Bad news for diesel owners?

[alanjay]

A few years ago campaigners pilloried drivers of petrol cars and got a large number to switch to diesel, now another campaign group are targeting diesel drivers.

What I don't understand about is these campaigners, no matter how zealous they are, they are just as reliant on fossil fuels to deliver the essentials in life (food etc.) as the rest of us.

If only they'd provide me with a viable alternative I might listen!

Link to why I'm ranting is below:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/diesel-faces-crackdown-uk-ordered-114042784.html

[Number 6]

A few years ago campaigners pilloried drivers of petrol cars and got a large number to switch to diesel, now another campaign group are targeting diesel drivers.

What I don't understand about is these campaigners, no matter how zealous they are, they are just as reliant on fossil fuels to deliver the essentials in life (food etc.) as the rest of us.

If only they'd provide me with a viable alternative I might listen!

Link to why I'm ranting is below:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/diesel-faces-crackdown-uk-ordered-114042784.html


Once again a vociferous minority trying to impose their ideals onto the majority
The old adage of he who shouts loudest and longest...etc etc:shrug:

[arnosvale65]

Yet another unproved reaction. What about Bristol with the second worst traffic in Britain. Doesn't get a mention. Also what about the rest of Europe who have far more diesel cars than we have. What they have in Germany is a system of stickers from red to green. Euro 4 and above have a green sticker and can go anywhere, this applies to trucks too. Yellow stickers, Euro 1-3 are restricted and red stickers, no Euro standard, are banned from town centres. You go to a Defra centre, there are lots of them, pay a small fee and on production of your VC5 or equivalent you get your sticker. It is to slowly get rid of older diesel engines which pollute more.
It works well and stops knee jerk reactions.

[Monaro Pete]

IF we all drove electric, they'd moan about that, because we're pushing the pollution some where else.
IF we all rode around on horses & delivered goods via horse & cart, they'd moan about that, because the horses would f**t too much & cause too much green house gasses.
No matter what we do we would get shafted by the powers that we happen to elect :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

The only way to go is if we all died & all that was left was animals & vegetation.

[Submarineman]

It bewilders me how minds change at times:

The Government has been ordered to act immediately to comply with European air pollution limits.

The decision by the Supreme Court relates to nitrogen dioxide, largely produced by diesel engines, and it could lead to tight controls on diesel vehicles in Britain's largest cities.

The case was brought against the Environment Secretary by campaign group ClientEarth who argued that cities including London, Birmingham and Leeds would not meet EU pollution limits until 2030 - 20 years after the 2010 deadline.

The panel of five judges unanimously ruled the Government must submit a new air quality plan to the European Commission by the end of the year.

Let's wait and see, at the moment it's all smoke and mirrors - my heart rate will remain stable until something solid comes out of this.

[murphyv310]

One reason I'm NOT voting next week! That will be a first for me!

[myrover2013]

My Reply to these Bampots


You lot are very shallow minded people don't you think, the air that you breath in Britain , does not stay in Britain, the air that we all breath is circulating around the globe, . Dont you lot think that if diesel was that bad we would be alive, we would all be dead, the uk has a very small amount of cars, compared to the rest of the world, who's air we all breath, i have never driven a diesel car in my life, but when i die you lot will say its because of the pollution , even though i would have died of a heart attack, or cancer, or even shot in the streets of Britain , So why don't you lot go and live on a wee island of the Caribbean where there is no pollution , Oh i forgot, you will still be breathing the same air as I Very Dangerous bunch of people. I ****** hope you lot don't stand for parliament the whole country will need to buy new cars, Also i bet you would take a lift in an ambulance if you are sick, oh which by the way runs on diesel.

[topman]

I guess the question is; is nitrogen dioxide an issue in cities? And do we want to do anything about them?

[Number 6]

I guess the question is; is nitrogen dioxide an issue in cities? And do we want to do anything about them?

As myrover 2013 says the Nitrogen Dioxide does not stay in the city environs it moves about the world.Having said that it is to late to save the planet, it is on the slippery slope of destruction due to all the corporations striving for bigger profits to make the Banks that own them richer.:mad:

[Mats]

Fancy a little insight in German politics about Diesels?

In Germany cars are rated based on their emissions (environmental badges are assigned). Every Diesel without a particle filter does not meet the highest emission standard and is therefore not allowed to drive into "environmental zones". Many cities like Berlin, Munich, Leipzig, Hannover, Stuttgart, ... do not allow any vehicle without the highest badge.

Only solution for a Rover 75 or MG ZT diesel is a particle filter retrofit and those do not even work! They simply stop working after a couple of miles. They just cost a huge amount of money. It's ridiculous :duh:

[Sector-9]

Vote us out of the EU and we can then ignore targets and fines from Brussels. Of course, that doesn't fix the underlying problem of air pollution which still needs tackling, but it means it gets done on our terms and timetable, and we don't lose those millions of pounds of our money in fines going to EU coffers.

The government should incentivise via tax breaks working from home wherever possible in order to cut the amount of vehicle traffic, though I suspect that the cost and shortfall in fuel revenue is too scary for them.

[topman]

As myrover 2013 says the Nitrogen Dioxide does not stay in the city environs it moves about the world.

I'm not a scientist but I don't think that's true. I think that they are higher in urban areas because that's where they orginate, some might move but I think most stay in urban areas. Might be wrong though.

