British warships in Gulf to be renamed AA and RAC

[Tangled Metal]

Just suv cars or trucks too? All motoring or just the ones you don't like?

It's interesting just what you focus on.

It reminds me of my brother in law and his company car. It was a Honda suv. He parked at an inner city carpark owned by his employer. Also a taxable perk reserved to managers and above. He had limited choice so chose the most fuel efficient and least polluting car on the list of options his employer gave him. An suv.

Higher ranked employees got better choices like those lexus hybrid suvs from the beginnings of that technology.

Green peace used to b do raids into that private carpark to leaflet the most polluting cars. They only put them on the SUV s. In most cases they were not the worst option. Bear in mind the only people who got parking spots were company car drivers too you can guess there were a lot of similar car models around.

Personally I thought they should all live in places they can issue public transport so there's not as much car use but my point is that at times those of a campaigning bent don't always pick the right battles. The 2 seater sports cars in that carpark were likely to be issuing more pollution and using more fuel for the v transportation of fewer people.

Of course I agree with less car use and the choice of less polluting options (whatever type of vehicle that is) then using that vehicle must efficiently. However I take that view for environmental reasons not because I've got an issue with the way motorists drive around me. If you've got an issue with motorists driving concentrate on that, why conflate vessel protection or oil use. The bad driving issue is a worthy enough cause in its own right.

Sorry if I'm coming across a bit strong. I seem to have been wound up for some reason.

BTW I've never really lived anywhere where car drivers have been a significant issue. So perhaps that's why I'm not agreeing with you as much.

[horizon]

Of course I agree with less car use and the choice of less polluting options (whatever type of vehicle that is) then using that vehicle must efficiently. However I take that view for environmental reasons not because I've got an issue with the way motorists drive around me. If you've got an issue with motorists driving concentrate on that, why conflate vessel protection or oil use. The bad driving issue is a worthy enough cause in its own right.

That was my point. I took it as self evident that cars are problematic (otherwise this really would be a long thread). My point about the naval protection was that this is just another privilege conferred on motorists for little justification.

BTW I've never really lived anywhere where car drivers have been a significant issue.

Planet Earth?

PS I didn't mention bad driving - where did you pick that up?

[reohn2]

.........To go to war to protect the right to abuse the environment, to create pollution, to damage health and to mar our cities and landscapes is IMV obscene.

Agreed and it wouldn't be the first time either!

[Cyril Haearn]

No aggression training in the RN ........... or should I say that in all my 27years of service, there was none at all.
They taught independent thinking, resourcefulness and teamwork, and we fostered that in our junior ratings. No doubt officer training was the same.

You did not practice hand-to-hand combat? +1!
Was there an exaggerated group culture ('my chums right or wrong') like in the police?
Or was it more like working in a modern office, where the loudest sound is the clicking of the mice?

[Mike Sales]

The real cost of using all this oil is so much more than the consumer pays. If Iran's posturings make oil more expensive it would be good.
Of course Iran's desire is to be free to make money exporting their own oil.

[Mick F]

No aggression training in the RN ........... or should I say that in all my 27years of service, there was none at all.
They taught independent thinking, resourcefulness and teamwork, and we fostered that in our junior ratings. No doubt officer training was the same.

You did not practice hand-to-hand combat? +1!
Was there an exaggerated group culture ('my chums right or wrong') like in the police?
Or was it more like working in a modern office, where the loudest sound is the clicking of the mice?

It was the SHIP that did the fighting, not the men and women of the crew.

Combat of any sort wasn't part of life in the RN. We "sparred" with each other and took the mickey out of each other, we had "in jokes" and subtext, but that's all it was - banter. We lived closely together, slept together in bunk-spaces, drank together and ate together and went on shore leave together. We were a team and a good one at that.

We had "trickle drafting" in that there was a constant trickle of new members in the ship rather than all being replaced at once. This led to better efficiency instead of all being newbies at once.

Shore based, it was more of a nine to five job, or shift-work. Two or three years serving in a ship, then a couple of years shore-based.

[Carlton green]

Unless I completely mistaken the U.K. Warships in the Gulf are there to protect U.K. shipping from aggression from Iran. Iran is a bit pissed at us for impounding one of their Tankers that was suppling oil to Syria. Iran has also been happy to plant and explode mines on other countries Tankers in the Gulf. The impounded ship (Grace 1) is managed by Russian Titan Shipping
( https://www.balticshipping.com/vessel/imo/9116412 , Russian Titan Shipping , https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence ... over-cargo )

By all means complain about oil production and there being too many cars. Be happy to forget that oil powers buses, fire engines, lorries, and ships; forget too that your shopping is kept fresh in plastics, that your water is delivered in plastic pipes and that oil is used to heat people’s homes, hospitals and schools. All those things are there for the AA and RAC to worry about so we may not. Be happy too to forget about the atrocities committed in Syria and the fact that if Iran gets Nuclear capability the world will be an even unsafer place, again we have the AA and RAC for that.

