Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Do you believe world governments when they talk green about cars?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Do you believe world governments when they talk green about cars?

I don't - I think they all have a vested interest to keep us tied to our dinosaur juice powered cars .. and biofuels could be even worse for the environment then what we use at the moment as land used for food is set aside or forests cut down to grow plants to make biofuels...

Where else can a government such as the UK get away with charging so much tax (roughly for every £1 you spend on petrol - 65p to 70p is pure tax)

I think they have a vested interest only in technologies which keep us hooked to the pumps, whether it's petrol, diesel, or biofuels... basically only promoting solutions which we can't make ourselves.

Have a look at this video which is 2 years old now of a totally pollution free car (when combined with solar or wind power to pump it up) and let us know what you think.

http://tinyurl.com/yte73u

I think anything like this would get limited genuine government support as they know how much tax they would stand to loose.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They had a Mercedes on Top Gear the other day (I think it was a repeat) that had some sort of innovative product on it that cuts fuel consumption by quite a bit, involving piss apparently, that they'd spent a fortune developing. And for the first time ever, Jeremy Clarkson talked sense about the environment, saying "If they're really that bothered about it, why aren't they just giving us hydrogen powered cars?" How many prototypes have been shown at car shows (for years now too), seemingly without any sort of push to an actual business model for these cars? And CEO's of car companies banging on about multiple different types of fuel being used in the future. Who could be whispering in people's ears d'you reckon? Which companies would hate to lose their market?

    Incidentally, in Japan a few years ago they displayed an entirely electric car that had a top speed of 200mph, a 0-60 time of about 4 seconds, and was completely silent. Of course I imagine the powerstations would have to start working overtime to charge everyones electric cars up, so we'd just be shifting the pollution elsewhere.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I believe they think that voters want them to be serious about 'green issues' - whether they give a damn or not is another matter altogether.

    Biofuels for cars in northern Western countries though is a really rubbish idea which wont reduce CO2, will increase food prices and cause inflation.

    Carbon neutral powerstations though are a much better idea, using coppice or other types of re-newables.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Loads of technologies have come along to make cars work better and give you more miles to the gallon - quite often the oil companies will buy out the person who created them for a few million and they'll get shelved.

    There's a simple additive they can put in Diesel fuel to give you 10% more MPG's - stagecoach are testing it on their buses. Of course 10% more MPG's mean 10% less tax for the government.


    I think the governments in Europe MAY support this kinda of car when they move to taxing people per mile rather then on the fuel .. road tax right now is a fraction of what the average person must spend at the pumps.


    Also a car like this is basically very simple - not a lot to go wrong with it - so Manufacturers would hate it as they loose their after sales business on spare parts.

    The technology to make a greener car is so simple

    if you look at their main website for the first guy they mention selling the car for 3,500 Euro's

    http://tinyurl.com/3yfsbc

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    Loads of technologies have come along to make cars work better and give you more miles to the gallon - quite often the oil companies will buy out the person who created them for a few million and they'll get shelved.

    Why would they want to do that? Slow and steady would be great for them, they want the oil to last as long as possible, for many of the countries who supply it the money is the only thing keeping them in power.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    like many hybrid cars they sell that suposedly good for the environment, still only do about 20-30mpg normally, whilst the new diesel mini for example (which isnt advertised for it's greeness) does almost 60 mpg

    hydrogen still needs electricity to make so it shifts the fume production away from cities generally

    if they really wanted to solve problems they'd be investing more in the nuclear fusion option, yet still only a couple of billion has been put in by government, whilst they spent more than that on consultants last year
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if they really wanted to solve problems they'd be investing more in the nuclear fusion option, yet still only a couple of billion has been put in by government, whilst they spent more than that on consultants last year

    Given the current state of our nuclear plants its too late to invest too much in that, we need another couple of normal nuclear plants (now), some more hydro and wind and then some smaller biofuel cobined heat and power stations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    like many hybrid cars they sell that suposedly good for the environment, still only do about 20-30mpg normally, whilst the new diesel mini for example (which isnt advertised for it's greeness) does almost 60 mpg

    hydrogen still needs electricity to make so it shifts the fume production away from cities generally

    The first hydrogen filling station (in Iceland) is self sustaining. I'm not sure what they use to produce their electricity though, but I think it's green since it is a showcase after all.