Had a quick look it does seem to be linked to urban areas.

question still stands, it's not good to have it in the atmosphere, so what should we do about it?

[rosephus]

what should we do about it?

give Audi shed loads more dosh to develop this:

http://qz.com/392138/audi-is-making-fuel-from-air-and-water/

[topman]

well LPG is an answer, so thanks. Having looked it's quite popular in many countries. It's even used on buses in places like Spain. But then unpopular in say France. Seems hit and miss, but could be an idea in cities.

[Johnny2R]

As myrover 2013 says the Nitrogen Dioxide does not stay in the city environs it moves about the world.Having said that it is to late to save the planet, it is on the slippery slope of destruction due to all the corporations striving for bigger profits to make the Banks that own them richer.:mad:

Actually, it doesn't. Nitrogen dioxide is pretty short lived and local as a pollutant, only lasting hours to days in the atmosphere. But yes, I agree about the banks :).

[MrDoodles]

Until the amount of pollution created by China, (who are building a coal fired power station a week) is controlled, the tiny reductions we are making, are simply a drop in the Ocean! :(

[topman]

Until the amount of pollution created by China, (who are building a coal fired power station a week) is controlled, the tiny reductions we are making, are simply a drop in the Ocean! :(

Thing is we need to do what we can. If everyone took the attitude of what will my efforts do in the grand scheme of things? Then nothing will get done. And i don't mean just in this area i mean everything from recycling to voting to paying taxes and everything in between.

[topman]

Back to the original point here is the judgment.

www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0179_PressSummary.pdf

[Rickoshea]

what should we do about it?

give Audi shed loads more dosh to develop this:

http://qz.com/392138/audi-is-making-fuel-from-air-and-water/

Sorry but this is just a silly bit of Aldi PR. Part of the process is using electricity to split the oxygen and hydrogen in water (using green electricity of course!). This process has been understood for decades but the energy required to split H2O into its two components is many times greater than the energy that can be created by causing the components to recombine by burning them together thus not a cost effective way to produce fuel. I thought it might be a late April fool’s joke when I saw that a Frau Wanka was driving a car powered by this stuff. I confess I always though diesel drivers were her close relations!

I fear the drive to diesel was another disastrous Labour decision and once the election is out of the way, whatever collection of lunatics that form the next government will need to rapidly reverse this policy and that will be via increasing the costs and restricting the use of the devil’s fuel in our cities.

[topman]

What tax breaks did/do diesel recieve? LPG recieves a lower rate of tax, petrol and diesel are taxed (duty) at the same rate and have been for some time.

[wuzerk]

This is not just bad news for diesel owners, it is bad news for all owners.
They cannot keep raising the tax on diesels which will gradually disappear
anyway and they are already losing millions of pounds because they have
lowered the tax on 'clean' cars so everybody is going to have to pay more in the near future. No government can afford to lose this huge source of income.

[Johnny2R]

97% of climate scientists (i.e., those who actually spend their lives studying the subject and might be expected to know about it) agree that climate change is almost certainly the result of human activities. The tiny number of dissenters get a disproportionate amount of attention in the media (and are very popular with the oil companies).

[Ps3000]

What tax breaks did/do diesel recieve? LPG recieves a lower rate of tax, petrol and diesel are taxed (duty) at the same rate and have been for some time.

The VED and Company car tax rates have been based on C02 emissions (KG per KM) since 2001. Diesels emit less CO2 for a given power/mpg etc. At the time, CO2 was the thing that was going to kill us all, but now it's NOX and particulates.

Company car rates have a small (3%) loading for diesel, but it's still pretty much a no-brainer for most company car drivers - a diesel car gets them more for their cash/tax.

According to the Daily Telegraph -

Over the past decade, the number of diesel cars on Britain’s roads has risen from 1.6 million to more than 11 million and accounts for a third of vehicles.

[Johnny2R]

At the time, CO2 was the thing that was going to kill us all, but now it's NOX and particulates

No, it's still CO2. The environmental picture is getting very muddied. Global warming isn't going away, it's still absolutely vital for the planet as a whole that CO2 emissions are reduced, and diesel cars have been pushed as being the only realistic way of getting CO2 levels down within a reasonable timescale (truly viable fuel cell technology, etc., is still too far off). Nitrogen dioxide is a local health issue, not a future-of-the-planet issue (although that doesn't mean it's not important).

[topman]

RFL was aimed at low CO2, not at diesel specifically, the two aren't the same. As above there was even an extra tax on diesel for company car drivers. There is/was no tax break.

When I say that I'm not splitting hairs and trying to be awkward for the sake of it. The public made a choice, trying to save money although I'm not sure many did.

[Ps3000]

No, it's still CO2. The environmental picture is getting very muddied. Global warming isn't going away, it's still absolutely vital for the planet as a whole that CO2 emissions are reduced, and diesel cars have been pushed as being the only realistic way of getting CO2 levels down within a reasonable timescale (truly viable fuel cell technology, etc., is still too far off). Nitrogen dioxide is a local health issue, not a future-of-the-planet issue (although that doesn't mean it's not important).

Sorry, I was being flippant - I really should have put something like "was that week's flavour of the month short-term political response to climate change".

I do take it seriously BUT if all the science I've read is true - we've had it. We'd have to dismantle the entire global systems we have in place for ruthlessly dismembering the earth right now to stand any chance of altering it. I am NOT saying it's not worth doing anything, but short-term panic politics isn't really helping us.

