| Author | Message | ||
     bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: brig-cache-4.server.ntli.net |
Rolls-Royces are enviromentally friendly because when they are scrapped the are more bio-degradable what with all that wood and leather. so there all you tree hugging envirometalists who drive 2CVs and keep going on about big engined cars. We have lots of this in the UK do you lot in Oz have the same. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 701 Registered: 4-2003 |
Hi Bob, Unfortunately the answer to your question is "Yes". Not content with merely expressing their point of view, it is not uncommon for them to resort to vandalism to "punish" an innocent custodian for having something that the vandal cannot understand let alone appreciate. Surprisingly, they all seem to have come out of the same mould - "never let facts stop their obsession to get their own way." Rather than lead by example to motivate others to support their cause; they rely on getting legislators to enact "their way" of saving the world using tactics which, at best, are dubious and at their worst downright immoral in every sense of the word. One question I can never get an answer to is why Australian "greenies" who demand no fire hazard reduction measures in our National Parks to "protect" the plant and animal environment are nowhere to be seen when help is needed to SAVE the plants and animals when a fire starts and becomes a major problem due to amount of fuel present to feed the fire. | ||
| John Kilkenny Experienced User Username: john_kilkenny Post Number: 28 Registered: 6-2005 |
I think you will find that the the morons who damage or deface expensive or classic cars are not 'greenies' but are generally motivated by envy. Our carefully restored cars are a miniscule group compared with the ever increasing number of overpowered four wheel drives infesting our suburban roads and are unlikely to be targeted by 'greenies' or anyone else. Having said that, I am not sure that politics is an appropriate subject for the forum. | ||
| Jonas TRACHSEL Experienced User Username: jonas_trachsel Post Number: 12 Registered: 2-2005 |
John I am not so sure that your statement about "overpowered four wheel drivers are unlikely to be targeted by 'greenies' or anyone else" will still be valid in a year or two from now. Here in Switzerland the 'greenies' just recently have started a petition to ban this category of vehicles from our roads. And as experience shows, our Federal Council (=government) is willing to jump on every train going in the direction of annoying motoristr. Therefore, be warned, Switzerland is no more far, far away, our world is getting a village very fast.... Jonas | ||
| bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: brig-cache-4.server.ntli.net |
I live in Dorset UK which is rural. The beautiful country side that the greens keep going on about is in fact not natural and entirely man made and maintained. One idiot suggested that we should stop eating meat because it was cruel to animals. If we didn't eat the animals they would not be there, because farmers do not keep cows as pets they are an entry on a ledger and a profit making asset. We would have to eat more veg so then the farmer to make it worth his while will tear out the hedges- which is habitate for a lot of wild life- and turn Dorset into a giant field to grow cash crops. The greens object to every road building scheme on the grounds that a road will make the place look horrible and kill loads of wild life. To me a well build road looks good and gives me access to places that I and others would not normally see. The wild life will simply move away and then come back and live around the road. The way they greens talk it is though the bulldozers are going to squash Beatrix Potters Mrs Piggy Winkles hedge hog and her family. If I saw a bulldozers coming towards me I would move animals have the same survival insticnt. Near where I live is the Purbecks which is some hills from which you get a good view of Dorset which appears to be 90% farmland so we can easily accomodate the odd by-pass road. The New Forest ( Hampshire UK ) is called the New Forest because it is a new forrest that was planted about 500 years ago, and is completely man made. Incidently the Citreon 2CV is a dirty engine with emissions much worse than a modern 4x4. The reason 4x4 get picked on is because they are so obvious. It as though anything the remotist bit luxurious gets jumped on because we have to suffer otherwise we are doing something wrong-- guilt trips. The carbon footprint of the UK is 2% of the worlds total.25% of which- the 2%- is road transport.----0.5% A 4x4 is about twice the carbon footprint of a small hatchback. So if all 4x4s in the UK were scrapped we would "save" maybe 0.01% carbon. And there would a large pile of scrap. The greens continually rely of false science. One leaflet I read claimed that 4x4s cause 5 times the polution.!!! It is actually engineers who save the day. Recently in a discussion at work we are studying air systems as a replacement for hydraulic systems on boats because the dangers of a leak and the damage that even one gallon of oil does to the harbour -- which has lobster and other nice things to eat in it. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| David Gore Moderator Username: david_gore Post Number: 703 Registered: 4-2003 |
