Fiat this is perfectly normal btw...
But the CRV has a slightly bigger boot than the Accord Estate. Hence why the article is comparing the two. My mum has a Civic and I used to have a Accord Estate, the reason I bought the accord estate and sold my 306 was quite simply space for a pram and baby stuff. I didn’t look at a Civic and think, I can’t fit a pram I’ll swap my 306 doesn’t fit a pram .. I bought a car that takes a pram and all the other crap.
What article? You haven't posted anything to back up what you are saying.
And that's pish, our 5 door breadvan carried a pram and crap easily and that didn't have the benefit of magic seats and everything else that Civics have now.
Again you miss the point… cut down millions of trees and dig up CO2 peat bog sinks instead of modernnsing gas fired stations.
I'm not missing the point at all, you said:
gain the same environmentalist maths … knock down clean gas powered power and instead of spending the money making it cleaner and carbon capture
Which I replied to. So again, what gas stations have been knocked down?
Strange because this is exactly what the climate change deniers are doing, they just selectively quote. Then the “environmental lobby” do the same…
Which is what I said in the first place. But the actual papers these are based on are peer reviewed and evidenced with citations. Something you could take note of.
Look at the title of the thread. Inevitably every environmentalist policy just ends up being capitalism until the 2 are indistinguishable.
They all lead to pushing the product of the day and trying to get people to get rid of their old and perfectly functional old product to buying something new to signal their virtue.
Since we are talking cars .. first we had the environmentalists trying to get everyone to scrap petrol and turn to diesel.. and by “everyone” I mean everyone including many for whom a diesel was wholly inappropriate. Lots of mis-quoted papers saying how diesel was better and ultimately the environmental groups got preferential road tax … millions of cars “scrapped” and certificates of recycling yet no actual auditable proof what has been recycled and millions of new cars made to replace them. Then … using the same papers the same environmentalists decide diesel is bad… lets scrap all the diesel (wait haven’t we been here before)… and now selectively quote particulates to ignore those from tyres and brakes but now that has to be ignored because EV’s have tyres and brakes…
I don't think any environmentalists have advocated any of that. You're talking about politicians and salesmen. Big difference. But if they have I'm sure you will have plenty of citeable evidence to back up your assertions.
In the same way comparing a civic and CRV is equally disingenuous
How is it disingenuous to compare two cars built on the same platform?
FFS.
I do however agree wholeheartedly that education is the key component missing here, it's not as simple as just "upgrade gas!" (energy security being an issue for one) nor is it fair to say that every wind turbine was built on a peat bog. Your examples are good though, someone obviously never got the message that recycle is the last step after Reduce and Reuse have been exhausted.
That's a lot of words for "it's not me that needs to change anything"
I’d suggest ignoring both and get on with doing what you can.
Exactly. And one of the things you CAN do is not buy needlessly polluting cars.
Sensible sized SUVs have less space in them than estates, IMO, and even large ones are only similarly sized. If you need loads of pram crap* then get an Passat sized estate which will return you 60mpg rather than 35, and be better to drive and cheaper.
* you don't though. People buy tons of crap they simply don't need when they have kids, then they up-size their car to ferry all the crap they don't need around. Madness.
Demonising a body style is … well stupid
No it isn't - it's the entire issue. SUVs are ALWAYS going to be less efficient than a similar car precisely because of their body shape which is less aerodynamic and always will be. I would suggest those figures you quoted are fiction.
A quick look on Honest John and their real MPG figure is 56.5 vs 78.5 official figures. Still not bad for an SUV it has to be said. But probably not your most economical option let's face it.
How does the lifestyle van of choice stack up against the lifestyle SUV of choice?..
Strange that this question has been asked a few times in this thread and as far as I'm aware (CBA to read it all again) has been conveniently avoided 🤔
Strange that this question has been asked a few times in this thread and as far as I’m aware (CBA to read it all again) has been conveniently avoided
See also: Driving ordinary cars, Woodburners, using the internet, commuting to work and buying consumer goods from the far east.
They are all bad for the environment yes. Not avoiding it in the least.
This thread reminds me of this
So so true 🤣 👍
See also: Driving ordinary cars, Woodburners, using the internet, commuting to work and buying consumer goods from the far east
I read that as, Woodburners use the internet to commute to work.