[James.uk]

Actually I doubt many people really care what fuel their vehicle uses, they just want the cheapest transport they can get innit... :}

I would happily use an electric car if it was given to me, and was capable of making the same journeys and journey times as my diesel does... :} :}

And I am writing this whilst watching the sky becoming full of vapour trails as more and more Planes take to the skies from Manchester airport some 15 miles away........................

At least I no longer fly down South innit... :D:D (coz Dan Air closed the route)... :o
...

[Ps3000]

RFL was aimed at low CO2, not at diesel specifically, the two aren't the same. As above there was even an extra tax on diesel for company car drivers. There is/was no tax break.

When I say that I'm not splitting hairs and trying to be awkward for the sake of it. The public made a choice, trying to save money although I'm not sure many did.

There was a tax break - it wasn't just VED and the diesel loading for company cars was (and is) minimal. I agree that some reactions weren't rational - people were faced with a big VED bill and didn't actually do their sums, but normally aspirated 2.0 litre petrol cars suddenly became a very expensive company car option compared with a 2.0 turbo diesel, for example. It's less pronounced now that petrol engines are smaller and usually turbocharged.

[topman]

There was a tax break - it wasn't just VED and the diesel loading for company cars was (and is) minimal. I agree that some reactions weren't rational - people were faced with a big VED bill and didn't actually do their sums, but normally aspirated 2.0 litre petrol cars suddenly became a very expensive company car option compared with a 2.0 turbo diesel, for example. It's less pronounced now that petrol engines are smaller and usually turbocharged.

What was that tax break?

I'd agree people made foolish decisions and, some not all, I think, prefer to blame others/government.

[topman]

Targeting low emissions aren't the same as tax breaks for diesels. Like I said before I'm not pointing out that to be awkward, but it is true. People made a choice to try and save money and some not all prefer to blame others that now they aren't saving as much as they thought.

[Snagger]

If you had your own government that was able to make it's own decisions, you wouldn't be held to the terms of the one that actually does govern you, by your own choices you have the effette spineless government you deserve, that now only serves the new european empire it collaborates with, and obeys without question, with no recourse for you.

The Ukrainians thank you for recently paying their gas bill to the Russian federation, even though they are not members of the E.U. all brought to you by your masters in Brussels.

Comrade Cameron under the terms of his contract against you, had no option but to comply, and so by default so did you, to this and whatever else the new empire demands of you, in whatever form it takes.

Just another expense for the British taxpayer comrade Cameron has forgot to mention to you as he, and his euro socialists allies milk just a little bit more out of you, to keep the gas flowing in mainland europe.

No pollution issue there with this gas it seems.

Ignorance of how the stasi E.U. operates is no excuse, nor is the fact that whoever you vote for is bound to follow it's dictate under the terms of the European Communities act 1972.

You apparently have voted for successive parliaments who have effectively handed power of governance over quite illegally and without the full disclosure of E.U. membership terms including that of sovereignty, and without these terms and their effects being made public, so an informed choice could be made.The framework for and the eventual formation of a federal europe was included in the first Treaty of Rome 1958.

Every British Parliament since 1972 has effectively conned you year on year, irrespective of which party you voted for.

This deception is ongoing and in force right now.

You've all been conned for decades, and enjoy being conned it's a British thing.

Your choice now, is that you have no choice at all.


If pollution is the problem, then stop pollution altogether in whatever form it takes. Diesel or petrol even if it was a thousand pounds a litre still produces the same level of pollution by whoever deems it to be a pollutant, it's cost does not negate the fact that is a form of pollution and the use of it, under the terms of common sense, can only be to the planets detriment.

There are plenty of proven alternatives to fossil fuels for the production of energy.

So those interested enough in wanting to save the planet should take a class action against the petroleum companies world wide, citing crimes against humanity, as they knowingly sell a product that is destroying the atmosphere and the surface of the earth, just as they should have taken class actions against the finance houses and brought them to their knees for crimes against humanity for funding wars and the supply or arms, for those who would not have had them, for use in the destruction of life, property and whatever else it effects.


No takers ?, no one serious enough about it to actually tackle these problems and many more ?

Then I guess we'll all have to put up with it all then won't we, ad infinitum.

It's the price of peace, and an ever expanding human population, with finite resources.

Ordo Ab Chao

Snagger.

[topman]

So those interested enough in wanting to save the planet should take a class action against the petroleum companies world wide, citing crimes against humanity, as they knowingly sell a product that is destroying the atmosphere and the surface of the earth



Could we take class action against people buying their products knowing what it does? Would/should we be suing ourselves?

[Ps3000]

Like I said before none aimed at diesels specifically. Targeting low emissions aren't the same as tax breaks for diesels. Like I said before I'm not pointing out that to be awkward, but it is true. People made a choice to try and save money and some not all prefer to blame others that now they aren't saving as much as they thought.

Well perhaps it was just the law of unintended consequences then. The fact is, once the VED and company car tax rules changed to being based on CO2 emissions rather than engine size and fuel type, they favoured available diesels massively in almost every case. someone who had a company lease on 2.0 litre petrol Mondeo, for example, would find a diesel equivalent considerably cheaper upon renewal. Of course, a 1.0 Saxo would be cheaper still, but realistically, people were always going to switch to diesel.

So whilst on a point of extreme pedantry, the changes weren't specifically designed to favour diesel cars, it's obvious that's what happened, and should have been clear at the time.

