SUVs Second worst polluters afte power

onwards&upwards

Supersonos wrote: »

But you do fly? Albeit rarely, you still pollute the world by flying in a plane that dumps CO2 directly into the upper atmosphere where it does the most damage.

And what about all the meat, fruit and vegetables you buy that are flown here from Spain, Africa, South America etc?

And freight. All the stuff you buy that is flown into the country. It's not just about you physically flying off on holiday.

And your dog eats dog food, and that's the problem. Their food is primarily meat.

You’re right i’m not perfect.

Is your point that if you’re not perfect there’s no point trying or caring?

unholyangel

The article is nothing but a supposition. They have no real way of knowing what has had the biggest increase or who is the biggest contributor other than a blanket answer of "humans".

Particularly when it comes to vehicles.

Someone doing 2000 miles in the vehicles with high co2 emissions will pollute less than someone doing 10000 miles with low co2 emissions. Which is why our current VED pricing structure is barmy and is not (in any way, shape or form) designed to penalise those causing the most pollution.

martinthebandit

marlot wrote: »

It's bonkers that most cars aren't even used for 95% of the time. I'd much rather see a national network of cars easy to hire by the hour. At every railway station, for instance.

......and how do people get to the railway station?

It'd be a 50 minute walk to my nearest or perhaps I should use the once a week bus?

Arklight

Do you know what the biggest polluters are? Amber gamblers. Stamping on the accelerators and then screeching to a halt, wearing out tyres.

And what is done about them? Nothing.

Not a single political party is brave enough to tackle this issue, unlike in the 70s and 80s. But they blame drivers of sensible SUVs.

Jackmydad

martinthebandit wrote: »

......and how do people get to the railway station?

It'd be a 50 minute walk to my nearest or perhaps I should use the once a week bus?

Longer walk here, and getting a bus would be a :rotfl: situation.
"They'll" have everyone living in nice apartments in town soon. . .
Apart from "They" of course.

onwards&upwards

Arklight wrote: »

Do you know what the biggest polluters are? Amber gamblers. Stamping on the accelerators and then screeching to a halt, wearing out tyres.

And what is done about them? Nothing.

Not a single political party is brave enough to tackle this issue, unlike in the 70s and 80s. But they blame drivers of sensible SUVs.

What’s a sensible SUV?

It’s not about blame, people get so defensive, it’s about fixing an enormous problem that could end civilisation as we know it.

I don’t get why people don’t care.

onwards&upwards

Jackmydad wrote: »

Longer walk here, and getting a bus would be a :rotfl: situation.
"They'll" have everyone living in nice apartments in town soon. . .
Apart from "They" of course.

Obviously public transport needs huge investment.

Jackmydad

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Obviously public transport needs huge investment.

Not really no. I wouldn't use it that much even if it was there and reliable for instance.
It's far more practical and economical for me to have personal transport of some sort.
The buses there are around here are hardly full apart from school times.

What it need is a complete change to the way we live, what we do, and how we do it.
Any government that tries to do that will be making sure it'll never get elected again, or in the worst case it would end up with civil disobedience and unrest.

Like everything else, it's always going to be "someone else" that pays for any grand scheme, or suffers due to it limiting some activity.

And again like anything else, nothing real will happen until it's too late.

onwards&upwards

Jackmydad wrote: »

Not really no. I wouldn't use it that much even if it was there and reliable for instance.
It's far more practical and economical for me to have personal transport of some sort.


And again like anything else, nothing real will happen until it's too late.

People do drive less when they can get where they need to easily on public transport, look at London and other major cities. If I could hop on a tram or bus straight to work and back I would.

On your last point I wish you weren’t right but sadly I think you probably are.

Jackmydad

onwards&upwards wrote: »

People do drive less when they can get where they need to easily on public transport, look at London and other major cities. If I could hop on a tram or bus straight to work and back I would.

On your last point I wish you weren’t right but sadly I think you probably are.

But then there are more bus journeys in London than in the rest of the country put together.
And it's all heavily subsidised.

When I lived in the Midlands, 35 years ago now, I worked shifts. It was about a five mile journey by car. Quick, easy and simple.
It would have taken three buses to do that five miles "door to door" most of those weren't even running at 5:30 in the morning.
So I've always found public transport to be a waste of time for me, as I'd assume it is for the vast majority of people who don't live in cities, and particularly London.

To be quite honest I'd rather walk and cycle if the alternative was living in a city.