Hi Bob, Off-topic but relevant to your post above - mineral oil based hydraulic fluid has been banned from underground mines as it is a fire hazard and replaced by water-based equivalents. Perhaps one of these might solve your problem. We used to source our fluids from BP and they might be a good starting point - if you are near a govt. Mines Inspector, they would be able to point you in the right direction. Hi John Kilkenny, Re politics and this forum; unfortunately we are faced with a situation where politics is starting to represent a major threat to those of us who wish to own, operate and restore motor vehicles. For this reason, those amongst us that wish to retain the privilege of owning and using our favourite motor vehicles must "know our enemy", keep a close eye on what they are up to and make sure we present our side of the story at every opportunity. Unfortunately, this necessarily involves politics as the final arbiters will be our politicians who are subject to lobbying and other pressures from vested interests whose objectives do not always coincide with ours. Jonas's post on what is happening in Switzerland is an illustration of the "thin edge of the wedge" that will ultimately be used to attack more vehicles than just 4WDs - the next target will most likely be older vehicles that are seen as gross polluters and having succeeded with 4WDs; it will be less likely to generate widespread public opposition. Regards David | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 1159 Registered: 4-2003 |
It gets worse. There are already new zones in Europe where even a 1992 Honda is banned because it is too pollutive (read, too old for the dealer to make money). Only cars compliant with EUR0 2 emmissions regulations and which carry an expensive yearly sticker on the windscreen to prove it are allowed. Sorry, the link is in German: http://www.deuvet.de/fakt/pdf/FAQ_Feinstaub_201106.pdf but do you get the drift ? I guess it's the new car manufacturers manipulating the environmentalists to sell more cars. In Germany, cars with no catalytic converter pay a huge yearly supertax (I haven't followed it, but it's about $5,000 yearly now) and are virtually banned, early catalytic converter-equipped cars pay a lower but still stiff yearly tax, but only the very latest cars pay normal rates. Want a wedding car in the city centre ? Better buy a new Toyota as any Rolls-Royce before 1996 is banned. All this is in a part of the world which scoffed at Australian and American requirements for catalytic converter and pollution legislations for over a decade. At least out legislation was never retrospective. RT. | ||
| Richard Treacy Grand Master Username: richard_treacy Post Number: 1160 Registered: 4-2003 |
Oh, and while sort of on the subject, with the Light Bulb Politics raging in Australia, there is a tribute to insanty. That is compulory headlamp usage. For those not in Oz, incandescent light bulbs are about to be banned for home use. Some European countries have legislated that cars must be driven with the headlamps on at all times. Switzerland is soon to follow. How many tonnes of carbon dioxide does that produce each second ? Why force us to waste energy on daytime vehicle lighting while lecturing us on greenhouse warming ? It makes sense to use efficient light bulbs, and at home all mine are low-energy types. However, why slug the motorist as a baddie, turn off the street lights at night and make us use headlamps at noon ? Next there will be a WFRCWHS, the World Forum to Reduce Childrens' Wear on House Shoes. | ||
| bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: brig-cache-4.server.ntli.net |
Richard, The politicians are not engineers and they think that headlights on cars cost nothing to run. In the UK we have to have dip at least at night. Most modern cars have sidelights in the headlamp and give a large light which is good enough in town. At nights in town the headlamps make it harder to see and that when jay walkers get run over. My Jeep has dim dip which was a UK requirement yet we are not supposed to use dim dip !!! I always go to side lights in traffic queues, there agian I always indicate as well.Some drive all over town and think every body is telephatic. We have lots of eviromentalist interfering in stuff they know little about. They usually have beards with bits of museli stuck in it. Every thing in the shops in the UK got there by road. With out the roads we would grind to a halt in a matter of days. Recently we had a family moved down from London and they tried to get a pig farm nearby shut. They lost. Polution is caused when a car is made and when it is scrapped if they scrap old and replace with new that will be two lots of polution. In the UK cats are only necessary if the car cannot meet the emissions without it. However becuase all cars would not meet the emissions with out a cat they all have cats. Except if the car is on LPG it does not need a cat. BUT if the police were to stop the vehicle and see that the car COULD be run on petrol and therefore not meet the emissions an offence is commited. Dave, One