In fact, here's a quote from a Daily Telegraph article written at the time -

Taken at face value - and given the Government's traditional anti-diesel stance - company car drivers could be forgiven for thinking that, with a three per cent penalty, oil-burners were bad news. But almost wherever you look, diesel engined cars are winners under the tax system.

One of Britain's most popular diesel-powered company cars is the 110bhp Peugeot 406 2.0 HDi (147g/km), which even with a three per cent penalty will see a driver facing a tax charge based on 18 per cent of list price next tax year.

Even with the gradual tightening up, the tax charge will remain at 18 per cent in 2004/5. But the driver of a 137bhp petrol-engined 406 2.0 (197g/km) will pay tax on 21 per cent next year, rising to 25 per cent in 2004/5.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/4749725/The-shock-of-the-new.html

and whilst you might not blame the government, the shadow minister appears to accept it was an error -

Labour made 'wrong decision' over diesel car tax, admits shadow minister (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11368568/Labour-made-wrong-decision-over-diesel-car-tax-admits-shadow-minister.html)

I am not trying to make a party political point here BTW - I have a feeling whatever party was in power would have done much the same.

[calibrax]

Climate change does exist, but it is not man-made. It's a natural process.

Scientists came up with the theory that because over the last 150 years the average temp has increased by a couple of degrees, it must be man-made.

Not so. The earth has been cooling and heating in cycles for several millennia.

Basing a theory on just 150 years of data when the earth is 4.5 billion years old is like predicting the outcome of a 90 minute football match by watching just 0.0002 seconds of it!

[Johnny2R]

Climate change does exist, but it is not man-made. It's a natural process.

Scientists came up with the theory that because over the last 150 years the average temp has increased by a couple of degrees, it must be man-made.

Not so. The earth has been cooling and heating in cycles for several millennia.

Basing a theory on just 150 years of data when the earth is 4.5 billion years old is like predicting the outcome of a 90 minute football match by watching just 0.0002 seconds of it!

Really, climate scientists have taken all this into account in their projections. Do you honestly imagine that they wouldn't have thought of this?

[Borg Warner]

I've been an asthmatic for as long as I can remember, in the last 15 years or so it has got increasingly worse with three near fatal attacks in the last 6 years. I keep on top of it with regular steroid medication - in the form of a preventative inhaler 2xday everyday. I believe that the increase in diesel use has had a detrimental effect on mine and other asthma sufferers breathing, as the increase in diesel car use appears to have increased my asthma attacks and I am sure that of my fellow sufferers.

I for one will not mourn its demise, or at best, its reduction.

[marinabrian]

Chaps, can I suggest given the emotive nature of this subject we all take a step back, deep breath, make a cup of coffee, and calm down.

I have my own views on climate change which, shall we say don't fit into the profile of the popular accepted norm ;)

But remember this, we all need to co exist, be it on the forum, or indeed the planet ;)

Fills kettle and cracks open the digestives :drool4:

Brian :D

[alanjay]

As OP I'm disappointed to see my thread has been taken off topic to become a "slanging match" between a couple of club members.

Please guys, if you wish to argue start your own thread on the topic you are arguing about rather than hi-jack mine.

Contributions are always welcome from club members who take the trouble to read the opening post and respond to that but as said, please do not use my thread as an excuse to change subject.

[calibrax]

Really, climate scientists have taken all this into account in their projections. Do you honestly imagine that they wouldn't have thought of this?

It's a MASSIVE amount of missing data. Yes, you can extrapolate from a small amount of data - but when the amount of data you have is so small compared with the total, then the margin of error increases exponentially. So they cannot say with any certainty at all that it is man-made.

[alanjay]

I'm open minded on the whole subject and was seeking informed opinion

[ninaandphil]

I'm going to vote Green, lets stop producing power, that will reduce 30%, lets stop heating our homes and workplaces, that's another 30%, and then we can all scrap our diesels.... another 30% if we stop the lorries and buses too ( Sorry Tesco, more probs )... and YAY we're all saved..
Does any one on here want to swap my CDTi for a Chinese made pony and trap ( Must be the non farting kind!,,, the ban on methane is due in 10 yrs )...... We can worry ourselves silly whilst the rest of the world gets on with 'living the dream'... a car for every household in India and China!

[rosephus]

It's a MASSIVE amount of missing data. Yes, you can extrapolate from a small amount of data - but when the amount of data you have is so small compared with the total, then the margin of error increases exponentially. So they cannot say with any certainty at all that it is man-made.
Nah its not a massive amount. Factor in all the different sources of data from all the different eco systems.

I really don't see how or why 97% of climate scientists can be so wrong.

The effects being seen are huge and unprecedented. From coral reef devastation, glacier retreat and ocean acidification to animal extinction and habitat reduction Its undeniable. I find it thoroughly depressing that people deny it anymore.

[andymc]

It's a MASSIVE amount of missing data. Yes, you can extrapolate from a small amount of data - but when the amount of data you have is so small compared with the total, then the margin of error increases exponentially. So they cannot say with any certainty at all that it is man-made.

Ice-core drilling from the likes of Greenland and the Antarctic gives a very comprehensive record of climate, CO2 concentration levels etc for several hundred thousand of years.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

“The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on,” says Edward Brook of Oregon State University’s College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. “They say, ‘How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?’”

