SUVs Second worst polluters afte power

Car_54

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.

I live in a nice apartment in London. But it's still a 15minute bus ride to the nearest station!

A._Badger

onwards&upwards wrote: »

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.

It isn't that people don't care. It is that they have examined the situation and decided the hysterics are wrong.

Norman_Castle

A._Badger wrote: »

It isn't that people don't care. It is that they have examined the situation and decided the hysterics are wrong.

Examined the situation as in, I've got 30 years left so I'll be alright or, I don't want to walk so I'll choose to deny the problem.

Traffic pollution is a major factor in lung disease although presumably that’s hysterics as well.


VED was charged at different rates to encourage buyers to buy cleaner cars. It should also be based on a cars size. The number of vast 4x4s bought to drive in a city is ridiculous.

A._Badger

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Examined the situation as in, I've got 30 years left so I'll be alright or, I don't want to walk so I'll choose to deny the problem.

Traffic pollution is a major factor in lung disease although presumably that’s hysterics as well.

Screeching hysterics, yes - specifically the latest unscientific '10 years left' nonsense from the XR doomsday cult.

Air pollution (a different issue) is actually far less of a problem than it was 50 years ago. Improvements to urban air quality have been made and continue to be made. Where governments have intervened (having been nagged by aforementioned screeching hysterics) the cure has usually been worse than the disease - hence the diesel particulates problem. Politicians rarely make things better - especially when spurred to action by zealots.

In any case, you would have to prove that modern SUVs are significantly worse than any other vehicles. I doubt that you can.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

VED was charged at different rates to encourage buyers to buy cleaner cars. It should also be based on a cars size. The number of vast 4x4s bought to drive in a city is ridiculous.

w

Really? On what basis? Where would you draw the line? Everyone forced to buy a bubble car?

hareng

onwards&upwards wrote: »

what can be done to get people out of them? They certainly aren’t necessary for most road users I wouldn’t have thought.

For most of them they are bigger, in turn they think are safer being higher up.
3 neighbours and 4 kiddy carriers none have kids, go off road or travel further than 6 mile a day. Two of which are 3 tonne things driven by wealthy pensioners you will never get them out of.
This then leads on to how they perceive safety, higher up, weigh 3 tonne, have more mass to create destruction and of course theoreticaly less damage to themselves hence why famillies with kids have them.



Dont even get me started on their driving behaviour.

unholyangel

I think the fact that pollution is a problem concentrated more heavily in cities rather proves that good public transport links does not solve the problem.

People will always go with what is more convenient. And its never going to be more convenient to get public transport than it is to drive, for a large percentage of the population. In cities there might not be that much of a difference but in the more rural areas there is.

My old workplace would've taken over 3 hours on public transport. Or 20 mins by car. It also would've prevented me from stopping at the shops or running errands on the way to/from work.

EssexExile

Norman_Castle wrote: »

VED was charged at different rates to encourage buyers to buy cleaner cars. It should also be based on a cars size. The number of vast 4x4s bought to drive in a city is ridiculous.

The tax thing really annoys me. Poor people do what you're told, rich people just carry on as you were.

I have an SUV, I have it because I don't bend too well so I can't get in low cars. It's smaller than my old estate car & much more fuel efficient.

To balance my "nasty" car I haven't had children & I don't fly.;)

onwards&upwards

A._Badger wrote: »

It isn't that people don't care. It is that they have examined the situation and decided the hysterics are wrong.

So they think they are better qualified than all the climate scientists to ‘examine the situation’?

I think Norman Castle is spot on. They’ve decided they don’t want to change so head goes in sand.

onwards&upwards

hareng wrote: »

For most of them they are bigger, in turn they think are safer being higher up.
3 neighbours and 4 kiddy carriers none have kids, go off road or travel further than 6 mile a day. Two of which are 3 tonne things driven by wealthy pensioners you will never get them out of.
This then leads on to how they perceive safety, higher up, weigh 3 tonne, have more mass to create destruction and of course theoreticaly less damage to themselves hence why famillies with kids have them.

Dont even get me started on their driving behaviour.

My neighbours on both sides have SUVs, a VW Tiguan and a Toyota of some sort. One side is a widow, the other side is a retired couple who also have three other vehicles.

There are so many on my street it’s insane. It’s jst a big standard suburban street, none of them are ever muddy. My small company car (a golf currently) probably does more miles and more rural driving than any of them.

A._Badger

onwards&upwards wrote: »

So they think they are better qualified than all the climate scientists to ‘examine the situation’?

I think Norman Castle is spot on. They’ve decided they don’t want to change so head goes in sand.

In the age of the Internet ignorance is a choice. 'All the climate scientists' is a hopeless lie. I suggest you do some research into the subject and pay particular attention to the recent court case between Dr Michael Mann and Dr Tim Ball - and Dr Ball's court victory.

When you have informed yourself about that, you might like to consider the findings of Prof. Zharkova on the impending solar minimum.

Until there is a verifiable scientific proof of the global warming theory (and there hasn't been one yet) it remains a theory. And that is a precarious basis on which to plan society's future.

Meanwhile, how about showing us that SUVs produce significantly more harm than other vehicles? And no, an article in the Guardian (of all places)doesn't count.

Just for the record, I don't own an SUV and I don't much care for them. On the other hand, I care for hysterical greenies even less.