Greenpeace Motor Show Blog

Never have been a big car lover (that's big car-lover, not big-car lover by the way), but nor am I some other-worldly 2CV driver - used to love F1 when Murray Walker was in his prime. Quite independently of Greenpeace, however, I've developed an almost physical nausea for huge, shiny, (unecessary!!) gas-guzzling vehicles and, I confess, the people who drive them. Wasn't sure what SUV stood for until recently and always assumed it meant Seriously Ugly Vehicles - coz that's what they look like in MY eyes.
Thanks for your daily blogs, and thank you Greenpeace for confronting and exposing things that REALLY matter. This isn't just about having a pop at people who've got wealth, it isn't some kind of latent jealousy, it comes from the hearts of people who truly believe that the needs of our planet must take precedence over personal ambition, vanity and greed.
I'm with you all the way!!!

your a badly informed biased idiot, go and do something useful with your life like get a job, or maybe even have a bath.

The author really needs to learn how to write if he wishes to be taken seriously. Unfortunately these 'blogs' sound rather like they're written by a sulky teenager, instead of a supposedly intelligent adult.

Merely resorting to name-calling (the reference to the Land Rover designer being a 'wanker') doesn't make me consider Greenpeace's issues, it merely irritates me.

I'm also very interested in the whole life environmental costs of the Prius and its ilk, for I've a funny feeling that they're not quite as 'green' as they're portrayed...

I really do not understand why someone who lives in the middle of a city wants to drive an off road vehcile, if you are a farmer or actually need to go off road on a regular basis as in everyday then fine I accept that you need a 4x4, but please anyone else for the sake of us all in future stop, think, do I really need this polluting monster or would an estate car do fine for the school run? and then think, maybe a small car like an aygo would suit my needs, hey they are fun and you'll save money and rleas 5 times less co2. or maybe you don't need a car, get the kids bicycles and then you won't need to emit more greenhouse gases on the move. as for the prius I don't think it's as eco friendly as everyone says.
Where can i get a decent electric car?

I await the day with baited breath when the International Bicycle Show comes to the Excel Centre, accompanied by blanket advertising and Evening Standard/Daily Mail journalists frothing at the mouth with the latest PR spiel they've been fed. Or even better, the Shanks' Pony Expo, but until then we're saddled with making the best out of a bad situation - when will the MIT car take off?

Incidentally, it would be irresponsible to take a bath in these drought-ridden times, although it's understandable how the heat can force people to resort to tired old cliches. Showers are perfectly acceptable, even more so when they're shared. ;)

"There was a time when off-road cars were used to drive off-road"
Is it not the case that if SUVs were driven off road then all you numpties would be protesting that some important breed of ant or an oh so endangered blade of grass is at risk from extinction?
Instead of knocking and trying to ban everything that you disagree with why don't Greenpeace and other organisation attempt to work (you do know what work is?) with the manufacturers to reduce emissions and improve these environment destroying objects of the modern age. It strikes me that if it was'nt the SUV it'd be the next big vehicle in production and eventually you'll be protesting about the small cars you currently think are fuel efficient and more acceptable.

If you removed all the 4x4's and replaced them with estates cars or mpv's you wouldn't notice any difference in pollution. Overall they are a very small part of a very big promlem. Ban-the-buses at 1500 CO2 g/km being driven around the streets half empty, ban-the-van, ban-the-lorry, ban-the-ice cream van chucking out 50,000 co2 g/kg whilst parked, ban-the-plane, ban-travel, ban-ships, ban-hgv's etc etc.
Global warming was happening long before 4x4s became popular. I drive an old Range Rover that does 15mpg and I do 2000 miles a year. My other car an Audi does 30mpg and covers 8000 miles a year. Which one pollutes more? The Audi. I haven't hit anyone in my Range Rover coz I can see alot more due to the higher driving position and others can see me. I also drive more sedately in it.

Hello Ricardo, you're absolutely right, were 4x4s banned we'd start criticising other inefficient vehicles. The reason why we're focussing on 4x4s at the moment is that they are a rapidly expanding sector of the market and, when they're not driven off-road, as most of them aren't, the extra emissions produced by carting all that unused heavy machinery around are benefitting absolutely no-one.
The risk we're concerned about, incidentally, is not the odd rare species, but the millions of humans who have already died through climate change and the billions at risk of following them. In terms of endangered species, if that's what you're into, the last time the world heated up this quickly we lost over 90% of species.