    On the subject of "green" cars, did you see that hybrid Lexus? A fuel cell linked up to 6 litre petrol engine that does less that 20mpg, yet allows you to avoid the London congestion charge. Genius.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Why would they want to do that? Slow and steady would be great for them, they want the oil to last as long as possible, for many of the countries who supply it the money is the only thing keeping them in power.


    the answer to your question is ... Because people don't live forever

    If they did people might think more long term BUT since people die (and hold positions of power for even less time) they got to make their money ASAP

    If you're a government you got to think in 4 year cycles .. i.e. from election to election ...

    If you're head of an oil company you got to think in 12 month cycles i.e. company financial years - plus most will get profit related bonuses. And if they're not making the money they'll get booted out.

    We probably still got a good 40 Years of oil left .. most people in a position to be concerned about that figure will be dead long before that date ever comes ..

    http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Depends on the Government - the leaders in most Western Governments don't skim off a slice of tax revenue and put it in Swiss bank accounts. The PM for example gets paid £187,611

    http://www.parliament.uk/faq/pay_faq_page.cfm

    The tax raised isn't going to politicians personally (or Civil Servants - my last pay raises have been under inflation), but on things Government provides such as Health, education etc. If they didn't tax fuel they'd tax something else to raise the revenue.

    No-one's hiding fuel less alternatives - they're just not cost effective at the moment...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No-one's hiding fuel less alternatives - they're just not cost effective at the moment...

    Care to explain how they're not cost effective?

    And by cost effective - to whom are you referring?

    The consumer.. the oil companies .. governments .. car manufacturers?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People who buy them.

    If the car manufacturers could sell them at a profit they'd make them. If the oil companies could sell other types of fuel at a profit they'd sell it.

    The Government doesn't manufacture cars or sell petrol... nor is it some entity divorced from peoples lives - it raises taxes to pay for things the voters want.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People who buy them.

    If the car manufacturers could sell them at a profit they'd make them. If the oil companies could sell other types of fuel at a profit they'd sell it.

    Well if a car runs on fresh air what are the fuel companies gonna sell?

    car companies derive a lot of their profits AFTER the sale - spare parts, etc

    I'm afraid your - if X can make a profit they will do Y is too simplistic ...

    what about of X can sell Z for more money then Y - then why build Y in the first place.

    Have you seen this documentary? This is only a trailer - these cars were built ONLY because Californian law required them to be made 10 years ago but they were never sold - only leased so people could never own them - and once the leases ran out - all of them were taken from the people that leased them and they were taken and crushed

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQ4cEr5Wao&NR=1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J5f9x_RfHI

    Governments don't JUST collected taxes - they send people to war - strangely enough, often in some of the most fortified oil reserve enriched countries in the world .. :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As we all know, "green issues", "climate change", "global warming" and the like is based largely on myths. Climate change is caused almost exclusively by the sun, though most of you disagree. Remember, there were no cars around during the last Ice Age. The world will cool down soon enough. There is a case for living more frugally, for using the earth's resources more sensibly, but it certainly isn't because of "green issues".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    As we all know

    No, we don't.
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Climate change is caused almost exclusively by the sun, though most of you disagree.

    Evidence?
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Remember, there were no cars around during the last Ice Age

    What's that got to do with the price of cabbages in Uzbekistan? Do you understand what an Ice Age is and how they come about?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    the answer to your question is ... Because people don't live forever

    If they did people might think more long term BUT since people die (and hold positions of power for even less time) they got to make their money ASAP

    If you're a government you got to think in 4 year cycles .. i.e. from election to election ...

