OT Some ammo for those arguing against the use of 4 x 4 vehicles

[Vernon.Levy]

A news snippet on Radio Four news this morning was quite interesting. It debunked some of the
environmental arguments that support recycling. It said that in many instances, the drive to a
recycling centre to recycle bottles and newpapers often consumed more energy than the energy saved
by recycling. Furthermore, a 4 x 4's owner would have to have a 400 year commitment to recycling to
save the energy that the 4 x 4 uses over and above that of an ordinary car.

Of course if public transport was cheaper and faster and more ealiable then we'd all forgo the use
of cars wouldn't we ;-)

Vernon in Leeds

 

[Peter B]

"vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It said that in many instances, the drive to a recycling centre to recycle bottles and newpapers
> often consumed more energy than the energy saved by recycling.

That's because the idea is not to make a special journey but to use recycling facilities when doing
other errands like driving to the gym ;-)

Pete

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 07:18:51 +0000 someone who may be "vernon.levy"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>A news snippet on Radio Four news this morning was quite interesting. It debunked some of the
>environmental arguments that support recycling. It said that in many instances, the drive to a
>recycling centre to recycle bottles and newpapers often consumed more energy than the energy saved
>by recycling.

Environmental arguments made by people who are not environmentalists. Friends of the Earth do not
advocate driving in such a vehicle to a recycling centre.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Tony W]

"vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> a 4 x 4's owner would have to have a 400 year commitment to recycling to save the energy that the
> 4 x 4 uses over and above that of an ordinary car.

Is that a 4x4 owner's, a normal person's or an environmentalist's commitment?

Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.

T

 

[Vernon.Levy]

>Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.
>
I'm neutral on the commitment issue. I'm not willing to even venture a guess at then personality of
4 x 4 owners. I just question the justification of their ownership when they never get used for
their intended purpose.

 

[Vernon.Levy]

>Environmental arguments made by people who are not environmentalists. Friends of the Earth do not
>advocate driving in such a vehicle to a recycling centre.
>

OK I wasn't clear enough......too many people make journeys for the sole purpose of recycling glass,
paper and plastic etc thus negating the energy saving benefits of recycling. Ownership of a 4 x 4
was incidental to the recycling journey.

Vernon being evironmentally unfriendly by emitting copious amounts of methane after a great
curry evening

>
>

 

[Dave Kahn]

"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > It said that in many instances, the drive to a recycling centre to recycle bottles and newpapers
> > often consumed more energy than the energy saved by recycling.
>
> That's because the idea is not to make a special journey but to use recycling facilities when
> doing other errands like driving to the gym ;-)

That's the idea, but the item Vernon heard was reporting a study that had discovered there is a
widespread misconception that bottle recycling is the most valuable contribution an ordinary person
can make to energy conservation. As many people who recycle their bottles apparently make special
trips to do so their contribution is effectively negative, and even positive contributions are
trivial compared with the energy routinely squandered by the average person.

--
Dave...

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Tony W" <[email protected]> writes:

> "vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> > a 4 x 4's owner would have to have a 400 year commitment to recycling to save the energy that
> > the 4 x 4 uses over and above that of an ordinary car.
>
> Is that a 4x4 owner's, a normal person's or an environmentalist's commitment?
>
> Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.

You know, I'm really beginning to resent this? My truck has exactly the same normally aspirated two
litre engine as the same manufacturer's mid-line family saloon of the same year. It does around 35
miles to the gallon, which is pretty much the same as the mid-line family saloon. It weighs nearly
200kg *less* than the same manufacturer's mid-line family saloon.

I need it for a number of purposes, but a major one is for my voluntary work as trustee of a charity
that plants trees, and taking a couple of thousand tree seedlings up the side of a hill is not
something you can do in a family saloon.

But there's nothing, magical, or wicked, or enviromentally polluting in having a transfer box. The
extra technology involved in a second part time differential and two halfshafts is not greatly
different from that involved in having an extra couple of doors, and frankly 200Kg less weight means
200Kg less metal and other energy intensive materials which were processed to make it. My truck
doesn't have air conditioning, and it doesn't have an automatic gearbox. It's done 90,000 miles in
seven years and I plan to run it for another 100,000.

Frankly I haven't a clue what proportion of 4x4s are used in cities, because (apart from Edinburgh
which I visit about twice a year) I haven't been to a city in the past four years. But a lot of 4x4s
are used by people in rural areas where they are, if not strictly necessary, at least very useful
tools in everyday life and work.

So next time you're sitting in your this-years-model air-conditioned turbo-charged sixteen valve
five door Volvo estate (or whatever it is you happen to drive), you can just be a little less self-
righteous about the choices other people make.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]

 

[Richard Bates]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:50:18 +0000, in
<[email protected]>, "vernon.levy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.
>>
>I'm neutral on the commitment issue. I'm not willing to even venture a guess at then personality of
>4 x 4 owners. I just question the justification of their ownership when they never get used for
>their intended purpose.

It's the same as MTB owners who only cycle on roads, just on a bigger and more dangerous scale.
--
Due to a typing error on the Children's Hospital menu Saturday evening now offers "Beef burger in a
bum". Email: Put only the word "richard" before the @ sign.

 

[Tony W]

"vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> OK I wasn't clear enough......too many people make journeys for the sole purpose of recycling
> glass, paper and plastic etc thus negating the energy saving benefits of recycling. Ownership of a
> 4 x 4 was incidental to the recycling journey.