Hello mark, please have another look at your own figures. I don't know if they're accurate, but if they are then they completely disprove your point. Even a half-empty bus has twenty or thirty times the passengers of the average car, and that's counting the drivers. BTW, how many people have you hit in your Audi?

What a bunch of hypocrites next time you get stuck on one of your green days out in the countryside or up a mountain and the weather gets bad and you need to be rescued ask yourself why do you think most emergency services ie mountain rescue use 4x4's and not a toyota prius ?? try getting eight or more people who give their time for free and who risk their own lives and all their rescue gear etc up a wet, windy or snow covered road and paths no car would make and all this just to save your useless life. and talking of gas guzzlers just look at that rust bucket of a gas guzzling ship greenpeace use.

Hello James. Yes, Mountain Rescue do use 4x4s, and climbing harnesses, and helicopters, and ice axes, and a whole load of other gear unsuitable for the weekly shop or the school run. What's your point?

I drive a 4x4 cause i want to, and thats why i live in this country, cause i have freedom of choice and i can drive what i like.

It costs me more in fuel, tax etc etc but i want to drive one so i do and i will continue to do so.

Recently I've been lucky to have owned both landy's (or landi?) and a new mini.

Now then my landy is shorter and narrower than my wifes Audi A3. It's does 30-36mpg.

The mini on the other hand could barely do 27mpg and at worst 14mpg! and that was just driving round in the countryside. Thank god I don't often so "urban" runs!

I should also point out that this landy is 44years young. Now as anyone with even the slightest intelligence knows it takes a LOT of the worlds resources to build a car. So why does greenpeace and their ilk support cars that built to only last a few years.

By transplanting modern cleaner engines into older cars you get the best of both worlds enviromentally speaking.

To sign off I will ask a question that I would like the blog author to answer.

Assuming I do want to sell my "evil" 4x4..... I would like said author to recommend a vehicle that fits this spec:

- It must be able to carry 4 people.
- It must do over 20mpg!
- It must have a lifespan from when I buy it of at least 25years (50 would be better)
- It must not be monoque steel contructed (quick to rust - like most cars) and bad to weld
- It must not use steel body panels (too heavy , rust far far to fast)
- It must be able to tow 3tonnes legally and safely on a variety of surfaces (I regularly tow plant trailers)
- It must be able to wade up to 500mm (as was needed this morning!!!!)
- It must cost under £3.5K
(ie 3500 not some other large figure)
- The deeds of my house say I can't keep a large van on the property.
- If petrol engined must be capable of passing latest EURO4 emissions (my mates does at 11 years old and 170K on the clock)

So then. IF I receive some vehicle details that fit the bill I will
A: Impressed
B: Pleased that there are alternatives for me.

IF I get a reply with out said vehicle detials I'll take it you can't find something "better" for me to be in.

I await your answer with baited breath......

Hello Phil, thanks for your very detailed specifications, but I'm afraid you forgot to explain exactly why I would want to do all this unpaid research for you.

Phil, don't be so defensive. It sounds that you might actually need a 4x4. Where I used to live in the UK quite a number of people had them for horse boxes and launching boats. I'm not a Greenpeace member, but I do appreciate it's the Chelsea Tractor that's their main target.

I'm now living in the Italian Alps where there's a few more 4x4s on view. But to put things in perspective - I'm buying a 4.5 year old car here, and the previous owner has never used the legally required snow chains. A car salesman even dissuaded me from a s/h Panda 4x4 on the grounds that the fuel consumption was so bad.

Oh yes, I'd have that Mini checked out if I were you...

Do greenpeace not use Land Rovers?????,

IDIOT

Hello Adam. Yes, Greenpeace do use Land Rover Defenders to go off-road and to tow our boats. See point number 2 in the above post. Or just comment without reading the post, whichever you prefer.

With twaddle like this splattered all over this blog...is it any wonder that you greenies are not taken seriously?!