of the problems we are having with air is that it lacks the power of hydraulic systems. Water based hyd fluids may be the answer. Air cannot be used much above 150 psi because of the danger. Also air equipment that operates at high pressures is not readily available. I dislike politics and spin etc but if we are not careful the eviromentalists will wreak the planet. Incandesance light bulbs 240v 60w are 25p low energy are £1.70, and last 5 times longer. I use low energy now that they have gone down ( they were nearly £10 )As an incandesence blows I pop a low energy in. 12w. At work we have motion detectors that if a light is switched on and the sensor then say 2 mins later detects no movement the light go off. Also our heating is gas, gas is not used anywhere else. In our energy audit it was noted that we are using less gas due to global warming. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Jim.Cowin. Unregistered guest Posted From: 203-173-18-35.dyn.iinet.net.au |
I do'nt know about anyone else, but I have often noticed that a lot of so called "greenies" get around the country in clapped out old bangers that leave a smelly trail of oil smoke behind them for all to put up with. talk about a classic double standard! (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| bob uk Unregistered guest Posted From: brig-cache-4.server.ntli.net |
Jim, We should have called this thread "have a moan here" I too have noticed that the greenies seemed to be with out money and suspect that they have no jobs and have nothing better to do than find fault with anybody that appears to have money because they have a job, and 4x4s and other nice cars are so obvious. To go completely of track A Rolex is not so obvious if a Rolex was they would find fault with that as well such as the amount of money it cost could have feed a family in a third world country for a year. The lack of money is not the reason the country can't feed it self it is because the boss of the country spent the money on a gold plated palace, and the sad thing is that the boss does not realise that any country is only 3 square meals away from revolution, and now the boss is having to kill people to stay alive. Next moan. In the UK there is a health and safety bridgade who find every thing dangerous. Our local authority have said that all children must be supervised one to one when at the swimming pool so the average family unit of mum dad and three kids can't go swimming. Then they moan that kids do not take enough exercise. For safety sake the kids must be taught how to swim and the sea is not the place to learn or the river after they have fallen in. (Message approved by david_gore) | ||
| Randy Roberson New User Username: randy_r Post Number: 5 Registered: 3-2007 |
At the risk of inflaming passions unnecessarily, I offer the comment that extreme environmentalism seems to me to be a sort of quasi-religion; that True Believers are so regardless of facts which indicate the contrary. The vast majority of Rolls-Royces are not driven a lot; nor are a lot of the high-horsepower supercars or Hummers, etc. They don't hurt anything in the scheme of things, yet they are easy for the radical enviros to inflame a mob against with irrational hatred, and in the USA anyway the big media are helping them. This kind of stuff is what is ruining people's freedoms in the West, anyway. There is nothing wrong with treating the environment with respect and we should, but there is a lot of wrong being advocated by the radicals with no facts supporting their extreme positions. At my employer we won't allow anything but potable water to hit the ground; we kick out contractors all the time for vehicles that leak oil, and we spend lots of money to keep it clean as possible. Please do not post this if it is not up to standard, as I don't mean to cause trouble but do intend to add constructively to the discussion. Regards,Randy | ||
| Gus Brogden New User Username: gus Post Number: 8 Registered: 2-2008 |
As a daily driver I use a 1965 Vauxhall Viva. It has 44 horsepower and I maintain highway speeds in this effortlessly. It weighs 700 kg. I get 56 miles per gallon. They did this 43 years ago, think about why they dont do it now. Co2 perhaps isn't the worst thing for the environment, plants need it to properly photosynthesize and actually benefit from higher levels. R12 is horrible stuff for the ozone layer but developing nations like China and India are pounding the stuff out like we did from the 1940's to the 90's. The damage takes 10 to 20 years to materialize (it goes up via the trade winds and one molecule of R12 destroys thousands of ozone molecules). Consider the 10's of 1000's of unregulated manufacturing plants in China, the brown clouds from Asia that blow across oceans, the coal fired hydro plants in countries that are undergoing unprecedented industrial booms. We live in a society where the spin doctors convince us that different must be better. I'm not quite sure that the western world is the problem. Maybe the last vestige of hope some countries economies have right now is showing the undeveloped nations how to do it right. Dont get me started. By the way, My Shadow and my Viva are the neatest cars in my neighborhood. |