Sorry if this is a bit of a rant but there is a time for a bit of a wider perspective - and IMHO posts goading of other members is also not what any forum should be about ......

Edit. For uses of crude oil see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery
I notice that 9% is used by aircraft (Jet Fuel), perhaps the AA and RAC are looking out for them too ......

[Mike Sales]

I have no desire to defend or justify Iran, though it should be remembered that four of their near neighbours already have nuclear bombs.
I did not concentrate on motor transport use of fossil fuels.
My view is that we should not be expending a very useful finite resource on making single use plastics etc. as well as burning it and contributing to climate change.
There are places where using plastics is the best solution and oil should be kept for these, not burnt.
We are using oil as if it were renewable, but it is not, and any business which uses irreplaceable capital as if it were revenue will go bust.
The whole mess of Middle Eastern politics is much too complex to go into here.
I think that if the price of oil increases, as well it may, there will be good results too.
There is no wider perspective than climate change.

[horizon]

Unless I completely mistaken the U.K. Warships in the Gulf are there to protect U.K. shipping from aggression from Iran.

The point I'm making is that UK shipping is bringing oil to the UK for what? So that the government can scrap the fuel escalator, spend billions on road schemes and remove from motorists the need to make responsible decisions about their car usage. So yes, we are vulnerable - thanks to Mr and Mrs Average driving their huge car down to the local shops.

Yes, oil has other uses but far more valuable ones, as Mike Sales has pointed out. I don't expect people to drive less from a pang of conscience: I expect them to drive less because it's jolly expensive. So: fuel escalator or war with Iran?

[reohn2]

Unless I completely mistaken the U.K. Warships in the Gulf are there to protect U.K. shipping from aggression from Iran.

The point I'm making is that UK shipping is bringing oil to the UK for what? So that the government can scrap the fuel escalator, spend billions on road schemes and remove from motorists the need to make responsible decisions about their car usage. So yes, we are vulnerable - thanks to Mr and Mrs Average driving their huge car down to the local shops.

Yes, oil has other uses but far more valuable ones, as Mike Sales has pointed out. I don't expect people to drive less from a pang of conscience: I expect them to drive less because it's jolly expensive. So: fuel escalator or war with Iran?

There are people on another thread who think it doesn't matter so long as 'we' win

[Tangled Metal]

Increase the price of petrol and diesel through increase in price of crude and you'll increase the price of modern life. You'd probably see larger scale poverty in the UK too. Price car drivers off the road you'll price trucks off the road. Unless the population can soak up the fuel cost increases. What price for bread can you live with? £10+ per loaf for example? If would make local produce more economic. But seriously how much of your food comes from a distance you would cycle to collect it? You won't be driving to shops now and even if you did you would not afford the costs to ship the stock there for you to buy.

Just a bit of exaggeration to make the point Carlton made and I've been trying to make. You can't greatly increase the cost of car fuel without increasing the cost of all the other factions of crude oil.

Make car driving too expensive you'll make more acceptable uses of crude oil too expensive. Except for the richer sections of society. Rich won't be bothered by the cost. Hard working low to middle earners and the unemployed will be greatly affected. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[Carlton green]

The point I'm making is that UK shipping is bringing oil to the UK for what? So that the government can scrap the fuel escalator, spend billions on road schemes and remove from motorists the need to make responsible decisions about their car usage. So yes, we are vulnerable - thanks to Mr and Mrs Average driving their huge car down to the local shops.

That’s really not the way that I read your original post.

Yes, oil has other uses but far more valuable ones, as Mike Sales has pointed out. I don't expect people to drive less from a pang of conscience: I expect them to drive less because it's jolly expensive. So: fuel escalator or war with Iran?

I pointed out and Mike seemingly confirmed that oil has many other uses.

Raising the price of fuel hurts the least well off in our society the most. Many people are, for reasons that are mostly beyond their control, tied into using their car for key things like getting to work from where they can afford to live. Better off people aren’t too fussed what fuel costs and neither are professional drivers (Lorries, Taxis, Salesmen, Tradesmen) because costs can be passed directly onto their customers. If you truly want to reduce fuel (petrol and diesel) consumption then give people access to cheap and fuel efficient vehicles and simply refuse to accept new cars for registration that do less than say 50 mpg. Limit engine power to 100 horse power too, no one really needs more than 100 hp but if someone has a need for say towing then let them have a low ratio gearbox on the vehicle instead of a bigger engine.

