Motorcar...the real enemy?
Discussion
First of all allow me to lay my cards on the table. I think it's only fair that I highlight my own bias before arguing a point many will disagree with.
I am an ex-planning officer who, largely sick of being forced to ram "green" issues down people's throats, gave up to do something else. I am a car nut and do not believe that global warming is anything to do with mankind.
Over the last ten years I have been disappointed to see the motorist hit time and time again for being the great polluter that is responsible for the snow we have been having these last few days, summer floods, and so on. I hate to say it, but the greenies are well and truly winning over the petrolheads.
However, eating my cereal this morning I read on the back of my milk container a fact that simply amazed me. There was a tiny logo that said that the carbon footprint of my semi-skimmed milk was 800g per pint. This got me thinking about how this compares to car useage.
First this link told me that per person we consume 111.2 litres of milk per person per year. That is 0.305 litres per day or around 0.53 pints. Thus, the average person drinking the average amount of milk per day releases enough CO2 (specifically 424g) for a 2010 Focus 2.0 TDCI (144g/km)(an average car IMHO) to drive 2.95km. That is 1.83 miles, meaning if you take the car to pop down to the local shop to buy milk and the morning paper then you are probably doing more damage to the environment by drinking the milk and reading about how terrible the motorcar is!
To be fair however, we have to examine the average car use as well. The average motorist travels 12,000 miles per year which is 19,312km. If I knew how many motorists there was in the UK I could get a per capita figure, but I can't find that information readily. For now we will assume that everybody drives, which is clearly insane. That would mean that your average person travels 53km per day in their car. I'm going to apply a reduction of 20% to that to try and account for the fact that not every person drives. I think this is a fair and reasonable reduction. That gives us an average distance of 42.3km which, in our average Focus, is 6095g of CO2.
Now that sounds like a lot, but remember that the car has been blamed as the key killer of our environment and has been taxed to death as a result. However, in relative terms I find the milk to be more worrying. I mean, I am a milk drinker and a motorist and I find it insane that, per day, the impact of my activities on the environment from drinking my milk is almost 7% of the impact I have driving my car. So what happens if you consider the weetabix that it goes on, and the bannana that goes on top of that, and the soup for my lunch, the chocolate bar with my afternoon cuppa, or the chicken and rice dish for my tea. What about the computer I am typing on, the clothes I am wearing, or the warm house I am sitting in...the list goes on.
I guess my point is this: Why is our use of the motorcar so heavily punished when, cumulatively, our use of other things in our day to day life will have a far, far greater impact*?
I am an ex-planning officer who, largely sick of being forced to ram "green" issues down people's throats, gave up to do something else. I am a car nut and do not believe that global warming is anything to do with mankind.
Over the last ten years I have been disappointed to see the motorist hit time and time again for being the great polluter that is responsible for the snow we have been having these last few days, summer floods, and so on. I hate to say it, but the greenies are well and truly winning over the petrolheads.
However, eating my cereal this morning I read on the back of my milk container a fact that simply amazed me. There was a tiny logo that said that the carbon footprint of my semi-skimmed milk was 800g per pint. This got me thinking about how this compares to car useage.
First this link told me that per person we consume 111.2 litres of milk per person per year. That is 0.305 litres per day or around 0.53 pints. Thus, the average person drinking the average amount of milk per day releases enough CO2 (specifically 424g) for a 2010 Focus 2.0 TDCI (144g/km)(an average car IMHO) to drive 2.95km. That is 1.83 miles, meaning if you take the car to pop down to the local shop to buy milk and the morning paper then you are probably doing more damage to the environment by drinking the milk and reading about how terrible the motorcar is!
To be fair however, we have to examine the average car use as well. The average motorist travels 12,000 miles per year which is 19,312km. If I knew how many motorists there was in the UK I could get a per capita figure, but I can't find that information readily. For now we will assume that everybody drives, which is clearly insane. That would mean that your average person travels 53km per day in their car. I'm going to apply a reduction of 20% to that to try and account for the fact that not every person drives. I think this is a fair and reasonable reduction. That gives us an average distance of 42.3km which, in our average Focus, is 6095g of CO2.
