Dump Your Deezel

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

mickeymoon

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by mickeymoon »

"Bollocks" is another adjective suitable Neil...

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

User avatar
white exec
Moderating Team
Posts: 6459
Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 13:46
x 1097

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by white exec »

Having steadfastly refused to publish this report, and been fined by the courts for not doing so, the government chooses a Friday, and the day of the local elections, to "bury" this bit of luke-warm proposal - which, if done properly, would have cost them thousands of votes. No wonder we got it today!

Gibbo2286
Donor 2020
Posts: 4884
Joined: 08 Jun 2011, 18:04
x 913

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by Gibbo2286 »

white exec wrote:Having steadfastly refused to publish this report, and been fined by the courts for not doing so, the government chooses a Friday, and the day of the local elections, to "bury" this bit of luke-warm proposal - which, if done properly, would have cost them thousands of votes. No wonder we got it today!


Well I've asked about through my neighbours and friends and frankly not one of them had the slightest interest in the report except for the possibility of a scrappage scheme, I doubt it would have had any effect at all on their voting decisions whenever posted.

Air pollution is the realm of the ardent 'Greens' , most people, I find, don't give a damn unless they themselves or their children have asthma or other chest problems.

RichardW
Forum Treasurer
Posts: 9350
Joined: 07 Aug 2002, 17:12
x 397

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by RichardW »

NOx is about 1/4 of what it was 30 years ago. E6 cars have been around for about 3 years; by the time any of these consultations make it into actual policies, most of the diesel fleet will have been replaced by E6 (OK, it's not perfect at removing NOx, but it's a damn sight better than the earlier incarnations) so road based emissions will have gone down - and if NOx remains stubbornly high, then HMG will have to look elsewhere. Other than a few local schemes in city centres, I don't expect to see much in the way of 'action' other than waiting for the cars to replace themselves!

mickeymoon

Re: RE: Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by mickeymoon »

Gibbo2286 wrote:
Air pollution is the realm of the ardent 'Greens' , most people, I find, don't give a damn unless they themselves.....
This is *exactly* the problem with this entire country at the moment!



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

User avatar
white exec
Moderating Team
Posts: 6459
Joined: 21 Dec 2015, 13:46
x 1097

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by white exec »

Good point, well made, Mickey.

Monumental short-sightedness. Into the same basket of ignorance put climate change, decimation of some species and habitat . . . If you can't see it, and it isn't bringing down your front door, then it isn't a problem. Along with radiation, PCBs in the food chain, lead in petrol, asbestos, ozone depletion, aquatic plastic and heavy metal waste. It's a lengthy list, but all of it amenable to action.

Never mind, switch on the next episode of Big Brother or Someone's Got Talent, and everything will be all right.

The air quality government report has, it seems, been diluted to the bare essentials of 'action'. Anything serious or detailed would have been so politically unpopular that they wouldn't dare publish it, especially at this moment. Paranoid, moi? No - just listen to the researchers and groups that have been gathering air data for years now.

User avatar
NewcastleFalcon
Posts: 14072
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 11:40
x 1382

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by NewcastleFalcon »

It could be a sign that the plan isn't quite bold enough as it stands, that the only slightly positive response comes from the SMMT :)

I think I have made up my own mind. I don't think its a good idea to continue to extract 96 million barrels of oil a day from the earth, transport it and refine it, and then burn it, however "cleanly" the burning process is harnessed.

I welcome developments in wind/solar/wave/energy conservation to reduce our energy demand and wean us off our reliance on oil. Originally there was a laudable ambition for the UK to aim for all new homes to be zero-carbon by 2016. Surprise, surprise it ain't happened!

So, even if the "Clean Air Plan" was expressed in the toughest possible targets ambitions and policies...don' t hold your breath!

Bit of humour should you have missed it tucked away on the rather sparse electric car adverts thread.....gently pokes fun at us humans relying on the ICE....



Regards Neil

mickeymoon

Re: RE: Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by mickeymoon »

white exec wrote:Good point, well made, Mickey.

Monumental short-sightedness. Into the same basket of ignorance put climate change, decimation of some species and habitat . . . If you can't see it, and it isn't bringing down your front door, then it isn't a problem. Along with radiation, PCBs in the food chain, lead in petrol, asbestos, ozone depletion, aquatic plastic and heavy metal waste. It's a lengthy list, but all of it amenable to action.

Never mind, switch on the next episode of Big Brother or Someone's Got Talent, and everything will be all right.

The air quality government report has, it seems, been diluted to the bare essentials of 'action'. Anything serious or detailed would have been so politically unpopular that they wouldn't dare publish it, especially at this moment. Paranoid, moi? No - just listen to the researchers and groups that have been gathering air data for years now.
I agree 100%. However, we were told we shouldn't listen to experts last year weren't we?

