Green cars - All Comments

re: Range extending

overboost — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:23:10 GMT

Wind power if they could store the waste power could dump it on the network each night to recharge the cars that are mostly idle from 12pm till 6am. Car rebates and free road tax are not enough to pay for a more costly car and poor infrastructure to recharge them. As to Motorway flogging 80% of journeys are under 6 miles so I think commuting car journos are not the best reviewers for shorter range cars

re: Why France is betting on battery power

overboost — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:15:37 GMT

The other benefit Hilton is that we import almost all our own oil (its cheaper than the North Sea). So if we can generate the same power at home by local gas/wind/hydro/nuclear then we are not putting sterling in an envelope and posting it to the middle east every time we stop to refill. Also its alot easier to scrub coal powered plants than insure every cars CAT is working correctly from the moment is starts plus the cost of the precious metals a CAT needs.

As to future cars almost beating electric cars c02 emissions its a joke as more green power is added to the network. We will have ever more fossil powered cars on the network, many of which will be getting older and more polluting/less efficient. Read David MacKays 'Sustainable energy not just hot air'.

re: Why the new Range Rover should be 'canned'

overboost — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:02:23 GMT

Cans should come with a specific resale value like we used to get for glass bottles before the bottle bank got them for free. Schools/charities already collect cans but if you were able to get say 20p off your next can purchase with every can returned (or 2) then recycling would be alot higher. There would be more smelter operations here if all they had to do was melt down the can and resell rather than extracting it from ore.

Many of the big smelters are moving to Iceland/Norway where Mother Earth offers cheap thermal and hydro power and the plants can run overnight when demand is low. If cities could offer x tons of recycled aluminium in return for say city buses/trains and this cut local taxes then this would generate interest in recycling. Every can landfilled is like throwing money away.

re: The politics of electric vehicles

overboost — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:47:25 GMT

Road tax will return even for 0-emission cars as it's the cost of maintaining the road network/avoiding ever higher personal taxes. Bigger cars put a greater burden on the network and use more road space even if fewer in number. The number of zero emission RR etc + high end cars is minuscule as these buyers do not care about petrol costs. They already pay higher vat and tax to buy and maintain them and this goes to HMR.

People will pay ever higher road tax if they have a dirty car and fuel/service taxes will drive them to replace it. As car material prices rise, the demand for cars to recycle from will rise also leading to better disposal costs. Rational car use pricing for ecars takes a hike until the no of E-Cars is alot greater and the infrastructure is in place.

The nice thing is that they cannot charge any more for a watt of power for a car than for lighting your home

re: The politics of electric vehicles

groovylabelle — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 22:44:44 GMT

Politicians can be so naive at times.

They cut taxes on greener cars to promote their growth, and of course their green 'PR badge'. However, to balance the road tax books they expect to transfer the revenue lost on green cars buy increasing taxes on luxury cars.

But this strategy could never be long term, unless they secretly thought green cars would always be a small niche market.

Well Shock-Horror, not be long before we get the zero-emision Roller!

re: The politics of electric vehicles

Dave Ryan — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 13:17:34 GMT

I wouldn't have thought politicians would be too bothered about the dimensions of the vehicle provided it helps improve urban air quality (which was one of the aims of the Congestion Charge if I recall correctly) and also helps the Government meet its legally-binding CO2 targets. That all being said, if they really do want to penalise larger cars they could always start taxing by either engine capacity excluding electric drivetrain or unladen weight, on account that the former is a truer reflection of its CO2 output over its lifetime and the latter determines how much damage it'll do to the tarmac. There are ways and means.

re: Why the new Range Rover should be 'canned'

RustBucket — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 21:36:29 GMT

The Jag XJ is already made from more than 50% recycled Ally, so its probable that the Rangie will be since both come from the same stable, see www.aluminum.org/.../Template.cfm

re: Why the new Range Rover should be 'canned'

Los Angeles — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:34:35 GMT

"Bored now." Londonist

You're not alone. That's how many feel about London portrayed as the centre of mankind's existence.

re: Why the new Range Rover should be 'canned'

Londonist — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:12:59 GMT

Bored now.

re: Why the new Range Rover should be 'canned'

Los Angeles — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:12:27 GMT

""Greens Red with Fury." - those Greens who use environmental concerns for communistic control of society, particularly in terms of what we are able to drive, and when we are able to drive. As well as the pricing and allocation of resources." "That is not at the intellectual level of a troll." Hilton

Okay, Hilton, let me take a close look at that statement.

"Greens Red With Fury," is not fine polemic. It is tabloid jeering. Second, where exist in our society - the UK - the communistic elements you talk of that seek control of our daily lives and so worry you that you slyly demean all environmentalists with derogatory red paint? Many are motorists. Your readers.

