hi davew sorry if you have taken my comments as offensive as that is not what i was trying to put forward , so i apologize for that, sorry.
my point is that their is another side to this story and it's not being heard because they say the science is in and you should just believe it, no sorry im not going to believe a computer generated concept, that is simply not real , it's a concept , a possible maybe at best . the info that you put forward is just that , a scientist put an algorithm into a computer and came up with a concept that under certain circumstances and the wind blows up instead off down this is a possibility and because scientists are scientists they agree that under those circumstances its a possibility, this was evident in the first 3 words of the reply ( a science consensus) sorry davew but i only deal with whats real , i have learnt over the years to question everything and to not accept the norm
my real opinion is that the carbon debate is a rouse to distract the people from the real issues that are staring the powers to be in the face ,pollution, population, plastics, politicians etc. these are today's real issues not carbon . no amount of carbon is ever going to hurt any human or animal ever( unless a tree falls on them, unlucky)so im sorry davew that i dont agree with your concepts and that the science is not their . i live on an island and if the water was rising it would be a visual thing by now , it's supose to be a meter or so higher according to the computer modeling , sorry davew im just not seeing it
while i accept that people have differing views i don't accept that their is only one side to this issue.
PS back to the real question , do you still have your Range Rover . it's ok to yes , it's old and recycled so its ok to have one in my opinion.

No problem, mad-as - but it was a bit 'inappropriate' to open with accusations of "cr@p, manipulations and dishonesty" !) Now you have explained your rationale better I understand better (and also realise I am merely acting as a focus for all the ICE-Angst on here !).

First I absolutely agree that we should 'question everything' (-but fairly politely if/wnen possible !....-), and that is a great philosophy to have, particularly in the face of propaganda and actual data-manipulation ! FWIW I was actual rather scepitcal to begin with too so I sought out some of the sources of CC 'concerns' and challenged them too (and in some cases not very politely either....). Vis subsequent further research I eventually realised much of the stuff being stated was not 'alarmist' but factual. You are spot on that one of the issues is that the pollution can't be seen -as it is 'invisible' gases and/or tiny particles etc- but that is one of the key issues with 'deniers' (but then I visited Bejing on a smoggy day... and was suddenly back in the city fog I recalled as a kid ). I also agree that some of this is simply a 'distraction. from the 'Real Issues' but many polictians use CC as part of their propganda too (as I may have already mentioned .... "Look what we are doing, charging 25p for plastic bags and saving the whale" and other nonsense.... ).. You are also correct that there have been times when experts have 'overstated the case' (or mistated it), but many are concerned so much they believe they have to do that in Order to Save The Planet. Yes there are 'fibs' on both sides but the overall trends in the face of sound-bite anecdotes are also leading to that General Concensus you referrred to.

Lots more stories but overall I am now reasonably convinced (and believe me I am a 'tough audience'...) that CC is real enough - and that we do need to start to address it. We really should not just pass this on to our Kid's kids when they find the waves are lapping up at their toes...

Back on recycling I am not sure if you misunderstood what I was saying about that as I was not advocating that we all buy new cars, anything but ! It is obviosly a myth that these are designed to be more easily recycled too, They are simply designed to be recycled sooner . And folks here are appalled that an old P38 Road Tax is less than half of their latest BMW whatever 9and if that is not bad enough there is the depreciation factor too, ours are too old now for that and have 'bottomed out' of course. Cars should be made to last 20 years (as I mentioned a 'few' posts back I think), That should help .... but of course Car Manufacturers (and their 'lobby') will tell us that is 'not economically viable'... but that's the point - we are now (at least theoretically so far) moving towards what is evironmentally viable. (?)

Incidentally I had a dialogue with an ex-JLR chap who told me that a P38 back bumper would never be recycled as "1) Too much metal in the construction 2) It only cost £40 to make anway" ! Plenty of other parts though... better stop there or else i will get into 'Plastics' (again) !

Hi davew
good to see that we final agree on some things
so what model range rover did yo say you had .

Nice try mad-as: Tell you what, i will answer that when all those on here it applies to (and have also asked that question) start to use their Real Names too ! After all, what are they 'hiding', criminal records, fear of litigation ?..... blah blah blan (and other irrelevant spectulations) !!

Morat wrote:

Votes to ban the troll? I'm bored of him now. His noise to signal ratio is off the chart.

Well Morat (if that is your Real Name) wouldn't that entail banning yourself ?

After all, other than your aforementioned brief burst of wishy-washy contribution (#154), many of your posts have also just been snidey one-liner digs !!

Not sure why you do this (and don't much care why either) but I can guarantee you - 100% - that you would not say these things to me in person....

Lpgc: a Chinese what ?

Back on topic I chatted with a the driver of a Hybrid 'Black Cab' this morning (although confusingly it was dark blue...); With the petrol turned off he was typically getting a range of 60m (with a £3 overnight charge) and so it was "absolutely ideal for the kinds of short trips around town he usually does - with the option/benefit of petrol if he suddenly had a long trip to an airport etc ..."

