Pragmatic green and hybrid cars and other things

[davefreer]

I'm a biologist. I am a supporter of sustainable self-sufficiency. I suppose in that sense you could call me 'green'. It's not for everyone and I hold no brief nor have any interest in pointing fingers at anyone else's choices. That said I often look at self-proclaimed 'green' people and want take their heads and push them into the bowl and give

Comments

[reverancepavane]

Then again, a great majority of SUV in Australia don't manage to get anywhere near a dirt track (unless, of course, the dirt track comes to the city in the form of a dust cloud). I think the majority of people buy them because of the mistaken belief that they are safer, when, as "commercial" vehicles, the safety standards are much more lax. And to see over the top of other cars (hence the innate moral superiority of the seagull).
And the original complaint was that kids are getting injured (fortunately not seriously) because drivers can't actually see the kids around these hulking monsters. Which is why they wanted them removed from the area immediately in front of the schools (but that might of meant that the drivers might have had to actually get out of their cars and walk a little bit in order to pick up their kids...).
Besides, the increased tax proposal (which has been around a long time [one mustn't forget that the state of journalism in Oz is rather deplorable and sensationalist (a problem when you don't really have much news to report), which is one of the reasons the papers are in major trouble]) has actually more to do with environmental degradation caused by four wheel drives being taken to certain popular parts of Queensland (such as Fraser Island). Farm vehicles and country vehicles were purposefully excluded from the proposed tax hike.

[davefreer]

The trouble is the caveats need to be upfront, and are emasculating of the purpose. In the UK for eg, an elderly landrover from the back end of nowhere gets hit with the same extra charge as a chelsea tractor. I'm no friend of the 4x4 - would you call it a van? without a bin, Pajero's are a typical local eg, that live in towns and cities (without snow) that are a status symbol and not 'needed' or even used for bad/offroad conditions (I'm extremely ambivalent about off-road driving on public property. Not convinced it is necessary or a good idea). But there is a big baby with the bathwater problem. Firstly you need to clearly define your terms: what is a 4x4? A suzuki vitara or subaru Forester? Hardly high or even fuel thirsty in relative terms - but 4x4. Secondly: for country/farming use. Where does country start and where does farming start? Is a small-holder who works in town a farmer? And what is 'use'? Is it better for the environment to have the person who fishes in remote places on weekends or goes on an Annual Australian Geographic offroader to own another - or possibly third vehicle? Is it better for him to take the civic on a 40km round trip to work and his wife to drop the kids and do the shopping 5km total in the Pajero? If you are going to charge extra licencing fees (a possibility I accept)where do you draw the lines? Accepting that it will take 5 or more years (depends on distances driven) for the extra fuel consumption to cover the environmental damage of having a second or third car, when is it justified? It's a lot less open and shut than let's get these chelsea tractors off our city streets. That tends to tar the legitimate with the rest. I've been on the wrong end of it myself with some oik giving me a thousand words of abuse about driving a 4x4. We don't use it unless the road is wet and it is necessary to go. Like the assumption about someone's intellect and morals on the basis of their skin colour, the assumption is it is a vanity vehicle - even old and muddy! - exists. The onus has to be clearly placed on those who want to have this sort of law to 1)bear the cost and inconvenience of it. 2)Make sure those who have legitimate reason to drive the 4x4 do not bear the cost and inconvenience of it. So: if farm and country vehicle are to be specifically excluded - just how do propose it should be done in ways that fulfil the criteria above? I suppose the postcode of the residential/work address could be used to some extent - but it would still come down to 'prove you live where you do, and do what you do for more than half I would guess - putting the onus and inconvenience and expense onto them. Punishing them for living in the country.

[jpfuel]

More sillyness.

Hummer = bad to the environuts.

Prius = good to said same.

A Prius will cause more damage to the environment of the planet than a Hummer will in the same life span. Firstly, to get the batteries, the mine the nickel (a very nasty process) up in Canada. . . nothing grows near the mine due to metals pollution, and it causes a nasty acid rain. The metal ore is then shipped from Canada to Germany for refining, then it is shipped to China for "foaming" and then it is shipped to Japan to finally make a battery. When added to the rest of the metals and what to make the Prius, you've done much more damage to the environs than it does to build a Hummer, or Land Rover Discovery. Now the Prius is this "clean burning" hybrid, so sure, it pollutes less when running. But it starts so far in the EcoHole that it needs to be used for years before it can start to draw even with the Hummer. . . just as it is about to do so, it will need replacement batteries. . . BANG. . . back in the hole.
Some try to up the ante with a Plug In conversion to the car. . . . unless the power comes solely from Nukes(and even that is a bit polluting to mine and refine) you are either adding carbon to the atmosphere (nowhere near as bad as they claim, but we will use their rules on them and call CO2 a "pollutant. . . but I demand they tax the animals for breathing) or they might get Wind power, but that kills birds. . . one farm out west has killed 80 Golden Eagles. . . if a Coal plant killed half that, it would be shut down. . . Or if they use Hydro. . . Egad, talk about damage to an ecology!