I do not see bands of marauding commies waving celery sticks demanding non-polluting tricycles for the masses. What I do see is global entities paying for and promoting successfully campaigns to convince the population that welfare states are outdated and yet - surprise, surprise - and yet the best parts should be handed to private concerns who can make greater profit from them for their shareholders. How did the Welfare State manage before the advent of Mr. CEO and his need for sweeping deregulation?

We are brought low by banks and investment institutions that based an illusory economic system on thin air, one a first grade student in basic arithmetic could tell was utterly bogus. The Greens had no part in it. They are a victim of it, same as you and me.

Mr. Livingstone, your too conveniently local Bogeyman, is most certainly not in power, not in the least influencial, a complete red herring. (Pun intended.) Nor are the Greens in power, nor are communists. There is only one Green MP in Westminster parliament. But if any manage to muster enough votes to hold sway I for one am content to see democracy at work run by those elected. Your current administration is not elected.

We are in the grip of global capitalists, at least we in the west, Korea and now China, that wants to follow a system entirely based on exports. Germany has thrived principally on exposrts. Wee England remains hopeful.

There was a time we all voted to pay taxes for a welfare state; we were happy to have our lives made easier, to protect the sick and vulnerable, to comfort us in our dotage by sharing the cost. Uncertainty sustaining a welfare state coincided with the rise of privatisation, when wealthy men told us we'd be better off without it and we'd pay lower taxes ... so long as we sold the best bits to them cheaply. Didn't they do a wonderful job with the old folks homes? Are we paying lower taxes? Is our lives better? Do we prosper?

When did we give corporations and millionnaires the liberty to rob our pensions and savings? When did we say, yes, take our car companies, make the vehicles where you like, and pay us basic rates with no job security? When? What do you think the rising cries of despair and regret mean emanating from Saab owners and dealers on your website?

Your questions surrounding a green economy - not in sight by miles in the UK, you said so yourself in a piece recently about the lack of small city cars - are quite legitimate but lost in a muddle of reds under the bed ideology.

When an administration says parents shall have the right to send their children to the school of their choice we offer a freedom to one section of society. Overnight our children need cars not feet or buses to get to and from their place of study. Walking is for the poor. Car makers, quick to spot a burgeoning market create a plethora of SUV's to answer the call. Mothers think them the perfect safety device to transport their loved ones to a greater place of learning than the one a street from their home. The rest of us motorists find ourselves gridlocked at peak commuter times in streets by and around schools.

One section of society, (with money to buy SUVs) exercised a negative freedom over the majority who are left to do as best they can, the freedom not to find a parking place, and not to reach a destination in reasonable time. Residents find their streets blocked twice a day with large parked SUVs. Liberty does not belong to one, and only one, privileged section of society.

We all have constraints on our lives and are happy to shoulder them in order to live an orderly, peaceable co-existence. Some people like to smoke; too many smoking in a restaurant makes it impossible for others to eat - result? Channel smoking to specified areas not near food. Some smokers grumble, the majority of diners are happy not tasting cigarette ash, and by and large barmen avoid lung cancer. Everybody is better off, even the cigarette companies allowed to continue making and selling their product. But not to children. After all, we need to employ some common sense. Right?

Why is it we can afford to bomb small countries for years on end, out of existence but cannot run or afford the cost of a welfare state? Is that welfare state not the same one we wish look after our war wounded and maimed?

Could inflated costs of medical supplies, equipment, and medicine - their manufacturing costs not regulated - have a bearing on too onerous wefare costs? Could those self-same patriotic companies demanding deregulation paying little or no taxes be exacerbating the problem?

I believe a democractic state should impose restraints on freedoms that interfere with the freedoms of others - or on freedoms which conflict with justice, humanity, and happiness. In that I am not at all controversial. We all live under such as system... only now, the rich and powerful demand fewer on them and more on the rest of us.

When a journalist disseminates factoids fed to him by a group or institution of dubious intention and funding, repeating the material verbatim as if Gospel, he is seen by his readers to endorse both the detail and the message. That is what I mean when I say I prefer my reading material to rise well above the tar and feathering mischief of an Internet troll. I'd hate to think that the freedom to imply environmentalists are commies is a liberty conferred upon you by the Haymarket Media Group. If so, it's time for some regulation there, I believe, and swiftly.

re: Why the new Range Rover should be 'canned'

HiltonH — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:17:28 GMT

Whoops

'This is dilemma that interests me: can a Greener economy support today's levels of welfare?

Discuss.'

re: Why the new Range Rover should be 'canned'

HiltonH — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:10:25 GMT

Oh, and this column is about saving all the ally cans consumed in the UK and using them to make Land Rovers. Jaguars, Rollers and Astons.

