Member Since: 12 Dec 2005
Location: The Gaff
Posts: 50934
Well ...all 'treehugging' tongue-in-cheek comments aside ....I figure that if every member of disco3.co.uk sponsored 6 trees at £60 then we could rightly advertise that we are a responsible Carbon Neutral group of 4x4 drivers ! .. that would be a major stick in the eye for the anti's eh !!
It's only £10 if you go through the first link The End
27th Apr 2006 11:46 pm
DG Site Moderator
Member Since: 12 Dec 2005
Location: The Gaff
Posts: 50934
You are right Si - and I am now 'Carbon Neutral' - just bought 6 trees and dedicated them to my lad 21 year LR veteran > D2 GS 2003 > D3 S 2006 > D3 HSE 2009 > D4 HSE 2013 > D4 HSE 2015 > D5 HSE 2018 > DS HSE R-Dynamic P300e 2021
27th Apr 2006 11:58 pm
SN
Member Since: 03 Jan 2006
Location: Romiley
Posts: 13710
5 trees required for me - need to think about that one...Steve N | 21MY Defender | 08MY Discovery 3 (history) | 06MY Discovery 3 (ancient history)
Some weeks I do zero miles and yet they still ask me for 1 tree.
I put it up to 100 miles a week and they tell me that I'm puffing 1.4 tonnes of carbon into the air. What a load of S**TE.
1.4 Tonnes of carbon out of 5200 miles........ Lets do the maths:
5200 miles @ 30MPG = 173.33 gallons
173.33 gallons = 788 litres
788 litres = 788 Kg
Since 1 litre is effectively 1kg (based on H2O), then I think we can safely say that we have solved all the worlds energy problems.
My new 200% efficient system:
Put in 788kg of fuel and get out 1400kg of carbon.
Typical problem with tree huggers...... They spend so much time in rainbow colours and not washing their hair that they forget about how important a coherent argument is.
FWIW, I think I'm already a responsible 4x4 driver without the need to plant anything. My D3 does far less than one-quarter of the miles that my neighbours Daywooooo Matiz does. So who the hell is considering lifestyle in all this stereotypicisation (is that a word?).
I reckon I have one of the lowest carbon footprints in my area, and yet I own about 6 cars and a large motorbike. Go Figure.........
28th Apr 2006 9:11 am
Mossy
Member Since: 01 Jul 2005
Location: Hollyoaks, UK
Posts: 2682
11 for me, which did surprise me.D3 HSE V8...
28th Apr 2006 9:41 am
DG Site Moderator
Member Since: 12 Dec 2005
Location: The Gaff
Posts: 50934
JMC wrote:
...and not washing their hair
Hey .....I washed mine this morning
I am by no means an avid treehugger, in fact I personally think most of the environmental 'doom & gloom' argument is a load of sh*te too - the earth gets hot and cold in a cycle and thats it for me - we humans are so arrogant to think that we can change a planet this size to that extent.
But if we remove all the crappy arguments about 'climate change' then we still cannot avoid the fact that motors produce co2 and I think we all agree that trees eat co2 - so this is just a little balance that I can easily explain to my 11 year old (without getting into the hyper-calculation of figures game)21 year LR veteran > D2 GS 2003 > D3 S 2006 > D3 HSE 2009 > D4 HSE 2013 > D4 HSE 2015 > D5 HSE 2018 > DS HSE R-Dynamic P300e 2021
Last edited by DG on 28th Apr 2006 5:00 pm. Edited 3 times in total
Some weeks I do zero miles and yet they still ask me for 1 tree.
I put it up to 100 miles a week and they tell me that I'm puffing 1.4 tonnes of carbon into the air. What a load of S**TE.
I don't think the maths is quite so simple.
The total energy demands over the life cycle of a car are hugely influenced by the manufacturing process. It used to be said that a car is responsible for more pollution in its manufacturing & disposal, than in its lifetime of exhaust emissions. Certainly aluminium refining is a hugely energy- expensive process, and the LR lineage have always made good use of that product.
For the defence, one could argue that the longer working lives of LRs mean that the 'production / disposal' pollution is spread over a longer life, therefore the annual carbon cost would be relatively low...
However the calculations are made, the important point is that we are recognising the effect of our actions on the ecosystem.
Regardless of politics, the most important step is recognising this impact.
The mathematical calculation is rather irrelevant. In calculating and supporting a number of new trees, you are making an effort to balance the impact you are having. Whether you contribute 1,2 or 10 trees per year is not important- its the act of contributing.
There are many other areas of carbon emissions- such as household energy demands. These aren't costed in the model.
I'm certainly not trying to be antagonistic here, but think it important to recognise the limitations of the exercise and not end in a 'crusty do-gooder vegan tree huggers vs rich boy 4x4 owners' sniping.Discovery 3 tdv6 7 seat Buckingham Blue
Had it since new - sold Jun 17 after 12 years and 214,000 miles
28th Apr 2006 10:50 am
Gurvan
Member Since: 02 Jan 2005
Location: Germany... Not far from both the US and Hard German rock...
Posts: 1089
Slimer wrote:
7 trees for me, I'll get planting...
Same for me... But hey, we do have more nuclear power in France and those trains and subway I use are running on electricity...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
I need a forest. 24 trees needed.
You doing over 1,000 miles a week now then?
| 08MY Discovery 3 (history) 