Frédéric Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysical Environment in France and a team of researchers may have found an answer to the question. His team compiled an extensive record of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 data from existing data and five ice cores drilled in the Antarctic interior over the last 30 years. Their results, published February 28 in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract), show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates.

[alanjay]

Nah its not a massive amount. Factor in all the different sources of data from all the different eco systems.

I really don't see how or why 97% of climate scientists can be so wrong.

The effects being seen are huge and unprecedented. From coral reef devastation, glacier retreat and ocean acidification to animal extinction and habitat reduction Its undeniable. I find it thoroughly depressing that people deny it anymore.

"I really don't see how or why 97% of climate scientists can be so wrong."

Think about King Canute or Hans Christien Andersen's Kings Suit of Clothes, both involved sycophants who would not re-examine the evidence.

Re-examination might provide a more balanced argument.

Lancaster university once did research on the increase of Kites (birds) around motorways which went into decline when unleaded fuel became the norm.

Conclusion, mice had adapted to leaded fuel and were prospering in the central reservation, so Kites had an increased source of food.

Reversal of situation meant mice declined and so did Kites.

The reproduction cycle of humans takes a lot longer than that of mice but the alternative argument is, given the equivalent development times, humans will adapt to climate change.

Also consider this, the 3% of scientists whose opinions you ignore are the ones who show there has been climate change in the past, not man made but a natural occurrence and all living beings adapted.

Climate change is a natural evolvement of our world, man's intervention might change when it happens but cannot stop it.

[calibrax]

Ice-core drilling from the likes of Greenland and the Antarctic gives a very comprehensive record of climate, CO2 concentration levels etc for several hundred thousand of years.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

Ok, let's say for argument's sake that they have 500,000 years of data. That still means that out of the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed, they have no data for the other 4.4995 billion years...

[rosephus]

Ok, let's say for argument's sake that they have 500,000 years of data. That still means that out of the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed, they have no data for the other 4.4995 billion years...
So what? We just ignore man's effect on the data we have? Your argument boils down to: there are 4.5 billion years of data we don't have so lets forget the whole thing.

No one is denying earth's climate hasn't changed over the age of the earth. Given how the earths eco systems work that's a scientific fact. The argument is that human actions especially since industrialisation have accelerated a warming cycle to the point where the earth's own protection of negative feedback loops kick in. Its a downward spiral we can't control and its our actions that caused it.

The earth will survive and out last anything we can do to it. In terms of cosmic time we are but a blink of the eye but that doesn't mean we should just go hell for leather towards our own species destruction surely?

[rosephus]

"I really don't see how or why 97% of climate scientists can be so wrong."

Think about King Canute or Hans Christien Andersen's Kings Suit of Clothes, both involved sycophants who would not re-examine the evidence.

Re-examination might provide a more balanced argument.

Lancaster university once did research on the increase of Kites (birds) around motorways which went into decline when unleaded fuel became the norm.

Conclusion, mice had adapted to leaded fuel and were prospering in the central reservation, so Kites had an increased source of food.

Reversal of situation meant mice declined and so did Kites.

The reproduction cycle of humans takes a lot longer than that of mice but the alternative argument is, given the equivalent development times, humans will adapt to climate change.

Also consider this, the 3% of scientists whose opinions you ignore are the ones who show there has been climate change in the past, not man made but a natural occurrence and all living beings adapted.

Climate change is a natural evolvement of our world, man's intervention might change when it happens but cannot stop it.
Humans will adapt to climate change based on a mouse example??

Do you realise the effect on the human species of an increase in ocean levels once the ice caps melt?

It will make the immigration issues and problems of recent super storms look like a walk in the park.

Why would you even contemplate that as acceptable given we can positively effect the outcome in our favour?

[rosephus]

One in six of world's species faces extinction due to climate change – study

http://gu.com/p/47qqx

Overlooked evidence - global warming may proceed faster than expected

http://gu.com/p/47p9j

Vatican official calls for moral awakening on global warming

http://gu.com/p/47qh2

Australian taxpayers funding climate contrarian's methods with $4m Bjørn Lomborg centre

http://gu.com/p/47n9v

Earth Day: scientists say 75% of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in ground

http://gu.com/p/47yya

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/unburnable-carbon-why-we-need-leave-fossil-fuels-ground

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=VbiRNT_gWUQ

http://watchdisruption.com/

[Zeeblum]

Humans will adapt to climate change based on a mouse example??

Do you realise the effect on the human species of an increase in ocean levels once the ice caps melt?

It will make the immigration issues and problems of recent super storms look like a walk in the park.

Why would you even contemplate that as acceptable given we can positively effect the outcome in our favour?


It may be possible to effect outcomes but is it realistic to expect ourselves to.

Live close to the people you want to see, live close to work, maintain what you have.
Make positive change in every choice you make and represent the value of life.
Ocean levels and super storms are the adventure/challenge when they are, for now though, we must wade through the constant flow of miss information and rely on our own truths and our core beliefs, always with an open and inquisitive mind and be willing to to expel our energy BEING the changes we want to happen.

How much does an electric car save on emissions (including its creation) compared to keeping an old diesel on the road?
And does an electric car save more in it's running life than was used in its production?

[rosephus]

It may be possible to effect outcomes but is it realistic to expect ourselves to.

Live close to the people you want to see, live close to work, maintain what you have.
Make positive change in every choice you make and represent the value of life.
Ocean levels and super storms are the adventure/challenge when they are, for now though, we must wade through the constant flow of miss information and rely on our own truths and our core beliefs, always with an open and inquisitive mind and be willing to to expel our energy BEING the changes we want to happen.