Must lay off the mushrooms.
Most of the arguments here are pretty much appeal to hypocrisy.
How is it disingenuous to compare two cars built on the same platform?
Is it because the closest boot space and seating space comparison was between the accord and the cr-v? Just thinking out loud here.
What article? You haven’t posted anything to back up what you are saying.
And that’s pish, our 5 door breadvan carried a pram and crap easily and that didn’t have the benefit of magic seats and everything else that Civics have now.
I'm unfamiliar with the manufacturer and model of "breadvan" ... did it get 70-80 mpg like SUV's?
I am however intrigued by Civic Magic seats ... presumably some Schrodinger seat that's open and closed at the same time and simultaneously fits a couple of prams, shopping and a couple of child seats all in the same place?
I'm still trying to work out WHY this anti SUV sentiment? It's simply a body style the OP's question "Why are SUV’s so popular amidst a climate emergency?" because people can stick stuff like prams and shopping in and they are not more or less efficient in any meaningful way than any other car.
I don’t think any environmentalists have advocated any of that. You’re talking about politicians and salesmen. Big difference.
No there is no longer any perceivable difference at all.
Anyone with any product they want to sell or are being paid to help sell can self-identify as an environmentalist.
But if they have I’m sure you will have plenty of citeable evidence to back up your assertions.
You really are like a broken record... quote fuel consumption and weight of an X5M for which you require no citable examples... and then extrapolate that this is a typical SUV whilst demanding a citable peer reviewed paper that any other make or type of SUV may even exist.
Typical environmentalist/denier stance... don't provide your own evidence just demand it and claim everything else is wrong.
Seriously... (I mean seriously) do you really think Honda is lying differently about the Accord and CRV? Do you REALLY think the chassis is WHY people buy a CRV instead of an Accord or it's luggage space>
Do you have a window? I've got a view of a road and my observation is I have seen NO X5M's today... I saw a Range Rover something but that's the only big SUV whereas I've seen several small SUV's...
You can check for yourself but GT3 and GT4 were decommisioned at Peterhead but you will doubtless require a peer reviewed paper despite this being common knowledge and reported widely in the Aberdeenshire press. No peer reviewed papers but plenty of Ofgem ones but I don't need a peer reviewed paper because I know these were decomissioned and the driving reason was the environmental lobby. I suppose you are just going to blindly deny these were decommissioned as no peer reviewed paper was written?
I just totted up the figures: The entire maximum Wind generating power for the whole of onshore Aberdeenshire is about 130MW with 19 sites all requiring access, construction etc whilst the removal of GT3 and GT4 instead of modernisation resulted in a loss of generating capacity of 230MW. (CO2 was going to be stored in the Miller field and gas direct from offshore)
So a total of 19 sites barely support 1/2 of two gas turbines that could have been made more efficient and had the CO2 stored.
I don’t think any environmentalists have advocated any of that. You’re talking about politicians and salesmen. Big difference.
No there is no longer any perceivable difference at all.
Anyone with any product they want to sell or are being paid to help sell can self-identify as an environmentalist.
The difference between the CEO of Oatmilk and a group of Extinction Rebellion protesters is pretty damn obvious to anyone. Lumping them all together and disregarding the lot is just intellectually lazy.
Edit:
I just totted up the figures: The entire maximum Wind generating power for the whole of onshore Aberdeenshire is about 130MW with 19 sites all requiring access, construction etc whilst the removal of GT3 and GT4 instead of modernisation resulted in a loss of generating capacity of 230MW. (CO2 was going to be stored in the Miller field and gas direct from offshore)
So a total of 19 sites barely support 1/2 of two gas turbines that could have been made more efficient and had the CO2 stored.
You can't judge these things anecdotally. Go look at a lifecycle assessment:
Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies
Molgrips
No it isn’t – it’s the entire issue. SUVs are ALWAYS going to be less efficient than a similar car precisely because of their body shape which is less aerodynamic and always will be. I would suggest those figures you quoted are fiction.
A quick look on Honest John and their real MPG figure is 56.5 vs 78.5 official figures. Still not bad for an SUV it has to be said. But probably not your most economical option let’s face it.