    If you're head of an oil company you got to think in 12 month cycles i.e. company financial years - plus most will get profit related bonuses. And if they're not making the money they'll get booted out.

    OPEC have been rather good at restricting their collective greed because they know that over supply with fast sales is bad for business. It may have cost us more but they have given us more time to find alternatives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    Well if a car runs on fresh air what are the fuel companies gonna sell?

    car companies derive a lot of their profits AFTER the sale - spare parts, etc

    I'm afraid your - if X can make a profit they will do Y is too simplistic ...

    what about of X can sell Z for more money then Y - then why build Y in the first place.

    Have you seen this documentary? This is only a trailer - these cars were built ONLY because Californian law required them to be made 10 years ago but they were never sold - only leased so people could never own them - and once the leases ran out - all of them were taken from the people that leased them and they were taken and crushed

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQ4cEr5Wao&NR=1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J5f9x_RfHI

    Governments don't JUST collected taxes - they send people to war - strangely enough, often in some of the most fortified oil reserve enriched countries in the world .. :chin:

    Of course its simplistic argument - not as simplistic as yours but hey.

    Do you have any evidence for cars running on fresh air because otherwise we're talking about some sort of fuel which needs to be gathered and then refined into a fuel, and it to be likely that this can't be done by Joe Bloggs in their back garden.

    And unless these new energy efficient cars don't need spare parts and never break down the argument about manufacturers making money from spare parts is irrelevant (and frankly the money made from spare parts is nothing compared to the money made from building and selling the car in the first place).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The first hydrogen filling station (in Iceland) is self sustaining. I'm not sure what they use to produce their electricity though, but I think it's green since it is a showcase after all.

    wouldn't put it past the people doing the showcase to use typical mains source
    On the subject of "green" cars, did you see that hybrid Lexus? A fuel cell linked up to 6 litre petrol engine that does less that 20mpg, yet allows you to avoid the London congestion charge. Genius.

    silly aint it
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Given the current state of our nuclear plants its too late to invest too much in that, we need another couple of normal nuclear plants (now), some more hydro and wind and then some smaller biofuel cobined heat and power stations.

    the best short/medium term options are to cut pointless consumption, and stop deforestation imo

    solat water heating is really good, and just requires a slightly warm temperature

    photovoltaic is erm not very good, if you look at the silicon purification technique, it's a very energy intensive manufacture

    hydro normally tears down green patchs of land and isn't THAT good

    tidal is pretty good, so is wind power

    on the topic of 'oh they arent cost effective' the only reason oil based fuels are cheap is because we've spent a century mastering the refining process and improving the internal combustion engine in regards to valve timings etc - you need to give other methods a chance to improve their economies of scale

    the only real option short term is cutting consumption, opec's oil production is down on last year, however consumption cutting isnt in anyone's interest, well anyone important that is, neither is intervening to stop deforestation

    and stargalaxy the guy who say global warming is caused mainly by the sun is wrong, the sunspot activity has fallen yet it still rose, and he gets caned by peopel who make the same observations and say he's wrong as he concludes before using all the evidence ie he wants attention and is a poor scientist


    ps read the single 'orignal' best method the other day, using all the plastic bags we chuck away to make a giant surface and put it to sea once every few months to reflect a big chunk of sunlight :p which can then be retracted afterwards so no long term problems
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the best short/medium term options are to cut pointless consumption, and stop deforestation imo

    Nice idea, but everyone knows thats plain not going to work, of course we should encourage everyone to use less power, but people still want TV's and people still want jobs in factories and offices to go to.

    Its a mixed picture, the UK must do something about its power supply and very quickly otherwise we are going to have to slap up a coal or oil plant or face a black out.

    The Seven tidal barrier should go ahead as well as a couple of new nuclear plants.

    As for the wider picture, the carbon trading scheme could be made to work, if it wasnt totally corrupt and the credits WAY over the top.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Nice idea, but everyone knows thats plain not going to work, of course we should encourage everyone to use less power, but people still want TV's and people still want jobs in factories and offices to go to.