How much does an electric car save on emissions (including its creation) compared to keeping an old diesel on the road?
And does an electric car save more in it's running life than was used in its production?
I don't think its just realistic I think it's an obligation of us as custodians of the planet to do so.

[EastPete]

As professional working in the 'risk assessment' aspect of the pharmaceutical industry and a trained toxicologist, I watch these threads with interest, but usually from afar, because evangelical ranting tends to take over, rather than rational, evidence-based debate. There have been some valid points made - I think when I commented on a similar thread a few months back, I pointed out that we are all consumers of the earth's resources, and polluters, however 'green' you might think your lifestyle is. The growing population is probably the biggest threat to the earth's climate/resources rather than the diesel engine. The OP raised the issue of NOx levels, and there have been some horror stories already about how this will be the end of the diesel engine (as per Daily Telegraph article a couple of days back). I do think this will be the case, since the diesel engine is still an efficient means of propelling a vehicle, and we are heavily reliant on it for freight transport. If you read the Government response to the court ruling, they state that they are already working on measures to reduce NOx levels in city areas - it is worth looking up the Euro 1-6 specs for diesel/petrol engines, you will see that Euro6 came in last September for cars/light commercials, with a further large reduction in NOx output (although I do not understand how they achieve this). So, as newer vehicles hit the roads, this should have an impact on NOx output.

I agree that NOx levels in cities is a problem that needs addressing - the adverse health effects are well known, and using an older diesel vehicle in large cities is probably not very responsible. There is also no doubt that the focus on CO2 has probably had an adverse effect on NOx output. But, I hope that this latest ruling does not result in a knee-jerk reaction such as bans or extra taxation. The environmental lobby have used this very successfully as a PR exercise, but I thought the government response was promising and suggest we are not all going to be forced to scrap our 75 diesels. I hope there might be strategy to encourage more use of petrol or hybrids for inner city use (delivery vans, taxis etc.), and I guess that they do in some German cities makes sense, where they have badge scheme for diesel cars, based on the EURO spec of your engine - I think the older, more polluting engined cars have to pay for some sort of permit to drive into the cities.

I am scared to comment on the climate change issue, but my opinion is that the jury is still out on the link between CO2 and global warming. As somebody commented, the data collection period in relation to the earth's life time is much too short- I would reject any data sent to me for analysis based on such a limited time, and there has been some data manipulation
by some climate scientists to serve their own vested interests ! I am not saying there is not a link, but nobody can be sure at this point in time.

Pete

(BSc, PhD, DipRCPath(Tox), FRCPath)

[andymc]

I know I've mentioned this before, but I find the current focus on NO2 and in particular the call to use more petrol-engined vehicles in towns & cities somewhat bizarre and one-eyed, given that petrol vehicles emit particulates many times smaller than the more visible ones emitted by diesel engines, and which are capable of penetrating far more deeply into the delicate tissues of the sinuses and lungs. Moreover, there is no safe level of exposure to benzene, a key constituent of petrol - for example, from doing a quick search, I came across this (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-100/pdfs/05-100.pdf) gem: "The risk from exposure to 1 ppm for a working lifetime has been estimated as 5 excess leukemia deaths per 1,000 employees exposed." So I hope all you petrol drivers are holding your breath every time you fill up!

Speaking as someone who has had more than his fair share of trips in the back of an ambulance thanks to asthma attacks, I can't say that it helps me to be surrounded by the exhaust fumes of either petrol or diesel vehicles. I've ridden at the back of motorbike convoys (all petrol!) before now and still been feeling the effects a couple of days later ...

So it seems illogical to me that in terms of localised health effects, one of those fuels should be singled out as "dirty/toxic", while a veil is drawn over the almost identical issues arising from the other. Clearly, we can't turn round and say we're banning all the diesel cars for the NO2 and also all the petrol ones because of the benzene and microparticulates. As others have said, it's a great pity that there hasn't been more significant support given to LPG cars, as a "bridge" to cleaner transportation fuels.

[peelaaa]

I doubt China or India (the highest polluters??)have these gobshoites blabbering on.

[EastPete]

I know I've mentioned this before, but I find the current focus on NO2 and in particular the call to use more petrol-engined vehicles in towns & cities somewhat bizarre and one-eyed, given that petrol vehicles emit particulates many times smaller than the more visible ones emitted by diesel engines, and which are capable of penetrating far more deeply into the delicate tissues of the sinuses and lungs. Moreover, there is no safe level of exposure to benzene, a key constituent of petrol - for example, from doing a quick search, I came across this (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-100/pdfs/05-100.pdf) gem: "The risk from exposure to 1 ppm for a working lifetime has been estimated as 5 excess leukemia deaths per 1,000 employees exposed." So I hope all you petrol drivers are holding your breath every time you fill up!

Speaking as someone who has had more than his fair share of trips in the back of an ambulance thanks to asthma attacks, I can't say that it helps me to be surrounded by the exhaust fumes of either petrol or diesel vehicles. I've ridden at the back of motorbike convoys (all petrol!) before now and still been feeling the effects a couple of days later ...