It isn’t a choice between fuel escalator or war with Iran so there’s no need to pick. The choices that we as a country need to make are those that help people to be greener, give folk good choices and mostly they’ll take them, educate (rather than indoctrinate) and people will look towards what is best and how they can get there.

[horizon]

It isn’t a choice between fuel escalator or war with Iran so there’s no need to pick. The choices we as a country need to make are those that help people be greener, give folk good choices and mostly they’ll take them, educate (rather than indoctrinate) and people will look towards what is best and how they can get there.

I'm happy to agree to that. The government's original idea was to slowly increase fuel tax so people had time to adjust and the price would reflect the real cost to the environment - but there are other ways indeed.

[Carlton green]

I'm happy to agree to that. The government's original idea was to slowly increase fuel tax so people had time to adjust and the price would reflect the real cost to the environment - but there are other ways indeed.

IMHO the Government’s plan wasn’t that well thought out and has had unintended consequences, as such it’s best not to continue with it but rather to focus on more productive alternatives.

I would dispute that people use fossil fuel with the intent of causing damage to the environment (they just want to get by in their ordinary lives) and I would question whether the the environment can be compensated by putting money (Tax) into some Government’s bank account.

If we want to reduce fossil fuel use then structural changes to society are needed rather than the likes of fuel price escalators which punish the poor who by and large are doing their limited best to make good choices within their limited means. Here are a few more ideas for you:
1) Place a legal limit in the physical size of cars and, as above, limit their maximum fuel consumption (to 50 plus mpg) and engine power (to 100 bhp).
2) Place a minimum design life on cars and consumer products in general of twenty years (manufacturing and reprocessing uses energy so do it once, do it right and don’t churn for profit).
3) Stop the mass bussing of pupils and provide them with a quality educational experience near to where they live.
4) Support people who do part of their journeys by public transport by providing them with free parking.
5) Programs that glorify motor sport condition us all in unhelpful ways. Driving isn’t a sport and anything that might encourage people to act like it is both wastes fuel and leads towards injury via reckless driving. Simply refocus such media coverage towards ways of enjoying greener vehicles and transport.
6) Build homes near where people work and build places of employment near where people live. As part of the planning application process new developments should have to consider the link between homes, travel and employment.
7) As a nation be a good example of what can be done to manage fossil fuel consumption.
As a nation do not support the import of goods that have been made in environmentally damaging ways (it effectively exports pollution to other places)
9) As a nation try to influence other countries to act responsibly and adopt ‘best practices’ - so see things globally too.
10) As a nation strategically promote the use of and support the development of recycling and low energy use products.

We arguably do 7 to 10 inclusive already but more could be done without too much difficulty.

13) Alter the culture of Air Travel. Aviation uses massive amounts of fuel and it often does so on effectively recreational journeys.
14) Fuel rationing isn’t a practical proposition and if introduced it would almost certainly lead to criminal activity - so socially destructive. However supporting people to act as if fuel was rationed and supporting people to make the very best use of a (virtual) ration would change people’s mindsets and their choices for the better.

[Tangled Metal]

Limiting power to 100bhp? Interesting!

Domestic use of vehicles isn't the only use, there's trade, commercial and industrial use. Take trade use, which means vans. There's often power break points at 90, 100 and 115/125 bhp depending on the van. Looking at vauxhall vivaro for example the standard powers are 89/90, 99/100 and 114/115 bhp. There's also a biturbo at 120bhp.

Which is the most fuel efficient and least polluting option? The 120bhp not the 90bhp van. The 90bhp van is actually the highest carbon emissions and lowest fuel efficiency. The best on both counts is the biturbo.

I read an article on the website of a fleet car trade journal that's highly relevant here. The fleet manager for the whole of BT wrote about serious fuel efficiency and emmisions reductions that are possible by remapping vehicles. By remapping for more power, savings of 15% on fuel costs / use in vans and 8% in cars. Crazy right?

In fact the guy wrote that it could be advantageous for large fleets to mass remap their vehicles and then put them through type approval. What that means is the remapped vehicles become recognised as a new model with better fuel / emmisions figures. Advantage being lower personal tax for company cars. They don't because it's really only an advantage to the employee.

I'm no car expert but this guy was so I've no basis to dispute his article. I just think power isn't a good measure for limiting cars. There's evidence that it's a bad measure to use.