-Some of his mates had been considering all-electric cabs but were put off by claims of "182 miles range" (!!) which they all thought would mean nearer to 140. Some of them were not so concerned about the need to replace the battery packs at 4-5 years (!!) as it was a 'deductable' though....

Great inside, panorarmic roof, holds 6 passengers etc, and looking under the bonnet etc I would say that the running gear was probably suitable for a P38 too.....
Relax....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/features/new-london-black-cab-driven-electric/

If this is a pub we're glad some people are not only in the pub but sat at our table, wouldn't want some people sat at our table and wouldn't want some people even in the pub. Don't be the weirdo in the pub who usually has nothing to say but occasionally joins a table, puts everyone's backs up, demands they read pages of boring stuff on a subject that they're not really interested in and was only mentioned as an aside, the table aren't really interested in the aside in detail. It seems weird to be obsessed with proving points about an aside subject and even more weird to be hypocritical about something obsessed about. Just in case there's any confusion, most here are welcome at the table but Davew is acting like the 'every pubs got one' weirdo in the pub. Free to talk about Greta as main subject on a different table if anyone joins him at another table and if he isn't barred from the pub by the time he realises how much he's pissing everyone off.

Post #32
davew wrote:

So will just sticking a "Hybrid" badge on my P38 cover me for it then ?

I'd really rather talk about zero carbon emissions from the UK by 2030 and the impact that might have on us regards the cars we currently enjoy driving.

And now I'm p'd off having wasted a few minutes reading your pub. allegory Lpgc...

Take it from me though that not everyone reading this is p'd off; Some agree !

And accept that your provocative "zero carbon emissions from the UK by 2030" caused it all in the first case !!

Yes, this "CC Debate" is your fault: In factwWhy did'nt you go in the pub next door where TFOTE have their meetings ? (It's the one with the bicycles)
Yes, maybe it It is full of ideological kids but they ARE The Future ...... listen to them, they 'think differently' !

EDIT: Jeez I just read Morat's post below and agree with a lot of it !! Thank you (seriously !); The (less polluting) Lpg issue has me puzzled too .....
we can't see much push (yet) for conversions to electric but there should be subsidies for Lpg ones as it's certainly a step in the right direction ...

I think that the most likely outcome is that Urban areas introduce very fierce ULEV or Zero Emissions zones which can only be accessed by electric or human powered vehicles (ie Tesla/Leaf etc or bicycles, or bicycles with electric boost).
I can't see how we'll end up with enough power supplied to rural areas to make pure plug in vehicles realistic either for people commuting to town or making long journeys - but I can see Park and Ride schemes becoming the only real option if you live outside town but work there.

Out of town (where tailpipe emissions vs air quality isn't such a lethal issue) it would actually make more sense for people to run diesel than petrol as this gives lower CO2 per mile but that does create a clear urban/rural split in emissions requirements which I don't think would be supportable.

Ultimately I think that the freedom to travel that has been experienced since WW2 and the dawning of the jet age is coming to an end. Aviation is a massive source of pollution and there are no options available to power jet planes apart from simply mind bending quantities of kerosene. One day, perhaps, we'll be able to use Li-Ion powered aircraft but this has some pretty big drawbacks, one of which being the fact that a fully fuelled airliner is overweight for landing and you can't really dump batteries over the sea in the same way as you can dump jet fuel. So converting existing airframes seems like a no-go.

I heard on TV the other day that 70% of flights from the UK are made by 15% of the population. I'm assuming that's the richest 15% so it's going to be "difficult" politically to reduce air travel by significant amounts but it has to come if you accept that we need to reduce CO2 output and save the planet. I think we do, but we need all countries to sign up and we need to decimate a massive industry. Luckily that massive industry is mainly based in the USA and EU (and we sold our shares in Airbus years ago) so perhaps it won't be so hard for the UK as some others, despite being an island. We'll still have boats after all.

Back to cars.... Our V8 dinosaurs will limp on. They'll become increasingly rare on the roads and I suspect that petrol supplies will become severely curtailed as the Government pushes us towards electricity. There's going to be a difficult balance as it's not just cars but mowers, chainsaws, strimmers and all that stuff which will need to be changed over to battery power before Petrol can finally be switched off. I'm sceptical as to how green it will be to produce so many batteries, but I'm open to persuasion if a detailed audit can be done.
The big question for me personally is related to LPG. Firstly WHY isn't it being pushed as an alternative fuel? It gives an instant reduction in CO2 and other emissions compared to Petrol. Secondly, how long will it last? Because as soon as it costs as much as petrol (possibly before then) I'll be unable to afford to run my Jeep or my P38 regularly and I'll be looking for a hybrid or pure electric car just like everyone else.