So it seems illogical to me that in terms of localised health effects, one of those fuels should be singled out as "dirty/toxic", while a veil is drawn over the almost identical issues arising from the other. Clearly, we can't turn round and say we're banning all the diesel cars for the NO2 and also all the petrol ones because of the benzene and microparticulates. As others have said, it's a great pity that there hasn't been more significant support given to LPG cars, as a "bridge" to cleaner transportation fuels.

Thanks Andy

The situation is quite complex and I do not pretend to be an expert on vehicle emissions - I think there are pros and cons to all the technologies. Electric/hydrids would help the urban traffic pollution problem, but I think somebody calculated that if we all stitched to electric cars, we would need twice as many power stations (coal or gas-fired, nuclear ?) in the UK and then you have to deal with all the emissions from these additional generating stations. I know there are clean, renewable alternatives (wind, tidal, hydro-electric), but out here on the Cambridgeshire fens, I do not think they can put up too many more wind turbines around me, without one being actually in my back garden !.

From a toxicology viewpoint, you are right about benzene, but be careful about the risk calculations - these are biased towards scaring us (they are derived from rat studies where rats were continuously exposed to 1 ppm or higher levels of benzene vapour for 6 hours/day for their lifetime of 2 years - not a representative pattern of exposure for those us filling up the tank once a week or so, and some scientists argue there are safe threshold levels for some carcinogens, below which the risk is exceedingly small). The particulates are a concern, but DPFs are supposed to help here, and levels of PM10s have been reduced in the latest Euro6 regulations.

You are right that many forms of pollution (NOx, SO2, particulates) are bad news for sensitive airways or folks with respiratory disease - not all of this comes from vehicles - there can be atmospheric factors, output from volcanic eruptions, and I think aircraft emissions near city airports are often not taken that seriously.

Pete

[rosephus]

I doubt China or India (the highest polluters??)have these gobshoites blabbering on.
The head of the IPCC is Indian.

[peelaaa]

The head of the IPCC is Indian.

Obviously the West is an easy target then and it doesn't matter where the head is from

[bl52krz]

What a load of piffle is spouted on this and many other subjects. When I was a child, youth, we used to have "pea supers" that we're going to kill every living thing. Now we have got machines that are going to kill us with (a) co2. (Which we all breath out ) we should all be dead then? (Nox) really a terrible caustic gas? Bit like a pony and cart. The only reason in a capitalist society that these kind of things are set up is to make money. Don't believe me? Give me one thing along these lines where the cost does not go up!!!!!
Climate change? Been happening since the world was formed by ??????. Another fairy story. Give us peace for ruperts sake.

[bl52krz]

Humans will adapt to climate change based on a mouse example??

Do you realise the effect on the human species of an increase in ocean levels once the ice caps melt?

It will make the immigration issues and problems of recent super storms look like a walk in the park.

Why would you even contemplate that as acceptable given we can positively effect the outcome in our favour?
Oh dear. Another mere mortal who imagines that man "nose" best. I would think that climate change is such a massive natural occurrence that man would only have a minuscule effect on.People keep giving reasons for mans involvement in making it "worse". Well, consider this:- why are more young children being born with deformity ? Is it due to climate change? Or is it due to the additives that are being used more and more in food? Sorry but I am not hi jacking the thread, only bringing another aspect into the equation. I know of a few farmers who have died from that horrible disease, big c. Speaking to them they say they know how they got it. Using the fertiliser to grow food that contains n,p,k. Those of us who are gardeners know what those three letters mean. The analogy is:- are these kind of things affecting climate or not? Since they contain all the ingredients that climate change is supposed to be coming from.

[Seafrost]

Just to add my ten pence to this from a health perspective....... Both my son and partner, suffered with asthma for years, using pumps daily etc.

Two things changed...

We both stopped smoking... and we moved to a brand new build house, the old house was extremely damp. Both houses have passing traffic... engines of all variants.... infact the new house is closer to the road, its right outside the front door.

Both of them have not used an asthma pump since we quit smoking and moved. So I question whether cars/vehicles are the main cause of asthma? our doctor certainly believed that moving to a New build and quitting smoking was certainly a trigger for the asthma to stop. Surely if it was ONLY the Vehicles of whichever fuel.. they would both be suffering still?
I know there are different levels of Asthma, like many health problems, my own Nan had
Emphysema (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/emphysema/basics/definition/con-20014218)



And yes she did smoke, but quit when she was in her late 30's following a health scare... she believed hers was partly to blame on working in the linen industry for many years, ( fine fibres in the air )... it took her by the time she was 70...


Who really knows which is worse, or if they really are?... obviously NOT good for us, whichever engine, as is standing around a campfire, or BBQ..... all risks... but some are easier to TAX... or Levy more duty on...... to keep the tree huggers happy.


All I will say is... when I do the school run and walk... Diesels ( smokey ones ) do make me gasp for air, when they pass.... petrol cars seldom do... but sometimes when a petrol car comes past burning rich.. it burns the back of the throat.. more noticable, as the school is up a hill... so quite a walk..... and I do pant and take deep breathes quite a lot.... smelly HGV's are by far the worse!

[bl52krz]

I doubt China or India (the highest polluters??)have these gobshoites blabbering on.
Idoubt that GB were cutting emissions during our working revolutionary days either. It's all about money, nothing else. Look at all the bumf about "capturing co2. What a load of hot air.

