meic wrote:
The reason for targetting SUVs (often incorectly labeled 4x4s) is because of the gratuitous excess of a 5L petrol engined tank to carry little Johny (20Kg) to school in Chelsea. This is such an obvious example of the worst excesses.
The journey could be done in a micra (or even on a bike).
Surely this is a much bigger problem of the majority of resources being concentrated amongst the relative few. That there are a high proportion of 4x4's in Chelsea (how true this is, I don't know), is in itself not going to create an ecological and environmental global disaster.
The bigger picture is that the richest 10% of the world own 85% of global assets, whilst the poorest 50% of the world own 1% (taken from Wikipedia - no idea how accurate these stats are, but they paint a picture of what I'm trying to say). This skewed distribution of resources is the real problem - it means that a sizeable minority of the world's population can drive cars (of all engine sizes), can take multiple air-flights each year, can power all manner of electrical toys, tools, entertainment systems, convenience products, can dispose of and replace possessions rather than fixing them, etc, etc.
But a more even distribution of resources would require us (the 'West') to have less - and we're not going to put up with that - so the problem will continue.
And then, to matters worse, within the rich Western countries there is also a skewed allocation of resoruces, where the richest have so much wealth that they live to different rules (the rules which dictate you can do anything if you can pay for it). This means that it will be Mr & Mrs Average of the Western world who are supposed to respond to and therefore solve climate change - however, in reality Mr & Mrs Average are stuck in a rut, unable to change to any extent.
Our politicians are playing a game. It's not long ago they were telling us that Climate Change was the greatest danger we face today (and don't get me going on pop & rock-stars and their hypocracy!!). Now, apart from increases in VED and fuel duty (not by too much to discourage car use to any great extent, but to actually increase tax revenue for the coffers), and a requirement to provide an energy efficiency assessment when you sell your house, it seems to have been dropped from the agenda.
If only we could now get rid of all the 4x4's that are not used for rural-type / commercial pursuits, and hey-presto, the planet will be saved for our future generations
The point is, the mega-rich and those in positions of power will not give up their lifestyles. Therefore, the focus will be on the average person who is just getting on with their lives, trying to live within a country that has a certain acceptable standard of living and disjointed government policy. A country where the average family has two working parents (who each year have to work harder and longer to make ends meet) and 2 kids. The reality for a lot of these families is that biking the kids to school is not a realistic option. I'm not saying a 4x4 is the only option, but a car of some sort usually is. And then, once (maybe twice a year), the family wants to escape it all and fly to a foreign country for a well earned rest away from the stress of it all (suitably enticed by a 0% offer on the credit card - designed to make the richer even richer).
So Mr & Mrs average are the villans, and so Mr & Mrs Average will have to keep paying higher and higher taxes. Meanwhile, the richest people in our society, who arguably cause the greatest damage and could arguably change their behaviour the most, pay hardly any taxes (since they claim residency in some tax-haven), get even richer, and pollute even more.
After my car park episode, if I had the cash, I'd buy a 4x4 tomorrow, since if current climate change really is caused by our pollution, then it's not getting solved any time soon, and according to all the 'experts' that were rolled out last week we should get ready for colder winters!!
)