Now that sounds like a lot, but remember that the car has been blamed as the key killer of our environment and has been taxed to death as a result. However, in relative terms I find the milk to be more worrying. I mean, I am a milk drinker and a motorist and I find it insane that, per day, the impact of my activities on the environment from drinking my milk is almost 7% of the impact I have driving my car. So what happens if you consider the weetabix that it goes on, and the bannana that goes on top of that, and the soup for my lunch, the chocolate bar with my afternoon cuppa, or the chicken and rice dish for my tea. What about the computer I am typing on, the clothes I am wearing, or the warm house I am sitting in...the list goes on.
I guess my point is this: Why is our use of the motorcar so heavily punished when, cumulatively, our use of other things in our day to day life will have a far, far greater impact*?
- Assuming you believe that CO2=impact....which I don't, but that's an argument for another day
I'm saying that a fairer system would be to identify the true environmental cost of all products and tax accordingly.
However, I don't think such a system should exist at all as I personally do not believe mankind has anything like the control over the environment we seem to think we have.
It is my belief that there should be a general drive towards progress and efficiency in all walks of life. Cars should be more economical - where possible - and resources (natural and otherwise) should be used as little as possible. This is not to save the environment or fluffy bunnies...but simply because using less of A to achieve the same amount of B is mathematically preferable an will result in a more evolved society.
However, I don't think such a system should exist at all as I personally do not believe mankind has anything like the control over the environment we seem to think we have.
It is my belief that there should be a general drive towards progress and efficiency in all walks of life. Cars should be more economical - where possible - and resources (natural and otherwise) should be used as little as possible. This is not to save the environment or fluffy bunnies...but simply because using less of A to achieve the same amount of B is mathematically preferable an will result in a more evolved society.
Conian said:
cars or milk? this is the toughest choice since 'daddy or chips'
I love milk... dont make me chooooooose!
As enjoyable as it is, milk is really calorific.I love milk... dont make me chooooooose!
An average sized person burns around 100 calories walking a mile at a reasonable pace.
A 200ml glass of semi-skimmed milk is around 100 calories.
So, your choice is:
A. Make that 2 mile trip in the car dicking around and having fun - let her warm up on idle
and NOT have 2 glasses of milkOR
B. Walk that 2 miles but enjoy 400ml of the white stuff.
I'll take the dicking around thanks....and probably do less harm to the environment to boot
I don't see how taxing is an effective method of controlling CO2 emissions anyway. How does the money help? Last time I checked nature doesn't deal in currency, and the government certainly aren't doing anything environmentally constructive with it. So please don't anyone suggest that taxing is a solution to carbon dioxide emissions, wether they be from cars, cows or computers.
I don't buy into the whole green tax issue as people make pollution and the Government will pay you to have children. The more children you have the more the Government will give you in child benefits.
So I find it very hypocritical for them to try and tax me more so they can combat climate change but if I decide to be reckless and have 50 children (I'm already up to 23) then I get rewarded.
So I find it very hypocritical for them to try and tax me more so they can combat climate change but if I decide to be reckless and have 50 children (I'm already up to 23) then I get rewarded.
It's the vegitarians !!
the eat cheese and drink milk but don't eat the cows, cows fart a lot hense more methane in the atmos !!
I'm off to Maccy D's in me 6 Ltr lorry to get a bigmac and save the planet, cos i love this planet.
oh and i'm bloody starving
the eat cheese and drink milk but don't eat the cows, cows fart a lot hense more methane in the atmos !!
I'm off to Maccy D's in me 6 Ltr lorry to get a bigmac and save the planet, cos i love this planet.
oh and i'm bloody starving
Edited by NHK244V on Thursday 2nd December 00:26
Splats said:
I'm saying that a fairer system would be to identify the true environmental cost of all products and tax accordingly.
You want more tax?The whole thing is b
ks. Motorists are subject to tax because they are an easy target. Same goes for anything that people really really need or want:Cars - RFL tax, fuel tax, Company Car tax
Houses - taxed to the hilt with stamp duty, inheritance tax, capital gains tax not to mention the council tax for living in the bloody thing
Alcohol - tax tax tax
Tobacco - tax tax tax
Flying (therfore foreign hols) - tax tax tax
The important thing to note is that Govts have moved away from punitive taxing and more towards a more commercial elasticity tax, i.e how much tax can we get away with before demand drops. If they wanted to stop you hurting yourself cigarettes would be illegal, as would alcohol.
The whole thing is a nonsense - it is not even as if these taxes go on paying for the issue they are claiming to be in support of.
Hitch78 said:
Splats said:
I'm saying that a fairer system would be to identify the true environmental cost of all products and tax accordingly.
You want more tax?Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff