- You are currently viewing DISCO3.CO.UK as a guest - Register to take part or Log In
BN
Member Since: 18 Mar 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 6463
|
| GREENPEACES REPLY TO MY E MAIL TO THEM ABOUT THE SNOWBALL |
|
As you know, I wrote to Greenpeace about their item with the Land Rover and the snowball. This is their reply.
thanks for the e-mail. The work we are doing on 4x4's and landrovers is to do with their misuse in an urban environment, where they do the same journey as much smaller vehicles carrying the same number of people as said smaller vehicles but cause much more pollution - for the simple reason that they have been cleverly marketed by their makers to tap into peoples ego's
the snowball was actually part of a project by the artist Andy Goldsworthy - not ours. But to be honest the landrover used if it is ours would be run on LPG anyway - which is one way we use to fuel our land vehicles (bio-diesel being the other option) We don't have issue with vehicles being used appropriately - although of course if said vehicles can also be run on fuel efficient engines and alternative fuels then that too is a better option.
as for the three ships that we have - we always look to make sure that we use the most environmentally sound way to power them - and for the latest one MV Esperanza she has electric engines that use very little power to chug along big distances and then diesel engines for short bursts of speed where necessary - thereby reducing fuel use as much as is possible at present
We would agree about glass houses etc - the point we want to make is to the manufacturers and of course the greater powers like the Governments that we need to look carefully at our fuel use, where possible reduce it and of course also to move towards alternative options wherever possible - hence our use of LPG etc - not completely carbon neutral but much better than petrol/diesel and a step towards where we need to be.
I realise at first it seems hypocritical, but we really do try to live as we expect others to and I can only ask you to have a look at www.greenpeace.org.uk at the environmental footprint doc http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup...enuPoint=C to see our commitments there and also on www.choosecleanenergy.com for the work we are doing to tackle climate change
best wishes
Issy Griffin
Face to Face Co-ordinator
Greenpeace UK
Canonbury Villas
London
N1 2PN
www.greenpeace.org.uk
Now take it very slowly guys, because the 5000th post could emerge quite quickly after this reply. Of course the Landy was not GP's and if it was (so they have Landy's) it would be run by LPG? Yarn.
I will start the ball rolling: If a ship is run by an electric motor, how big is the b****y thing and how big are the batteries, that are environmentally unfriendly anyway.
Come on guys, go for it.
|
 22nd Jun 2005 7:56 pm |
|
|
Ecosse
Member Since: 07 Jan 2005
Location: Grampian, Scotland
Posts: 892
|
BN - worth copying that e-mail to LR. They have some good PR/External Liason people once you get past the footsoldiers in LRCS and am sure can make full use of such info 
|
| 22nd Jun 2005 9:13 pm |
|
|
BN
Member Since: 18 Mar 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 6463
|
Ecosse, I have done that, but I am surprised at the lack of comments from the lads. There are so many contentious issues in their reply it is a joke.
Ships with electric motors - what about the generators that charge the batteries - they use diesel. The motors would have to be pretty awsome. Even a model boat has a motor that weighs more than the boat itself?
How do they winch up the anchor and run the water systems and lighting. A battery to do that lot would sink 10 ships, who are they kidding. They have 3 ships as well. That must evaluate to at least 1000 Landies.
GP do have Landys apparently but theirs run on LPG - LPG - Liquid PETROLEUM GAS - Uh? same as we use isn't it, derived from petrol that unenvironmentally friendly product.
Batteries, now the size that they would need, would have hydrocloric acid in them, thats a bit unfriendly to the environment and humans etc. Batteries come in cases and have which may be metal externally, but internally have plastic another petrol product.
There is much more and they have the audacity to criticise a little old Landy. Oh I could go on. Of course we need to save our environment, but I think GP have gone too far with the Landy as far as I am concerned.
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 6:34 am |
|
|
KL
Member Since: 16 Jun 2005
Location: Gilling, nr York
Posts: 713
  
|
I think the spotlight on the 'urban SUV' takes several separate challenges:
1. Fuel efficiency.
I do not disagree that inefficient petrol engines use excessive fuel. However the average 4x4 is diesel, and as such returns broadly average fuel consumption vs. the overall car population.
2. Emissions.
4x4s appear to have higher than average emissions figures. So do the many old bangers littering our streets.
What is not generally mentioned is the fuel and emissions required in vehicle manufacture. These figures dwarf the whole life car fuel emissions figures - so more harm is done to the environment in making the car than actually running it for its full life.