    Its a mixed picture, the UK must do something about its power supply and very quickly otherwise we are going to have to slap up a coal or oil plant or face a black out.

    The Seven tidal barrier should go ahead as well as a couple of new nuclear plants.

    As for the wider picture, the carbon trading scheme could be made to work, if it wasnt totally corrupt and the credits WAY over the top.

    yeh we need to replace the current nuclear power plants, and shut down the old ones, also when making the plants, making breeder reactors to go with them

    nuclear fission, if everyone used it instead of oil/gas, we'd run out of uranium(well the right isotope) in 30 years
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nuclear fission, if everyone used it instead of oil/gas, we'd run out of uranium(well the right isotope) in 30 years

    Possibly, but that at least gives us another 30 years to tinker with fusion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course its simplistic argument - not as simplistic as yours but hey.

    Do you have any evidence for cars running on fresh air because otherwise we're talking about some sort of fuel which needs to be gathered and then refined into a fuel, and it to be likely that this can't be done by Joe Bloggs in their back garden.

    And unless these new energy efficient cars don't need spare parts and never break down the argument about manufacturers making money from spare parts is irrelevant (and frankly the money made from spare parts is nothing compared to the money made from building and selling the car in the first place).


    Do you actually know all this for sure or just guessing?

    As for myself I know people that work in both the car industry and spare parts industry as well as people who have known people who have come up with new technologies that would save fuel only to be bought out by big oil companies who didn't want to see their sales of oil decline.

    As for evidence of cars that can run on air - did you even bother to see the first video? That's your evidence right there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I used to work in energy efficiency for the Government.

    I also have the ability to think critically and not accept any old conspiracy guff from the web...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I used to work in energy efficiency for the Government.

    I also have the ability to think critically and not accept any old conspiracy guff from the web...

    Cool, so I've posted various links to video, etc to show one point of view - you got any interesting links you want to point the rest of us to to support your point of view?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't buy the argument about manufacturers wanting to make sure they have a steady stream of spare parts business. By that definition, we'd never have DVD players because tape players are more likely to break.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Possibly, but that at least gives us another 30 years to tinker with fusion.

    yeh, but better early than late, there is research going on ofc but nowhere near as much as there should be

    this is the current prototype test model which will need 20 years of operating
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Thermonuclear_Experimental_Reactor

    it is still 8 years off being built

    people forget, almost every drug they take for any illness or disease they get, as well as normally having a plant or animal source, has compounds that come from oil

    also in regards to fusion
    According to researchers at a demonstration reactor in Japan, a fusion generator should be feasible in the 2030s and no later than the 2050s. Japan is pursuing its own research program with several operational facilities exploring different aspects of practicability
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't buy the argument about manufacturers wanting to make sure they have a steady stream of spare parts business. By that definition, we'd never have DVD players because tape players are more likely to break.


    Car & DVD Player's are hardly the same ...


    You're comparing for what most people is the 2nd most expensive thing they're likely to purchase (after a house) and one of the items most expensive to keep, maintain and run to one of the cheapest consumer items there is.. not mention an item where the consumer quickly starts to spend more money on the media rather then the player (i.e. how many DVD Disc does it take before you've spent more on the movies then on the actual player? .. not many these days)

    Also if your VCR breaks do you go for spare parts + the labour costs involved in having it repaired or do you just buy a new one from any manufacturer out there? I susect most people throw it away and buy a new one and probably from another manufacturer. Not many people throw out a entire car if something breaks.

    you picked a really, really poor comparison (cars vs DVD players / VCR's) ... got a better example?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As soon as it isn't profitable the government will turn over to alternative methods of fuel. E.on are already building offshore windfarms, others I believe will follow soon.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My dad who was involved with the MoD knew for a fact that several very efficient engine designs (something to do with the cylinders) had been 'bought' and sat on because they would reduce fuel consumption dramatically.
Sign In or Register to comment.