I drive a diesel car. It'll be going once my dad's probate is sorted and replaced by something newer and less polluting. What I'd like to buy and what I feel morally compelled to buy are two very different things indeed!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

mickeymoon

Re: RE: Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by mickeymoon »

NewcastleFalcon wrote:
I think I have made up my own mind. I don't think its a good idea to continue to extract 96 million barrels of oil a day from the earth, transport it and refine it, and then burn it, however "cleanly" the burning process is harnessed
I'm in general agreement with you Neil.

I would like to point out one thing though. It's not the planet we are killing. It's ourselves. The planet was here for billions of years before we were here, and it'll be here long after we are gone. It's had a lot worse to deal with than a few humans giving it a bit of pollution - it's the human race we should be cleaning our act up for, not the planet. We are merely fleas on a dog's back, which will be flicked off and the damage repaired easily one day.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2020
Posts: 3826
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1137

Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by bobins »

A couple of comments about the Government report.
One from Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK's chief scientist:
“This a half-baked plan that puts poll ratings before people’s health, the only real winners are the car makers who, despite misleading customers about their cars’ real emissions and causing this mess in the first place are getting off scot-free.”

And one from Mike Hawes, chief exec of the SMMT who said: “Industry has spent billions developing new low emission cars, vans, trucks and buses and getting these new cleaner vehicles on to our roads quickly is part of the solution.”

Hmmmm.... now why would the SMMT be very keen on getting lots more new vehicles on the road as quickly as possible ? Oh yes, silly me. :roll:

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2020
Posts: 3826
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1137

Re: RE: Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by bobins »

mickeymoon wrote:
I would like to point out one thing though. It's not the planet we are killing. It's ourselves. The planet was here for billions of years before we were here, and it'll be here long after we are gone. It's had a lot worse to deal with than a few humans giving it a bit of pollution - it's the human race we should be cleaning our act up for, not the planet. We are merely fleas on a dog's back, which will be flicked off and the damage repaired easily one day.


The elephant in the room is that the human race needs to do a lot less breeding. Not a case of stop having babies.... just have a lot less of them 8-[

mickeymoon

Re: RE: Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by mickeymoon »

bobins wrote:
And one from Mike Hawes, chief exec of the SMMT who said: “Industry has spent billions developing new low emission cars, vans, trucks and buses and getting these new cleaner vehicles on to our roads quickly is part of the solution.”
Well, he could give them out for free :) That'd speed it up...





Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

mickeymoon

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by mickeymoon »

bobins wrote:
mickeymoon wrote:
I would like to point out one thing though. It's not the planet we are killing. It's ourselves. The planet was here for billions of years before we were here, and it'll be here long after we are gone. It's had a lot worse to deal with than a few humans giving it a bit of pollution - it's the human race we should be cleaning our act up for, not the planet. We are merely fleas on a dog's back, which will be flicked off and the damage repaired easily one day.


The elephant in the room is that the human race needs to do a lot less breeding. Not a case of stop having babies.... just have a lot less of them 8-[
There's plenty of resources for far more people on the planet...... if they were shared equally and not hoarded by the rich and affluent nations.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

User avatar
bobins
Donor 2020
Posts: 3826
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 18:07
x 1137

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by bobins »

mickeymoon wrote:
There's plenty of resources for far more people on the planet...... if they were shared equally and not hoarded by the rich and affluent nations.



Whilst that may well be the case, I can't see the rich and effluent (sic) nations sharing anything out equally any time soon :( Time for a Plan 'B' methinks..... as long as it doesn't have an impact on any government's chances of being re-elected... or threaten the profitability of big business.... or risk shaving off a bit of the banker's bonuses...... or.... or.... :roll: :)

BOTW
New User
Posts: 3
Joined: 25 Oct 2016, 11:54

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Dump Your Deezel

Post by BOTW »

mickeymoon wrote:
CitroJim wrote:
mickeymoon wrote:I reckon the time is coming when something pretty radical will happen, as old diesels are directly harming people. This isn't about global warming, protecting newts or far-fetched theories - they spew out poison that harms people, and nobody denies this.
Now I'm feeling really guilty about driving Gabriel :(

It's true though, you only need to ride a bike to realise just how horribly polluted our towns are... And a visit to London really shows it up...

It is indeed time to act...
Don't feel guilty Jim. Most of us here have done it at some time, and you only drive about 30 yards per aeon.

We all did it for the same reason too - money. I don't believe anyone bought a diesel because they actually liked driving the horrid things.

A simple way to kill them off would be to slap 30p on a litre of diesel.

I also think scrappage schemes are slighty elitist. Not everyone can afford a brand new car, even with 2 grand for their old motor. If the govt really cared, they'd do away with the requirement to buy a new car, or even any car. They give you £2ķ for your dirty old diesel, at a approved scrapyard. I'm sure far more would be off the roads in short order.
Wonder what you'd get for a 5 yr old Tesla? Since i dont see that anyone would buy a 5yr old used battery car.. would't pay anything for a 5yr old cordless screwdriver..

Skickat från min SM-G903F via Tapatalk