Grow up and get factual and for christ sake take your blinkers off...IT IS NOT 4x4's that are poisoning this planet...look around you (that might mean you getting off your butt and actually walking to your bedroom window and looking at the OTHER more polluting traffic that may flow past your straw made house)...BUSES, LORRIES, VANS, PLANES, need I go on.

Funny how Greenpeace never report on their demonstrations such as the Alps protest to stop people in 4x4's driving to the top of mountains to enjoy walking/skiing etc...waving banners, shouting abuse, causing damage...only for the persecuted to drive around the corner to find more troops arriving...in...wait for it...this is a classic...yep, you guessed it 4x4's of course. Hippocritical a$$holes!

Hello LRrules, nice to see someone being open about their allegiances. Might you be another septic? I only ask as you seem to have the American nervousness about swearing. Personally I try to remain as polite as possible at all times, but I think that if you're going to swear you should try to do so properly.

So, firstly, this site is unfiltered so there's no need for your coy little dollar signs. Secondly, an ass is a donkey. The term is used as a replacement for 'arse' in the US in the same way as 'darn' is substituted for 'damn'. 'Donkey' is an acceptable insult, but 'donkeyholes'?

On a related issue, 'hippo' is greek for horse. 'Hypo' is the prefix you're looking for, so what you meant to call us was 'hypocritical arseholes'. Now doesn't that sound better?

I'm afraid I've never heard of the alpine action you are referring to, perhaps you could post a link? Otherwise people might think you were just making it up and not take your points seriously. All of them are answered elsewhere on this page, BTW.

I take environmental issues to heart. I studied in detail at degree level the geological, hydrological, biological and political issues surrounding our society's paranoia over 'climate change'.

Now...climate change does exist, the earth's climate has fluctuated back and forth due to many diverse and complicated factors for billions of years. Change is normal...the question is how much is normal.

Lets put all these nasty 4X4s invading suburbia into perspective.....try one active volcano...or maybe a few 1000kms of forest fires every year...perhaps a burning oil pipeline or two...

I got my driving licence at 18 but have used public transport for the last 5 years owing to the cost of owning a vehicle. I have to own a car now to get a job. A 4x4 just makes my life easier.

Stick one of your leaflets on my 1989 Land Rover Defender with LPG conversion, 3 miles up my track, parked next to my soon to be carbon neutal cottage if you dare!!

It seems to me some people are missing the point. Of course 4x4s aren't the only problem. Greenpeace isn't called the anti 4x4 brigade. I think it might be involved in other projects too.
Also, 4x4s out in their natural environment, working hard are respectable, but not in the cities where they idle along doing 0mpg, wishing to see the hills and romp with other 4x4s.
Also, why can't graham (hello to you graham) write his blogs how he wants? He's getting his point across and giving us a good laugh. Just because someone cares about the environment, they don't have to be a humourless bore, unlike some other people posting on here...

Graham,

You are one talented individual, not only can you write UN quantified mindless shit, but you also offer guidance on openness...have you considered counselling??

Back to the point/s in hand.....firstly, I do not have the time nor the inclination to reference the possible website I referred to, can I suggest you contact your buddies at the Guardian / Daily Mail, they may help, but then again, probably not as it’s factual.

This Global scaremongering and so called human effect 'warming' that GreenPeace and others constantly hark on about is simply unfounded shit. It's another example of the mindless robots in today's society being fooled / tricked by the governments. Feed them a little fluff and watch it all get thrown totally out of proportion, whilst dragging total innocents down at the same time.

Scientist A says this, scientist B says that....a fucking scientist will say whatever you want him to say if you chuck him a big enough bone, in the case of Global warming and to help your tiny mind, it’s about the size of a Brontosaurus leg. It's so unfortunate that people are fed this utter bullshit about GW, it's even more worrying that they buy it, but I guess if you keep on saying the same thing over and over, people just become submissive (cue the smoking ban!).

I have looked into this whole GW issue over many months. It scares the living piss out of me that people still buy the whole human influence fantasy. Report after report states that of the so called evil (Co2), humans only contribute 3.225% GLOBALLY...the rest is of natural occurrence. In fact, here are a few more factual for the GP website (of course, I bet these don't make it, again, factual)....