[Yossarian]

The thing nobody has mentioned here is overpopulation. There was a quote from David Attenborough on the radio recently where he said that at the start of the 20th century the population of the world was one billion. Now it has just passed seven billion. A seven fold increase in just over a century. And every one of them breathing out CO2 all the time

If the population carries on at that rate we'll reach 50 billion in just over a century. That's unsustainable but no one seems to mention that. And of course they'll all want cars and holidays too. At some point we will have to stop travelling as much we do but for now we'll just carry on while we can.

[Seafrost]

Plus they also forget to mention Quote from How stuff works " Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's greenhouse (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/question746.htm) gases. A significant portion of these emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/global-warming.htm), is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide , Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence (http://healthguide.howstuffworks.com/gas-flatulence-dictionary.htm). Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day (or about 26 gallons to about 53 gallons), while others say it's up to 500 liters (about 132 gallons) a day. In any case, that's a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/ozone-pollution.htm) produced by a car (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car.htm) in a day."

[Polly]

Is it not also relevant that diesels are not tested for emissions at MOT?
No matter how clean they may be when the leave the factory, for how long do they remain that way. And how many owners have removed cats etc.
I'm sorry, but you can't do re-maps, remove emissions equipment, and still claim diesels are clean. I'm sure if it came to an emissions comparison, my 260 would often win, so why do I have to pay an extra £300 in road tax.
My garage owner insists that modern diesels are the bane of his life, emission controls have all but eroded any advantage they may once have had, and because of the perceived lower running cost, they are purchased by the wrong drivers. Our nearest motorway is over 100 miles away, so the cars are driven at low speeds in 6th gear with the result that filters quickly block up.

[bl52krz]

So much for "global warming". Just this very minute I have read a report that the Antarctic ice sheet has grown again. Must be through everyone holding their breath for an hour or two. This has come from a scientific study carried out over many years. Wonder what really caused this. We are all doomed. Again. The report makes interesting reading on cyclical warm and cold periods on earth.

[suzublu]

Is this thread still going on??? :shrug::getmecoat::duh:

[Jordan Apex]

Is this thread still going on??? :shrug::getmecoat::duh:

My thoughts exactly

[Polly]

To try to stay on the issue rather than GW.
As someone who knows absolutely nothing about diesels, if I understand correctly what I was being told, is that the modern diesel car will work well if driven fairly hard, with a good deal of motorway driving. As someone who wants to know the logic behind this, why does hard driving keep the filters clear? Where does all this material that was threatening to block the filters go?
The picture in my mind is that the material must be being forced straight through. OK, I am aware that engine might be much cleaner once warmed up, but during the warm up period the filter should be slowly clogging up, prior to being blasted clean again later, like when my mechanic takes the car for a quick blast as he describes it, before handing the car back along with his bill, to the owner, so in effect the filter isn't really doing anything.
Seems to me, it's another piece of junk fitted to new cars in order to make them comply with a certain piece of legislation, only to be chucked in the bin a few days later.
But now we get to the other part of the equation, if all the environmental bits are being chucked in the bin, why are the owners surprised when steps are taken to address this?
Perhaps any diesel owners wishing to defend there cars should start by telling us how much of the emissions control equipment still remains on their car.

[topman]

As someone who wants to know the logic behind this, why does hard driving keep the filters clear? Where does all this material that was threatening to block the filters go?


They engine gases need to get hot enough for the filter to work properly.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/diesel-particulate-filters.html

[Polly]

They engine gases need to get hot enough for the filter to work properly.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/diesel-particulate-filters.html


Ah thanks, now I understand. Just keep reminding me not to buy a modern diesel. The 1.8 K series has just become a whole lot more desirable..

[alanjay]

Is this thread still going on??? :shrug::getmecoat::duh:

As OP I'm equally amazed but am pleased to see that following a couple of club members trying to divert it for a private squabble, it's back on track.

Also, as OP, I now give you the right to close the thread if you think it's run it's coarse.

[alanjay]

Ah thanks, now I understand. Just keep reminding me not to buy a modern diesel. The 1.8 K series has just become a whole lot more desirable..


Thanks for following my post and also absorbing all sensible posts.

[topman]

Ah thanks, now I understand. Just keep reminding me not to buy a modern diesel. The 1.8 K series has just become a whole lot more desirable..

I think the diesels will become more advanced, these are just teething problems. I wouldn't buy one but for different reasons.

[bl52krz]

To try to stay on the issue rather than GW.
As someone who knows absolutely nothing about diesels, if I understand correctly what I was being told, is that the modern diesel car will work well if driven fairly hard, with a good deal of motorway driving. As someone who wants to know the logic behind this, why does hard driving keep the filters clear? Where does all this material that was threatening to block the filters go?
The picture in my mind is that the material must be being forced straight through. OK, I am aware that engine might be much cleaner once warmed up, but during the warm up period the filter should be slowly clogging up, prior to being blasted clean again later, like when my mechanic takes the car for a quick blast as he describes it, before handing the car back along with his bill, to the owner, so in effect the filter isn't really doing anything.
Seems to me, it's another piece of junk fitted to new cars in order to make them comply with a certain piece of legislation, only to be chucked in the bin a few days later.
But now we get to the other part of the equation, if all the environmental bits are being chucked in the bin, why are the owners surprised when steps are taken to address this?
Perhaps any diesel owners wishing to defend there cars should start by telling us how much of the emissions control equipment still remains on their car.
My car is as it left the factory. Completely standard. All the gubbins are still there. I have never been convinced that throwing some of it in the bin would make that much of a difference, if any.