The crux of the matter, therefore, is how efficient can we get on the manufacturing processes, and how long can we make the vehicles last.
Materials such as aluminium require lots of energy in the refining process (but the lighter vehicles use less fuel to run).
It could be argued that the 4x4 - essentially over-engineered for road use - lasts longer than the average car, and hence the manufacturing emissions are therefore more efficiently 'depreciated'.
There is a wider debate about ‘emission per passenger mile’:
-Air travel is hugely damaging for emissions.
-UK bus travel is also high on emissions due to the combined effects of ageing fleet and low mean occupancy arising from confusing privatised bus services.
3. Urban footprint
A key rant of Ken Livingstone and the London campaigners is against the 'sheer blo*dy size of these 4x4 beasts'.
The road footprint of 4x4s is directly comparable with their equivalent saloons. Many executive saloons are far longer and wider than large 4x4s. The upright seating of 4x4 and people carrier means a more efficient wheelbase and hence less clogging of street, not more!
4. Capacity
You can't fit as many people into saloons as into people carriers and 4x4s. These larger vehicles are the most efficient means of transporting larger numbers of people.
I know that this capacity is not always used. Many commute vehicles are single- occupied. If the argument is that a 4x4 is too big for one person's commute, then why suggest that a normal car is better- surely a scooter, bike or motorbike is the logical optimum?
5. Safety
4x4s have poor pedestrian safety statistics, not helped by the bull bar debate. They are perceived as sturdy safe vehicles (for passengers and driver), although this is not borne out in the NCAP statistics. In car to car collisions they appear to cause lots of damage to the other car.
The argument appears to be that we should buy small cars because they cause less damage to other cars in collisions. I’m afraid that I put my family’s safety first! There is an element of escalation at work here- “I have to buy a big car because if I’m in a little car and hit by another then we’ll come off worseâ€.
Driving style is a major contributor to accidents, but not quoted in the safety argument on 4x4s. I am certainly much less aggressive when driving a 4x4- the bulk and dynamics do not encourage speed or reckless manoeuvring compared with the ‘drivers car’ tag applied to most normal cars these days.
6. Image – envy
I feel that this is the crux of the real issue. An urban 4x4 is seen as unnecessary, conspicuous, vulgar consumption.
Thus the spending of one’s hard-earned on a solid vehicle is to be mocked and pilloried?
Why not chase convertible cars? They are less safe for passengers, less secure, more expensive, carry fewer passengers, are heavier (and therefore less fuel-efficient) and entirely frivolous. Some people need 4 wheel drive capability in a vehicle. No-one needs a roof to come off their car.
Why not chase sports cars? They promote speed and aggressive driving, carry fewer passengers and have poor fuel efficiency. All modern cars can exceed the max UK speed limits, so why not condemn them?
Why not chase luxury cars? They tend to be heavy and have poor fuel efficiency, have lots of unnecessary gadgets and extras, and have a large road footprint. A £250,000 Rolls Royce will carry the same number of passengers as a £5,000 runabout, so why not condemn them?
7. Finally – what is a 4x4?
Defining a 4x4 is not practical.
There are small 4x4s (Fiat Panda), 4x4 variants of most saloons and estate cars, and two wheel driven ‘SUVs’. Many 4x4s run in 2wd on road.
Who is going to decide whether an Audi TT, Jaguar x-type, Panda 4x4 should be stigmatised in the same way as a Porsche Cayenne or Discovery? How are we to police restrictions- should DVLA force us to re-paint stigmatised cars in a ‘leper’ colour?
There is a real risk that the 4x4 bandwagon is developing its own momentum. I am very concerned that there is no balanced debate from any quarter – media or political party.
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 8:45 am |
|
|
BN
Member Since: 18 Mar 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 6463
|
Well structured comments, I think it is Ford and the USA in reality. LR are a small easy target, which of course is now Ford.
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 8:55 am |
|
|
Slimer
Site Moderator
Member Since: 06 Jan 2005
Location: Last Exit to Nowhere
Posts: 16295
|
Kevin, extremely well put
I've been carefully constructing a appropriate reply to this thread but you seem to have said all I was going to say and then some
Simon
PS. My Series III 109 is a large convertible 4x4, I'm doomed 
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 11:47 am |
|
|
KL
Member Since: 16 Jun 2005
Location: Gilling, nr York
Posts: 713
|
Thanks for the comments.
Much more fun ranting than preparing an update session for the boss.