Methane: 18.338% human influence and wait for it...yep, 81.662% natural...shocker.

Nitrous Oxide: 4.933% human / 95.067% natural.

In fact, the only impact man has on the whole warming effect is CFC's and misc gasses (i.e., farts, probably)...the figures are: 65.711% human and only 34.289% natural...so if any thing, let's tax and scare people shitless on this one, at least it is true and DOES need to be decreased and controlled! All data sourced from Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University....amongst others.

I congratulate you on your humorous blog and harmless anecdotes...but maybe, just maybe, check the figures first before singling out and crucifying an English manufacturer, who for the record brings a whole lot of good to this world, unlike the moronic mindless twaddle that you choose to exude for the sake of a cheap shot at what is a totally innocent company in my (and 95% of others) eyes.

I for one, am proud to be driving a quality car, which just happens to be made in the UK, designed in the UK and {was} loved the world over before the green numptie brigade arrived.

Good day.

Hello again LRrules,

As I said before, I'm afraid I've never heard of the alpine action you referred to, perhaps you could post a link? Otherwise people might think you were just making stuff up and not take your points seriously.

Here is a link to a New Scientist article called 'Climate change: A guide for the perplexed' which explains 26 common misunderstandings:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11462

Yours is the first on the list.

Good day.

Greetings again Graham,

I will dig around for that hilarious GreenPeace bulls-up regarding the trip to the top of the mountain using Land Rovers to demonstrate against people using 4x4's on the mountains....in the meantime...

Thank you for the link. A very valid argument from one set of scientists.

Now I am sure you will agree, arguments require balance and too be frank, that particular article was pretty much weighed down on the greenies side. So for balance I would invite your blog readers to visit the following link, which I believe offers a more balanced view:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

I would also welcome comment on the following:

http://www.abd.org.uk/politics_of_deception.htm

and

http://www.abd.org.uk/gwt_qa.htm

I think this statement sums it up for me ( I refer you to the pay them enough and they will say whatever you want) statement in my previous post.

In the early 1970s Dr Stephen Schneider rejected man-made global warming theory, writing, "temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in carbon dioxide." He went as far as to predict that another little ice age would occur soon, but it hasn't. Schneider now endorses man-made global warming theory by u-turning on carbon dioxide. For now hot houses, not ice houses, are in fashion.

Until next time my little green goblin.

Dear LRrules,

Thank you for this reply, although I think you'll find it's not the New Scientist so much as reality which is weighted towards the 'green' point of view. This is why every reputable scientific body in the world agrees with us, and you are forced to rely on the Association of British Drivers and obscure far-right American websites.

I had a look at your links, and I'm afraid there are far too many mistakes, misunderstandings and lies in there for me to have time to explain them all. However, if you would like to choose what you consider to be the strongest arguement in each, then I would be happy to address those - if and when you provide either that link to the fabled 4x4 action in the alps you keep promising, or an apology for making up stories.

Yours in feverish anticipation.

Dear Graham,

Firstly, hold on, it’s a rollercoaster!

Secondly, apologies for the delay in my reply, but you know, it’s this summer weather....I just don’t get time to sit at the PC when spoilt with such tropical delights as the UK is savouring right now. Don’t tell me, climate change...I should have known!

Anyway, it seems nobody is adding to your blog anymore? Have you become ‘out of fashion’ I wonder? Are people starting to challenge the fodder being fed to them, possibly?

Thanks for your feedback on my last entry, most enlightening and of course totally unbiased in your viewpoint (as ever). You make the claim that ‘reality’ is weighted towards the green point of view and not the New Scientists eco-babble which I find very fascinating. Where is your factual representation for this so-called reality? Reality is here and now and can only be backed up if you have statistical comparison, which unfortunately is where your whole argument becomes a little flabby.

Let’s look at this point. The UK has the oldest climate or weather pattern data (as it was known before the eco-warriors discovered www.buzzword.com), we are very lucky, UK wise, and have the ability to compare data from the late 1700’s right up to today’s date. If you extract that data and compare year on year, of course there will be anomalies; it would be boring weather if there were none. You could for example compare the recent floods and high rainfall with the 1960’s where you would find that even in those days, people were flooded. You could compare the recent floods with data extracted from the year 1865 also, where too people were suffering with flood issues, way before Co2 was invented (man-made) and the words climate change were even conceived.