Yes -- but the argument of the BBC piece was that driving a 4x4 was 400 years of recycling worse
than driving a normal small saloon.

T

 

[Vernon.Levy]

>It's the same as MTB owners who only cycle on roads, just on a bigger and more dangerous scale.
>

Nice one

 

[W K]

"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:50:18 +0000, in <[email protected]>, "vernon.levy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >>Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.
> >>
> >I'm neutral on the commitment issue. I'm not willing to even venture a guess at then personality
> >of 4 x 4 owners. I just question the justification of their ownership when they never get used
> >for their intended purpose.
>
> It's the same as MTB owners who only cycle on roads, just on a bigger and more dangerous scale.

No, they are cheap and some people have the belief that the suspension will make them much more
comfortable.

what about - road race bike owners who don't race or will never get anywhere near winning a race.

 

[Vernon.Levy]

>what about - road race bike owners who don't race or will never get anywhere near winning a race.
>

But they are functioning in their intended environment.

>
>

 

[Zog The Undenia]

Peter B wrote:

> That's because the idea is not to make a special journey but to use recycling facilities when
> doing other errands like driving to the gym ;-)

Or the supermarket - most have bottle banks, can banks etc. Making a special trip is just stupid.

 

[-Lsqnot Respond]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:50:18 +0000, "vernon.levy"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.
>>
>I'm neutral on the commitment issue. I'm not willing to even venture a guess at then personality of
>4 x 4 owners. I just question the justification of their ownership when they never get used for
>their intended purpose.

my wife insists on driving a 4x4. i hate it and think the build quality of the same brand estates
she used to drive was much better. her justification is pretty clear, though; they come with 7 seats
and a high up driving position and she didn't like the mpv alternative.

i reckon her car is meeting its precise 'intended purpose'; school run, shopping and whatever else
she does to fill her time. these modern 4x4s with leather seats, climate control, sat-nav, cd, tv
etc are designed for exactly that; not off road tree hauling or whatever. they are nothing like the
utilitarian landrover i used to use.

i don't have a huge problem with 4x4s; they are simply a symptom of the real problem; a transport
policy that is orientated almost entirely around the private car. in my utopia where you will find
genuine modal choice, i couldn't care less what type of car is used by those who decide not to
travel on the plentiful buses, trams and trains or, naturally, on road by bike. private car
roadspace, subsidised parking and speeds might all be a bit reduced in utopia, though.

i'm not swayed by the "you're more likely to be killed if hit by a 4x4" argument, either. roads need
to be slower and safer; it's going to bloody hurt whatever you get hit by. 'ban 4x4s in the name of
road safety' is just as myopic as 'wear a helmet to promote road safety'.

 

[Dave Larrington]

I don't think anyone (in their right minds) is complaining about the use of 4x4s for fetching and
carrying and off-road driving and generally doing the sort of stuff that people /used/ to do with
them In The Old Days.

However, approximately 90% of 4x4s never go off-road. At least, that's what 4x4 owners told BMW when
they were designing the X5. This is why its off-road ability is negligible but, unlike most of its
competitors, it doesn't behave like a landlocked walrus when presented with a corner.

I note with interest that those ruthlessly pragmatic people, the French, do not have a Gallic
equivalent of a Land-Rover, in spite of their large rural population, and instead put their trust in
old vans and, in extremis, the four-wheel drive version of the Renault Kangoo...

--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[W K]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.
>
> You know, I'm really beginning to resent this?
...
> So next time you're sitting in your this-years-model air-conditioned turbo-charged sixteen valve
> five door Volvo estate (or whatever it is you happen to drive), you can just be a little less self-
> righteous about the choices other people make.

OK then. Get a car. unless you really do need a tractor.

 

[Peter B]

"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > That's because the idea is not to make a special journey but to use recycling facilities when
> > doing other errands like driving to the gym
;-)

> As many people who recycle their bottles apparently make special trips to do so their contribution
> is effectively negative, and even positive contributions are trivial compared with the energy
> routinely squandered by the average person.

Dave, I was trying to take the pee out of the people driving to the gym to use stationary cycles as
much as taking it out of those who make special trips to recycling centres.

I understand the pointlessness of specially driving somewhere to deposit a bit of glass for
recycling and Vernons take on it and am not surprised at the findings of R4.

Pete

 

[Peter B]

"vernon.levy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >Surely most 4x4 owners have no commitment.
> >
> I'm neutral on the commitment issue. I'm not willing to even venture a guess at then personality
> of 4 x 4 owners. I just question the justification of their ownership when they never get used for
> their intended purpose.

Yebbut they don't need to justify them if that's what they want and the purchase and running of them
is legal. Me, I can't stand the ugly monstrosites and think a large estate car far more practical
but it's a personal thing.

Whilst on the subject of relative fuel usage we normally go to our mtb jaunts in a diesel car which
has a fuel consumption readout. Normally 2 bikes go on a roof rack (and one normally goes in the
car) which returns a meagre 35 mpg, yesterday we had just 2 bikes which both went in the back and
the same car returned 45 mpg.

Pete

 

[Vernon.Levy]

>So next time you're sitting in your this-years-model air-conditioned turbo-charged sixteen valve
>five door Volvo estate (or whatever it is you happen to drive), you can just be a little less self-
>righteous about the choices other people make.
>
>
You're not suffering from cabin fever are you?

Clearly you need to get out more!

I thought the term 'dour scot' was a falsehood until now

Vernon (three quarters Scot - the remainder human being)