Surely a suggestion that is not at 'the intellectual level of an Internet troll'?

re: Why the new Range Rover should be 'canned'

HiltonH — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:08:59 GMT

Dear Mr LA

In simpler terms....

'Greens Red with Fury' - those Greens who use environmental concerns as cover for communistic control of society, particularly in terms of what we are able to drive, where and when we are able to drive. As well as the pricing and allocation of resources.

The quote from Mr Livingstone is real. He would like a command economy.

Yes, the Greens may have a point about ever-rising consumption. But it is that 'turbo-capitalism' that was substantially paying for the £200bn per year Welfare State. In our current economic state, we are borrowing £150bn of that sum each year.

My wider point is that a Green economy could not pay for the benefits we currently enjoy.

I mean, if you buy an entry-level Range Rover, the VAT you pay on the £70k sticker price is £12k That will pay for a nurse for 6 months. Or a year's benefits for a single-parent family.

By reducing 'unnecessary' consumption, governments will find themselves seriously lacking in income.

This is dilemma that interests me: can a Greener economy cannot support today's levels of welfare?

Discuss.

re: Why the new Range Rover should be 'canned'

Los Angeles — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:01:40 GMT

Dear Hilton

I've read your rebuff four times and cannot quite manage to join all the tautology together to form a fluid argument.

Still, it is healthier for you that you come out of the closet by showing how easily you can link your world, that is central London, with some distant indefinable "mad" communist sect the eco-conscious, and in the same sentence, seamlessly drop "Red" ken into the mix, as if a cabal of Bondian villians out to undermine Boris the Saviour. (I don't dislike Boris, he's a likeable rogue, but proves himself inept in political matters.)

There's nothing like stirring up fear of communism to keep people in their place, although you are somewhat out of date in that regard - the "war on terrorism" has superceded fear of communist takeover as a means to control dissent and opinion.

You go further, you throw in the demise of the Welfare State as part of your reasoning - a liberal institution that took decades to fight for and achieve in our democracy, once admired the world over but under attack since the early eighties, as if being a passive consumer genuflecting to global capitalism is the only way we can pay to survive without resorting to dog eat dog, that is, only the fittest survive society. How did you manage to make that massive leap of logic? And why do you not express anger at the way it is being whittled away?

Have you compared other countries welfare systems to England's? (Scotland has its own.)

To cars, SUV's to be precise; you mention electric and Coka Cola sponsored versions as the new war effort in the front line attack on environmentalists in general.

I know of a good few SUV owners who, like other ordinary people, cannot tell you what the emission level is of their vehicle but can relate how impossible it is to park in a city, and how extortionate is the cost of petrol. For that reason, and a growing awareness that a large portion of the world is aflame because one nation wishes to own the oil and other natural resources of another smaller nation state, endless conflict is bound to have a greater and greater bearing on petrol costs, and car prices, and indeed our capacity to earn a living and a safe future.

Does that statement make me a "lefty" or a communist." Only a fool or a bigot will think so. I don't think you to be anti-EV development or against better urban use of vehicles, but you regurgitate right-wing think tank "factoids" without seeming to challenge them. That I find disappointing. I thought a journalist's job was to check the facts and offer as close to truth as he can ascertain. I always read your blogs but reject them when all you offer is the intellectual level of an Internet troll.

And yes, I too admired the internal design of Boris's very red answer to London's traffic ills, the new bus; the same architect has given us very imaginative organic interiors of buildings, but I'd rather you tell us how that bus improves the daily life and traffic flow of Londoners and leave praise of your part in its existence to others.

re: Why the new Range Rover should be 'canned'

HiltonH — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:32:26 GMT

Mr LA and Mr Calorus...

As I said in the other blog, people at Fisker told me that certain Scando politicians did not like the idea of an electric car being as big and imposing as the Fisker. Clearly, some 'Green' politicians do have a wider agenda - a view of what a zero-local emission vehicle should look like, as part of a wider agenda about the way they think society should look.

Are you familiar with the term 'Red Greens'? This refers to the ex-Communists who shifted seamlessly to Green politics after the fall of the Berlin Wall. There is a great deal of similarity between communism and the wilder fringes of the Green agenda, which seeks to centrally control consumption of all kinds.

Indeed, no less a man than the previous Mayor of London said he believed in a war-time style, command and ration style economy because he saw it as the best way of combating what he think is the threat of eco-doom.

But he thought that before the global warming theory became popular.

Of course there is logic to this: ever greater consumption might well have a limit. But then the collapse in UK consumer spending (some 70 percent of our economy) has massively compromised our ability to pay for the Welfare State.

And while I'm conscious of over-egging the New Bus thing, I think my role does give me a tiny bit a credibility in the green arena...