Yes, it’s been an exceptional summer and yes it’s rained A LOT, but statistically it all belongs to a weather pattern which can be tracked back tens and hundreds of years. You could argue that the patterns would be more pronounced, but no, that’s what makes our weather so exciting. Mother Nature’s sole source of entertainment which, pretty much guarantees to hack us humans off because it affects every single one of us.

The recent floods and deluge is reality and is caused by, unsurprisingly, weather, but what in the name of Satan has that got to do with your whole argument? Reality is that weather will always surprise us, that are what it does and always will do, that are its job. The Met office has spent millions of pounds on super-super computers to allow the forecasters to predict further into the future and allow them to give us early warning to an unusual event. I’m sorry, but my seaweed does a better job. These so called, super computers consume huge amounts of electricity and take armies of people to extract and make sense of all the data, probably at a massive cost to the taxpayer, I hasten to add. And what do we get, yes; you guessed it, absolute drivel. These models can fluctuate from breakfast time to teatime and change their minds 40 times only still to get it amazingly wrong! And this is my point.......

You base your whole argument on reality, when quite clearly you can’t. Reality cannot be based or compared to reality, it just does not compute. You have to compare current data with statistical data, which quite clearly shows no anomalies, unless of course you speak to the 50% of scientists who have taken the ‘bung’ from the governments and choose to ignore that data. They of course would rather rely on the super computers; see above, that they cannot predict 7 days ahead even with the historical data available! That has to beg the question that if the Met office struggles with models in the short term and that is with statistical information being fed into the huge core processors, how the hell can these computers churn out worthy data from something that is an unknown. It is a prediction and a prediction that can only be seriously looked at when backed up with historical information of which we do not possess for the global models, weather wise or climate wise.

Acting on this issue (Climate change) is simply, good business for businesses. The quicker you guys own up and shut up, the less repercussions from the currently ‘fooled’ public.

Mark my words; this will be the undoing of the 50% of climatologists who are on the government’s payroll system and the complete undoing of Greenpeace. Watch those contribution pots run dry. You heard it here 1st (if anyone is still reading??).

On that bombshell, I bid you good day, try to stay dry and stay well my little green pixie.

P.S. I will attend to your other fabled information when I get time!

Dear LRrules,

Still no link then? And no apology either? Oh well, I suppose I shouldn't expect too much honesty from climate sceptics. tsk. Well, on to your questions.

Why is no-one commenting on my blog anymore? Well, I'm not psychic, but I reckon it might be connected to the fact that the last time I posted here was almost exactly a year ago. That's because this blog was about the 2006 motorshow. I guess the 2006 motorshow just isn't the hot topic it once was.

What, in the name of Satan, does the recent bad weather have to do with my argument? Nothing at all, I never mentioned it, and nor did anyone else commenting here. I appreciate that arguing with yourself increases your chances of winning, but you don't need this blog to do it - a mirror will work just as well.

If you want to know the significance of the recent weather in terms of climate science, it's the sort of thing which models predict will happen increasingly often, like hurricane Katrina, but, like hurricane Katrina, it doesn't prove anything when examined in isolation - only if it is part of a pattern. The 2003 European heat wave does have significance when viewed in isolation, because it was entirely unprecedented, but the recent rain is just within the range of 'normal' British weather, and only becomes relevant when viewed as part of a trend.

Now I have a question for you. You claim that 50% of climatologists support the consensus view on climate change (that it is man-made) because they have taken a 'bung' from their governments. This doesn't sound very plausible to me, but let's assume you're right. My question is, why do the other 50% of climatololgists support the consensus view?

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/gasguzzler/archives/2006/07/day_ten_survival_continued.html

P.S. No you won't, because you made it up.

Hilarity sums this article up.

How on earth can you use an old article from 2002 as substance to your argument?

I said in 2002 that I would have 2 children to cart around in my 4x4 across my many fields, but I haven't.....

You must have more up to date fodder than this surely? I assume this data is real and not created by a computer using various pseudonyms? If it is, then I would like to see the results now, if this people exist at all.

