Reducing car use and impact on poor

[reohn2]

Along with a VED and MOT for trailers above a certain size/weight capacity as they increase petrol consumption.

Braked trailers already require MOTs.
The fuel consumption for me towing my sailing dinghy is WAY lower than sticking it on the roof of the car.

No they don't, I have one and a caravan neither of which need an MOT or VED or safety inspection of any kind Something which always surprises me as most trailers spend a long time unused quietly rusting.

[pete75]

An individual's overall carbon footprint is rather like a smokers view of secondary smoke induced lung cancer or a dog owners view on dog mess. Tailored to justify their own view. The simple step is to take the approach California took in the 1970s on car pollution. They enacted a law and let the manufacturers worry about how to meet it. IIRC at one point in downtown Los Angeles to meet the new emmissions law a cars exhaust had to emit cleaner air than it was taking in! Clearly impossible but technically that was what was being asked for!

Strangley enough car emmissions did come down and car induced smog was reduced.

What we need is not a limit on 4.2l engines but a minimum mpg for all private cars. if ALL new cars had to meet a minimum 40mpg standard this year and 42mpg next and so on to say 70mpg in 15 years time the manufacurers would meet it. Then 4.2 litre engines would become a thing of the past!

Not really. Surely someone who grows large acreages of crops and has acres of woodland which take much carbon from the atmosphere is somewhat different to someone who lives in an urban flat whose lifestyle produces carbon.
Like my mate people tend to have large engined 4x4 vehicles for relatively heavy towing and also for use off road. Many people in rural areas need off road type vehicles.

If carbon reduction is important then it's the overall level of carbon produced that needs to be cut not just that used by transport. It's the overall carbon levels produced by an individual that counts not just that produced by their car.

[JQ666]

Every tax other than income tax is regressive - vat is the same for all regardless of income as is the tax on beer. People who drive 50k miles a year already pays a hell of a lot more tax than someone who does 12k because of the vat & duty on fuel.

A friend who runs a 4.2 litre 4x4 came up with a good point in the pub the other day when someone had a friendly "go" at him about carbon emissions. He said that as he grows 1200 acres of wheat, barley, beet and rape on his farm , has 70 acres of woodland and a miles of hedgerow he is very carbon negative indeed. His argument was that you should look at a persons whole lifestyle not simply at something like the vehicle they drive before judging the amount of carbon they produce.

I agree - most taxes are regressive - an issue for the left and the right of the political sphere to argue about.

My point is that if we are saying that car use is 'bad', and the annual tax that we all pay for owning the car offers best value to an individual who's use is greatest - then that has to be the wrong way to go about changing behaviour. Hence why I said that VED is environmentally regressive.

I would also say that your farmer friend with 70 acres of woodland has a better reason for owning a powerful 4x4 than the 'Chelsea Tractor' sect - and that is that he probably drives it off-road as well as on-road, and does a lot of towing. His 70 acres, in itself, is not really a valid argument for having a more polluting vehicle, just as it would be wrong to suggest that all Brazillians should be driving around in Hummers since their country is so dense with rain forest. Now if he plants a new tree on his 70 acres every time he gets back from the school-run, then perhaps his argument is a valid one

[JQ666]

An individual's overall carbon footprint is rather like a smokers view of secondary smoke induced lung cancer or a dog owners view on dog mess. Tailored to justify their own view. The simple step is to take the approach California took in the 1970s on car pollution. They enacted a law and let the manufacturers worry about how to meet it. IIRC at one point in downtown Los Angeles to meet the new emmissions law a cars exhaust had to emit cleaner air than it was taking in! Clearly impossible but technically that was what was being asked for!

Strangley enough car emmissions did come down and car induced smog was reduced.

What we need is not a limit on 4.2l engines but a minimum mpg for all private cars. if ALL new cars had to meet a minimum 40mpg standard this year and 42mpg next and so on to say 70mpg in 15 years time the manufacurers would meet it. Then 4.2 litre engines would become a thing of the past!

You're right that real behaviour change has to be supply-led. If 4.2 litre engined vehicles are on general sale to the public, then those rich enough to buy them will.

Reading your post, I am reminded about something I once read about the Honda motor company in the 1970's (mainly manufactured motorbikes back then) and how they responded to the legislation in California and used it as an opportunity to build smaller, more efficient engines than the traditional US car manufacturers, and so successfully enter the US car market whilst the competition were busy lobbying congress against the legislation.

Our capitalist world is based on consumption - unless we are willing to change our Western economic and political system, then we will continue to consume at rediculous levels. Therefore, we need to make sure that the goods and services supplied to the market are as environmentally friendly as possible, otherwise nothing will change.

[JQ666]

Surely someone who grows large acreages of crops and has acres of woodland which take much carbon from the atmosphere is somewhat different to someone who lives in an urban flat whose lifestyle produces carbon.

To take your argument to the extreme - it's like saying that Prince Charles (who owns much of the South West of England) should be able to pollute as much as he likes since all the woodland that the Dutchy of Cornwall owns will probably mean he is carbon-neutral, whatever his behaviour. Yet, his 'subjects' should only be allowed pedal bikes and take the kids on camping holidays in the back garden, since their land ownership would not be sufficient to off-set their carbon emissions should they own a car and fly abroad.

The land existed long before national boundaries and certificates of title were created, and so it would be good if those fortunate enough to be land-owners viewed themselves as custodians of the land on behalf of nature / the wildlife / society, rather than 'Lords of the Manor'. Anyone who has woodland and preserves it (and maybe even improves it for the benefit of the environment) has to be applauded, and hopefully your farmer friend falls into the category (and I know Prince Charles is active in preserving the countryside).

As a slight aside - had this emailed to me today, which explains very well where we've gone wrong:

Indian Chief 'Two Eagles' was asked by a white government official, '
You have observed the white man for 90 years. You've seen his wars and his technological advances. You've seen his progress, and the damage he's done.'

The Chief nodded in agreement.
The official continued, 'Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?'

The Chief stared at the government official for over a minute and then calmly replied.

'When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water.
Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex.'

Then the chief leaned back and smiled.

'Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.'

[Peter Rowell]

Along with a VED and MOT for trailers above a certain size/weight capacity as they increase petrol consumption.

Braked trailers already require MOTs.
The fuel consumption for me towing my sailing dinghy is WAY lower than sticking it on the roof of the car.

No they don't, I have one and a caravan neither of which need an MOT or VED or safety inspection of any kind Something which always surprises me as most trailers spend a long time unused quietly rusting.

You are both probably right. A braked trailer towed by a private car/light goods does not have have to have an MoT. However, i believe that a braked trailer towed by a "plated vehicle" does.

[reohn2]

Along with a VED and MOT for trailers above a certain size/weight capacity as they increase petrol consumption.

Braked trailers already require MOTs.
The fuel consumption for me towing my sailing dinghy is WAY lower than sticking it on the roof of the car.

No they don't, I have one and a caravan neither of which need an MOT or VED or safety inspection of any kind Something which always surprises me as most trailers spend a long time unused quietly rusting.

You are both probably right. A braked trailer towed by a private car/light goods does not have have to have an MoT. However, i believe that a braked trailer towed by a "plated vehicle" does.

Ah! now that could be where Hamster and I are cross jockled

[hamster]

The cops round me do a series of spot checks on caravans on the first weekend when the things tend to come out - I was puzzled too!