It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

4X4's

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Has anyone heard that the new Land Rover Discoveries and Range Rovers are being caled back due to a recent and on-going greenpeace campagne. They are being caled back because they only do 12 miles per gallonand emit vastamounts of CO2! Do you think that the correct decisionwas made by both the parties?




posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Alas, as long as there are Hummers, there will be gas-guzzling monsters..

"Dealers say Hummers average 8 to 10 mpg, while General Motors, which markets and distributes the latest version of the vehicle, the Hummer H2, puts the figure at 10-13 mpg. By comparison, the Ford Expedition gets 14-19 mpg, and the three-quarter ton Chevy Suburban gets 13-17 mpg. "


For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone needs a Hummer. It must for those life-threatening trips around the city....my ex had a Durango, with an average of 12mpg, and that was enough of an environmental burden.

And no, we couldn't justify owning it, really - but he liked it. Oy.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Unfortunatly you are right, but won't having an eco-friendly car be cheaper? There are no fuel bills! So you are only pying road tax and the car payments.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by speight89]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by speight89
Unfortunatly you are right, but won't having an eco-friendly car be cheaper? There are no fuel bills! So you are only pying road tax and the car payments.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by speight89]


Depends. "Eco-friendly" is an ambiguous term.

Most still require fuel of some sort.

(I no longer have a car. Or a TV, for that matter. I'd like to pretend it's because of altruistic, global betterment....but it's down to lack of resources, if I'm honest!)



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by speight89
Unfortunatly you are right, but won't having an eco-friendly car be cheaper? There are no fuel bills! So you are only pying road tax and the car payments.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by speight89]


Depends. "Eco-friendly" is an ambiguous term.

Most still require fuel of some sort.

(I no longer have a car. Or a TV, for that matter. I'd like to pretend it's because of altruistic, global betterment....but it's down to lack of resources, if I'm honest!)



All cars require fuel from somewhere. Whether the pollutants produced by that fuel come out the tailpipe of the car or the smokestack of a factory chimney there are still pollutants produced.

It's placebo environmentalism.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Nope, I'm not disputing that there are pollutants everywhere.

But it's not such a bad idea to reduce your own "footprint", is it?

(Of course, we could also count stinky feet as a cause of pollution - but I fear that's my own guilt and paranoia acting up.....
)



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
this subject is one which has always cause a great moral argument within me.

ive got an AC Cobra with a 5.7 chevy in it when im nailing it the compsumption goes down to about 8 to the gallon..its heavily modified so its developing aroun 430 bhp......ive bought a 7.2 litre ford lump to go in it which im hoping with a super charger im going to get around 650 bhp...its just ridiculous but i love cars.

ill probably get some grief for my next comment (?) but i do love nature and the enviroment...i do feel a sense of guilt when using this vehicle but i just go ahead and do it anyway..ive convinced myself that i make up for it a little by recycling and using earth friendly products ...but to be fair i know that doesnt really cut it.

it makes me laugh when you see suzukis jeeps with their "suzuki loves nature" logo on their spare wheel covers....ok suzuki...if you love nature so much stop building the internal combustion engine...lol....basically were all enviromental criminals in some way.

Regards.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
The existence of these gas-guzzlers actually keeps me employed, so in that way I am grateful, but the environmental damage doesn't seem sustainable...but let me find another job first before you make them obsolete.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Why is this under "aircraft projects"...?



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Why is this under "aircraft projects"...?


Erm...if you're referring to the board title..it's under 'Fragile Earth'.

Watcha referring to?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Let's take a look at the big picture: road vehicles are responsible only of 9.9% of the world's green house gases

cait.wri.org...

and the politicians are concerned only about the cars.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kondor
 

I'm not sure about the Land Rover and Range Rover series but from personal experience I can see the need for large vehicles. With the cargo capacity of my husband's SUV we can haul in one trip what it would take my little econobox several trips to carry. In fact we often take the SUV out for shopping simply because my car can barely accommodate a weeks worth of groceries especially bulky items like paper towels and I have sometimes needed to make two trips to fit everything.

We certainly also noticed the surprising economy offered in the ownership of a large vehicle when we were moving. The SUV actually saved us on gas consumption vs. the prior move when all we had were two small cars.

We use the SUV to haul extended family around instead of taking multiple cars to events now. The gas mileage we get on the SUV is only a little worse than what our relatives get on their mid sized sedans. Yet we have had our SUV kicked and spat on a few times...by self righteous idiots driving off in cars that get little better in terms of mileage.

Mini vans don't seem to attract the same ire as SUVs but the fact is we looked at both and the SUV was the more versatile choice with even better passenger accommodations and mileage. I guess mini vans are thought of as family cars and SUVs are thought of as yuppy indulgences.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Sorry I can't edit easily via iPad. I realized I went off on a tangent and didn't answer your question. I think it was a step in the right direction on both sides. Large vehicles can certainly get better mileage than what you cited and it's good the manufacturer steps up and acknowledges that even if it's under a bit of pressure. At least they are being responsive. Hopefully they will come back with a more efficient design while being able to salvage most of what they already produced.

As in the case where Mattel resounded to pressure from Greenpeace, added pressure should come from the end consumers who need to step up and demand better from the manufacturers.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Personally I think it's ridiculous to recall an automobile because greenpeace are being a bunch of whiners about it. But then again, I'm of the opinion that man-made global warming is a myth. I am also hoping for the day we run out of oil, so we can finally reorganize our society to live without it. Until we run out, odds are we won't change our ways, so I welcome it. Yes I understand this will cause severe change and suffering, but you know what? Life is suffering, get over it. Running out of oil is a huge positive long term, in my opinion.

I'm starting to veer off topic, but to reiterate my point, no I don't think they should have had to pull the truck off the market because of greenpeace. It's just a bunch of ridiculous politics and whiners. If people want to buy the truck, they should be able to buy it, if the company wants to sell it. It's not greenpeace's right to get involved in this.




top topics



 
0

log in

join