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 12:10 pm |
|
|
simon
Member Since: 11 Jan 2005
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 18296
 
|
Kevin,
Very well put. Its a shame the industry don't come out with the stats on actual production CO2 and especially the depreciated manufacturing emissions.
-s
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 12:38 pm |
|
|
nobbyclark
Member Since: 03 May 2005
Location: Perth, Scotland
Posts: 1268
|
Excellent points - problem is, the comments of Greenpeace, Urban Alliance etc get published and reported in the Grauniad and voiced on Radio 4, not your extremely well put facts. What needs to be done is for manufacturers and other motoring organisations to get these kinds of opinions broadcast to counter the often baseless rantings of the tree huggers and North London intelligentsia. At present, only the "anti" group are getting any airtime or printspace and therefore their views are getting into the public consciousness. I suggest we all make an effort to contact papers, mags etc to put the contrary view - I have already started by writing a letter to Top Gear magazine (these days more pro 4x4 than it used to be) pointing out that this 'creeping' of feeling against 4x4s is gaining momentum and will ultimately result in a ban - look what happened to bull bars (to be banned from Jan 1st 2006 from fitment to all new cars). 2016 - banning of offroaders? Don't be complacent.
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 12:57 pm |
|
|
BN
Member Since: 18 Mar 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 6463
|
Green Peace have their hearts in the right place, but their heads distorted. They want to do so much and generally the public have little problem with them. This is possibly the first attack at normal members of the public and they simply have got it wrong. Industry are to PC to challenge them, we are the public and whilst we should all help environment issues, we can say what should be said, they have it wrong.
Mr Bushes fleet of escort vehicles possibly emit more gas per vehicle than 10 Landy's.
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 2:42 pm |
|
|
10forcash
Member Since: 09 Jun 2005
Location: Ubique
Posts: 16534
|
Greenpeace will always go after the publicity gaining stunts, thats the modern, media - driven world..
Didn't see them making a fuss about the oil wells Saddam set on fire, or the 5000% increase in (poorly maintained) car usage in Afghanistan after the fall of the taliban, the smog over Kabul can be seen by satellite and we had to wear respirators if travelling at certain times of the day.
Never saw greepeace at Basra putting out the oil fires or servicing cars in Kabul - then again, not much publicity in that - or is there??
And another thing....
Unleaded fuel!
Total lead pollution caused by G5 countries pre - unleaded fuels - a shocking 2.015% (source, New Scientist 1997) the politically driven chance to unleaded not only caused greater carbon monoxide and other pollutant emissions due to poorly - running vehicles but also contributed to carbon dioxide and other manufacturing waste due to the number of replacement parts required to 'convert' existing vehicles.
If greenpeace really want to do something worthwhile, get them to plant more trees, instead of hugging the ones we've already got, they absorb carbon dioxide and produce *shock* oxygen don't ya know! (as do most plants that rely upon photosynthesis for growth)
So, generally warmer / sunnier climates actually helps plant / tree growth which will provide greater carbon dioxide absorbsion...
Just don't get me started on ozone!
Cheers,
10forcash
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 4:03 pm |
|
|
10forcash
Member Since: 09 Jun 2005
Location: Ubique
Posts: 16534
|
| Mad as a bucket of frogs... |
|
They've moved on to one of the old favourites...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4123826.stm
How the hell do they know 'what they would say' do they employ trans - species psychics? twots!
Cheers,
10forcash
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 4:44 pm |
|
|
10forcash
Member Since: 09 Jun 2005
Location: Ubique
Posts: 16534
|
Just a thought...
How about a 'blockade' on greenpeace's car park? ( they must have one for all those knackered old VW camper vans and Commer vans that the 'ecowarriors' drive on the new bypasses they so valiantly opposed)
Cheers,
10forcash
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 4:56 pm |
|
|
BN
Member Since: 18 Mar 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 6463
|
No point 10forcash, they don't use petrol or diesel, so they are not going to leave the car park until someone passes wind to power the cars. Thats it we could run on methane gas, its natural. Better ask Simon, because the sheep have an environmental problem with their stomachs, is that right?
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 5:27 pm |
|
|
simon
Member Since: 11 Jan 2005
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 18296
|
OF COURSE !!!
We heard the Shropshire sheep along the road to GP's place with the Ridgebacks and then scare the pants off them all while we drive around with surfing sheep on our roofs !!
-s
|
| 23rd Jun 2005 6:48 pm |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
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
|
|
|
DISCO3.CO.UK Copyright © 2004-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
|
|