Exactly. And one of the things you CAN do is not buy needlessly polluting cars.Sensible sized SUVs have less space in them than estates, IMO, and even large ones are only similarly sized. If you need loads of pram crap* then get an Passat sized estate which will return you 60mpg rather than 35, and be better to drive and cheaper.
You can't even keep to one set of figures... your Passat vs 35 mph? So the Real world Honest John is ignored for the purpose of your argument?
They are the Honda figures so both fiction in terms of real world space and mpg... but they are what were measured and both by the same manufacturer... (and in the link.. which was just randomly Honda)
I'm sure if you look you'll see similar for Renault or <insert here> but you will be comparing your fantasy Passat figures with your ignore honest John and make 56 into 35 figures?
* you don’t though. People buy tons of crap they simply don’t need when they have kids, then they up-size their car to ferry all the crap they don’t need around. Madness.
Ah so my* Accord was too big (despite taking 8'x4' with the seats down but your Passat is the exact right size and shape for everyone and people should be forced to scrap their Accord/CRV and buy a Passat?
Why exactly do you need a Passat? Why can't you use a mica or something? I hope you don't have bikes to ferry about or even worse stick a caravan on when you could just camp in your own garden or only go where you can walk or are these OK lifestyle choices?
Flipping awfully….especially when kitted up with the fully tilled up luxury kitchenette/ shower-room and bespoke wood finishings necessary to truly get out there and experience ‘Nature’….
The difference between a van (camper I'd assume) is that it does offer something on top of what a car offers. An SUV simply doesn't - especially as most are crossovers, still less efficient and heavier for a given cabin size, even with 2WD hardware.
If we're doing whataboutery, how does a camper van compare to spending it on a larger more power-hungry house? (Yeah you could spend it on insulating the house, but let's be realistic).
Obviously many car buying options (including buying a car at all) are not the best for the environment. But the real issue with crossovers and SUVs is that they are less efficient and a little bit worse to drive for more money, more resources to build and more resources to run, accompanied by higher levels of associated pollution. This has been responsible for an increase in emissions, despite increasing levels of efficiency.
stevextc:
Actually, although I stand by the main point of my message above, there's no way I'd talk like that if we were actually talking and it's not constructive. So apologies.
This whole debate is always so frustrating. I think a key point we seem to agree on is that everything in an industrial society has an impact, normally a big one. Wind farms are huge, and they do require masses of resources. Much less than fossil fuels, for sure, so these things should be rolled out.
The key point behind all of this is that the overall demand of modern society has to drastically drop and then be met by lower-carbon, lower-impact production -- but there will, always, be a significant impact with this many people around. We've just got to minimise it.
legometeorology
A good start ... or at least they considered lifecycle ... but
Nuclear energy was excluded because we could not reconcile conflicting results of competingassessment approaches (17). To reflect the prospective nature of our inquiry, the modeling of technologies implemented in 2030 and 2050 also contains several assumptions regarding the improved production of aluminum, copper, nickel, iron and steel, metallurgical grade silicon, flat glass, zinc, and clinker
Our comparative LCA indicates that renewable energy technologies have significantly lower pollution-related environmental impacts per unit of generation than state-of-the-art coal-fired power plants in all of the impact categories we consider
Essentially they exclude nuclear .. and put some long term aspirational hopes for raw materials but then benchmark against current "state of the art" coal powered.
Thats not exactly a level playing field... nor do I see a impact of deforestation and digging up peat bogs for wind as happened in Scotland.
The difference between the CEO of Oatmilk and a group of Extinction Rebellion protesters is pretty damn obvious to anyone. Lumping them all together and disregarding the lot is just intellectually lazy.
Do you mean Oatly? (Toni Petersson)
If so it's not like Cow Milk is the healthiest thing but companies like (and including) Oatly have lobbied for it to be labelled as "safe for coelaics" using the same flawed maths and cherry picking journals... but I'll try not to digress on that.
I'm not against nuclear, although I'm no expert, I certainly think the risks are blown out of proportion by many on the left. I'm not going to disagree with you on that.
The issue of fossil fuels vs. renewables is clearcut and at least a little more relevant to the OP's question. On that, given a lot studies assume widespread carbon capture, I don't think making some assumptions about future material production is skewing the playing field particularity much
And yes, I meant Oatly. I was praising neither them or XR though, just highlighting the breadth of what are now called environmentalists as I don't feel it fair to put them all in the same box, which is what I read you as doing.
