Richard wrote:
> Just read this: http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/news_4x4HealthWarning.aspx
> I assume its a joke? and this is even funnier:
>
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/xst005yeepmhmb45yk3cej5525112004193823.jpg
Oh dear.
Time to dig out the old arguments.
Let's see how this goes.
1) The majority of pollution caused by a car over its lifetime is caused
during its manufacture process. Thus the more often you require to replace
a car the higher the pollution caused by your car driving will be
*regardless* of how "envirofriendly" your newer cars are.
2) Existing cars have already caused their pollution. Putting them off the
road and causing more, newer cars to be made will simply increase the
overall pollution caused by cars massively due to the manufacturing
process.
3) Modern "envirofriendly" cars are quite conceivably less envirofriendly
than the older designs. Old designs simply required large amounts of steel
and aluminimum with trivial amounts of plastics for such things as the
flexi-pipes. Newer cars use more and more exotic materials which in turn
are often derived from non-renewable resources such as oil for the
plastics.
4) Disposing of an old car in theory simply required the splitting of all
panels and major structural components and then re-smelting them. There was
very little carcinogenic material to consider. Disposing of a new
"envirofriendly" car will, of necessity, require the disposal of such items
as circuit boards, epoxies and various exotic materials, all of which will,
if handled the wrong way, release vast amounts of toxins (carcinogens, HFl
etc) into the environment.
5) Modern "envirofriendly" cars are constructed in such a manner that it is
almost impossible for a user to service them. Parts are becoming
unavailable in increasingly short timescales and the "scrapyard" industry
is all but useless for modern cars. A modern car probably has a realistic
maximum lifespan of 12-15 years against a well built older car (such as a
Land Rover) which can have a realistic lifespan of over 50 years. This
equates to at least four times as many cars being constructed in the same
timescale and thus at least four times as much pollution.
6) Older designs can be made to comply with environmental regulations as is
proven by all the LPG powered Range Rovers out there which actually come in
below the modern emissions regs. There is a strong argument for using
older, simpler designs which have very limited long term environmental
impact in terms of materials creation and recovery compared to the modern
ones and simply modifying them in understood ways. Combine modern
refinements in materials handling with classical designs and the overall
environmental impact of the construction of a new vehicle should be
reduced.
7) The argument that the drivers of a compact car will come off worst in a
collision with a Ford Explorer should come as no shock to anyone. It's
basic physics. The driver of a Ford Explorer will come off second best in a
collision with a Scammel Explorer. Do you see anybody asking for cigarette
warnings on trucks which are arguably the most dangerous vehicles on the
roads?
Any comments on the above?
Also, does anybody know why trucks are governed to 56mph yet coaches which
are the same size as trucks and just as dangerous seem to be completely
unlimited?
P.
--
If Mind over Matter is a Matter of Course
Does it Matter if Nobody Minds?