That's the beauty of your argument I suppose, you can hide behind great names that nobody has ever heard of. Call them collective scientists and every greenie is a winner!

I agree that TG is obviously biased, we can thank JC for that, but the Times, shock horror, did they really publish that? Must have had a blip...some could take that as general public opinion or something.

Nice picture of the RRS BTW - exactly the same as mine, but for the record, yes it does go off road and is classed as an off road vehicle because that is what it can do! Who says we all have to trundle around in square boxes to get the peasants off our land...has to be done with style, obviously!

If I want to go into scratchy territory, then I simply use my Disco 3...which BTW is currently achieving 41 mpg!!!! I have had a plug in module installed which makes it very fuel efficient.

Compare the size and wieght of that hearty beast and it makes the Prius and other so-called green cars look like gas guzzlers...hey, maybe I should start this blogging lark and start attacking the inefficient green cars...i'm sure that would attract far more debate and create some wonderful eye opening stats for the majority that disagree with the left view.

Come to think of it, it's the lefties who have got us into such a mess thus far, holidays for murdering teenagers, 2 year sentences for child abuse...all because they could not help it and probably had a nasty childhood....I could have a field day with that blog, probably!

Back to the matter at hand, I await your truimphant comeback and will get hold of some real figures for you...that way you may wake up and smell the horseshit that is global warming aka Climate change.

Have a great week.

You may also find this article refreshing as it is factual, well as factual as it can be, but at least i'm admitting that rather than hedging all my bets eh.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/001014-11.htm

Enjoy.

So this is your 'triumphant comeback' to 928 peer-reviewed climatology papers? A rant on a 'Free Quebec' website called 'the contrarian', published two years before 2002 and written by a software consultant? Blimey, looks as though I'm really going to have to step up my game here!

Seriously, LR, this is far too easy and a waste of everyone's time.

Please don't bother sending your 'figures' unless they come from a source which might reasonably be expected to have a clue what they're talking about, and don't bother commenting at all without an apology for making up that alpine action story. I was considering letting that drop, but after the hog roast of flaming porkies in your penultimate offering, I think perhaps you need teaching a lesson.

may I ask what you think of the Toyota Prius? considering in its total lifetime it is expected to create three times the enviromental damage of any land rover? rather than creating a persuasive piece of journalism perhaps you could present facts like...
75% of all land rovers built are still in practical use today and..
The majority of the damage done by cars in the the production. In particular when a nickel battery is involved.

Hello Daniel, the Toyota Prius is discussed elsewhere on the blog, but briefly; whilst hybrid technology isn't the best option for the future, the Prius is just about the most efficient car of its size currently available.

The information you have on the energy costs of car production comes from a study by CNW Marketing, a US market research company which describes itself as 'the voice of the motor industry'. It is, of course, complete nonsense. They refuse to release their methodology for this 'study', which includes interesting statistical techniques such as dividing the energy costs of building a car factory by the number of cars it has produced and adding that cost onto the energy cost of the car. This might sound sensible, but of course it results in old, dirty factories coming out as being clean, because they've had time to produce many thousands of cars, whereas new, cleaner factories come out as dirty because they are dividing their energy costs amongst far fewer vehicles. This is one of many devious little tricks they pull to try to make American SUVs seem better than they are, which is why they won't release their methodology. The truth of the matter, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, is this -

"We know that the 'in use' phase - when a vehicle is being driven - accounts for around 85 per cent of its carbon footprint, with 10 per cent coming from production and five per cent on disposal."

http://www.smmt.co.uk/industryissues/index.cfm?&catid=556&sid=-3&iicatid=L_980

The nickel battery stuff comes from a Mail on Sunday article which claimed that the production of nickel for Prius batteries was causing enormous environmental problems in Canada, and is also complete nonsense. But don't take my word for it; here's the Press Complaints Commission's judgement on the Mail article -

http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDU0Ng==

And here's the Mail on Sunday's apology for printing such blatant rubbish -

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_id=1770

If I were you, I really wouldn't put too much faith in the Mail when it comes to environmental issues. They're not climate skeptics anymore, but they were just about the last paper in the UK to accept the science, and they still print stuff by loonies like Melanie Phillips. Try RealClimate or Gristmill for a more informed view.