Then there are the new Fuel Cell cars.

Water Vapor.

Sounds rather innocuous.

But Water Vapor is The Biggest contributor to Green House effects.
About 95% of the effect.
And they want to add to it to prevent us adding our .117% to the greenhouse in carbon.
And this to them makes sense.
It actually would as over 99% of Water Vapor is naturally occurring, and our contributions would likely now add all that much. But (and there is always a BUT) to make Hydrogen we need power from somewhere to split Hydrogen from it's most common partner. That means a powerplant that is efficient, cheap and always working. . . Nukes or Coal fit the bill but they feel they are evil, not to mention the CO2 from the coal adding to that while trying to make the H to add to the vapor. so back to the drawing board.

My truck is a 4x4, btw. A '98 Nissan King Kab Frontier with a 2.4 I4.
Gets between 17 and 22 mpg on the USA's crappy food filled gas (I'll not get started on the stupidity of burning the world's Food as gas in our cars by Federal Mandate). I've mostly been riding a motorcycle though. Needs fixing, my truck, and I was well and truly broke in the wallet too for some time.
A Friend has a big Ford F250 4x4 Powerstroke Diesel. Big Honking thing.
Gets 22-25 MPG in daily use, and he hauls very large trailers from time to time so he needs something that big. Granted, he has the standard trans. My dad gets 25 mpg from his 2wd auto trans version. Dad's is a 97 model with the 7.3 liter version.

[davefreer]

Well, I have some interest in space to earth microwave transmission, and wave power. I've always wondered about the water-vapour issue.
The EcoHole is my point. Not that it can't be solved, or shouldn't be solved, but that it exists, and we need to think about when replacement is actually worse.

[jpfuel]

Problem being, most of those really loud for all these changes really, on close inspection, are not Acting like they believe what they are pushing.
ALGore, Ed Begley, Jr. and Daryl Hannah.
All three are Enviro folks.

Al is the Big Guy (In more ways than one) with his faulty movie and friggen Peace Prize. Lives in a mansion that uses over 10 times the energy of the average American family, Flies in an older Gulfstream III that burns nearly as much fuel as a small passenger jet holding 100 people, etc.

Ed has a program on TV promoting his vegan greeny lifestyle. Built his own electric car, cooks with the sun, etc.

Ms Hannah and her hubby live in a cabin, off grid, in the mountains. She limits her traveling as much as possible and tries to grow her own food. . .

One of these three is NOT like the others. . .
And it is the one trying the hardest to force us to change our ways.

Ed and Daryl at least actively try to live the changes they think we should make. I may think they are wrong, (well, Both are a bit looney actually. . Ed thinks G. W. Bush is a racist and GWB had the most diverse racial makeup of his cabinet simply because he thought those were the best people for the job, not because he was trying for a false sense of "diversity" and Hannah has been arrested for chaining herself to a tree over an inner-city "Farm" (although when she had helped raise the money the land owner had said he'd sell it for he backed out)) but at least they try .

[reverancepavane]

I believe the proposal was based on existing regulations and definitions. That is, if you have a farm (as defined for tax purposes and the definitions of farm are actually quite loose), or satisfy the conditions for the country fuel rebate (have a residence a certain defined distance from the cities), then you are excluded from paying the levy on a certain class of commercial vehicle (which includes the SUV). It's probable that government and corporate vehicles satisfying the class would also be excluded.
Not perfect, I admit.
Although I do admit that whilst working at one of the private hospitals my boss got curious enough to do a survey of the SUV in the doctor's parking lot. Only one out of thirty or so had been taken offroad (either that, or they made use of the most exacting of car detailers to clean every part of their vehicle.

[davefreer]

Better than nothing I feel. But the onus is still on those who will be penalised rather than those who want them penalised. It's like the google thing - where copyright is now something that you have to go to their site and assert if you want to be paid. They want to use my material - they can look for me and pay me.

[davefreer]

And BTW, yes, I scant to zero sympathy with the doctors and their SUVS.