A better example would be the Breakthrough Institute (who you may like, actually) and who I have a lot more respect for than most of my ecologically-minded friends.
stevextc:
Actually, although I stand by the main point of my message above, there’s no way I’d talk like that if we were actually talking and it’s not constructive. So apologies.
This whole debate is always so frustrating. I think a key point we seem to agree on is that everything in an industrial society has an impact, normally a big one. Wind farms are huge, and they do require masses of resources. Much less than fossil fuels, for sure, so these things should be rolled out.
The key point behind all of this is that the overall demand of modern society has to drastically drop and then be met by lower-carbon, lower-impact production — but there will, always, be a significant impact with this many people around. We’ve just got to minimise it.
LOL, by far the best response and the first it seems to recognise I'm not against you.
I'm not specifically against Wind Farms and I'm not pro-SUV (personally wouldn't have one) .. it's the tired arguments without fact.
I think we both realise our planet is fast going to become all but uninhabitable in terms we recognise... and I think we agree that is because things are done "because its green" without bothering about the full facts.
The argument for cutting down millions of trees and digging up peat bog was never made, noone was asked to assess the impact because "it's wind turbines"... and that seems very similar to me to the SUV's are bad because they are...
A long time ago I saw the figures for a M3GT3 vs Z3 GT3... the M3 has a slightly higher CD but its not horrendously different and at 30mph rather than over 100-150 mph makes no real world difference. The M3 is allowed slightly more power because of this ... same for the Touring Volve Estate... tiny bit better than the saloon.. perhaps noticeable on a track at race speeds....
Differences between a small SUV and estate with the same engine at 30 mph ??? Real world? Fuel economy differences would easily be lost in tyre choice!
The key point behind all of this is that the overall demand of modern society has to drastically drop
Again, we completely agree on that... Why hasn't it dropped? This is perhaps a matter of opinion but selling recycling as virtue signalling is a huge reason. Do I need a new XYZ? Nope but the old one and packaging will be recycled so it's all for the good of the planet.
I’m unfamiliar with the manufacturer and model of “breadvan” … did it get 70-80 mpg like SUV’s?
It's a colloquial term for the 7th Gen Civic.
I am however intrigued by Civic Magic seats … presumably some Schrodinger seat that’s open and closed at the same time and simultaneously fits a couple of prams, shopping and a couple of child seats all in the same place?
[url= https://lmgtfy.com/?q=honda+magic+seats ]Honda Magic Seats[/url]
No there is no longer any perceivable difference at all.
Anyone with any product they want to sell or are being paid to help sell can self-identify as an environmentalist.
Shite.
You really are like a broken record… quote fuel consumption and weight of an X5M for which you require no citable examples…
I haven't said anything about X5M's. Once again you are confusing one thing for another. You seem like a very confused person.
Typical environmentalist/denier stance… don’t provide your own evidence just demand it and claim everything else is wrong.
Except I did, I provided the evidence for my workings where it was needed. Click the links. Again, very confused. Or blind, stupid or all of the above.
Do you have a window? I’ve got a view of a road and my observation is I have seen NO X5M’s today… I saw a Range Rover something but that’s the only big SUV whereas I’ve seen several small SUV’s…
Cool story bro, I can see a couple of sheds and a some houses out mine.
You can check for yourself but GT3 and GT4 were decommisioned at Peterhead
That'll be the two open cycle gas turbines decommisioned in 2009 that were superseded by the more efficient CCGT units (incidentally those old units were shipped to South Africa where they were re-used). I thought you were in favour of upgrading gas turbines? Confused again?
whilst the removal of GT3 and GT4 instead of modernisation...
...So a total of 19 sites barely support 1/2 of two gas turbines that could have been made more efficient
They were modernised, thats what the CCGT's were for. Unless you think you can upgrade the actual turbine units themselves, which you can't (for a lot of reasons, not least of which being it's uneconomical)
Again, we completely agree on that… Why hasn’t it dropped? This is perhaps a matter of opinion but selling recycling as virtue signalling is a huge reason. Do I need a new XYZ? Nope but the old one and packaging will be recycled so it’s all for the good of the planet.
Which is sod all to do with environmentalism. The correct term for what you describe is 'greenwashing' and it's unhelpful to suggest otherwise.