Having spent and awful lot of time recently research the whole fuel situation for a project to replace our fleet of vehicles, petrol will be around for a very long time yet. Other than a few 'mild hybrids' that use a combination of diesel and electric motors, all of the other plug-in and self charge hybrids use a petrol engine along with the electric motor(s).

Out of town emissions aren't even considered, hence the introduction of the DPF. When driven in an urban environment (which the emissions tests concentrate on), the particulates are stored so keeping the emissions down only to release them when travelling at speed. Which will invariably be out in the countryside.

Sadiq Khan is offering grants for London taxis to be converted to alternative fuel, including LPG, even though, unlike the other European countries that have introduced ULEZ zones, there is no concession here. I keep meaning to email TFL to ask why I'm not being offered an exemption when I'm classed the same as a hybrid in France, Germany, Belgium and Holland. Lets face it, there's 150,000 LPG cars out there according to DVLA yet if my experience with the 5 I've owned, only 1 was shown on the V5 as being dual fuel, so realistically there's probably around 500,000 of us. Compared with 230,000 electric vehicles registered with DVLA at the moment.

As you will know Ricahrd there are TfL exceptions (for vans/minibuses) if converted to LPG, but when I was reading this I noted it stated:

" Convert to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)
If your vehicle has been converted to run on LPG you may meet the emissions standards. However, the emissions standard of the engine will be considered to be the same as it was before it was converted. "

... and I have no idea how that is actually supposed to be interpreted ! eg. "LPG may allow you to meet the standards but why bother ?"

As you will know Richard there are also TfL exceptions (if only for for vans/minibuses) if converted to LPG, but when I was reading this I noted it stated:

" Convert to Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)
If your vehicle has been converted to run on LPG you may meet the emissions standards. However, the emissions standard of the engine will be considered to be the same as it was before it was converted. "

... and I have no idea how that is actually supposed to be interpreted ! eg. "LPG may allow you to meet the emissions standards but why bother ?"

I thought the TfL exemption had finished... I'd be glad to be proved wrong on that.

Ah, not quite; this is part of their (convoluted) ULEZ stipulations..
(but TfL are well known for their 'inconsistencies' in this area ):-

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/vans-minibuses-and-more

Not not quite but not at all. If you read what it says:

"If your vehicle has been converted to run on LPG you may meet the emissions standards. However, the emissions standard of the engine will be considered to be the same as it was before it was converted.

If you have replaced the engine with a spark ignition (petrol) engine as part of an LPG conversion, the emissions standard of the new engine will apply. You must tell the DVLA of this type of engine swap and send us proof that the new engine meets the standards".

So in other words, if you convert to LPG they assume it doesn't make the emissions worse so a Euro 3 engine converted to LPG is still a Euro 3 engine.

There is the alternative of the CVRAS scheme, but that can't be made to apply as

"The ULEZ scheme allows for some vehicles to retrofit emissions reduction technology to meet the ULEZ standards.

Retrofit technologies will need to be certified by the government's Clean Vehicle Retrofit Accreditation Scheme (CVRAS). The CVRAS currently only has emissions reduction technologies certified for buses and coaches, although equipment suppliers can test and certify equipment.

More details on the retrofit accreditation process and suppliers are available on the Energy Savings Trust website"_

Now you try finding out the cost of getting a vehicle tested to ascertain the CO2 emissions. Carbon Monoxide is checked during the MoT but not Carbon Dioxide which can only be done by a very few specialist test houses, like MIRA, and it would be cheaper to buy a new car or three than having one tested.

So the bottom line is that there are NO concessions given to LPG fuelled vehicles.

I smell the influence of the motor trade. They don't want old vehicles passing new standards, they much prefer scrappage schemes.

I don't quite understand how it can be acceptable for the motor industry to build millions of cars per year and justify this production with a percentage reduction in tailpipe emissions.

Surely the environmental costs of construction need to be calculated and added to the tailpipe emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle to give true value for the environmental impact of car ownership. This would imply that a car that lasts longer will be less damaging.

Exactly. I once read that the lowest polluting vehicle of them all is the Mk1 Rolls Royce Silver Shadow. While it may have a 6.75 litre V8 in a 2 tonne car, it is so well made that will last for years so any pollution generated in producing it and running it, is overshadowed by the fact it will last hundreds of years (well, nearly) before more pollution is generated in disposing of it.

Unfortunately you are applying common sense and logic......

Morat wrote:

I smell the influence of the motor trade. They don't want old vehicles passing new standards, they much prefer scrappage schemes.

I don't quite understand how it can be acceptable for the motor industry to build millions of cars per year and justify this production with a percentage reduction in tailpipe emissions.

Surely the environmental costs of construction need to be calculated and added to the tailpipe emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle to give true value for the environmental impact of car ownership. This would imply that a car that lasts longer will be less damaging.

To call them Zero emission is also wrong - they still produce brake dust and tyre debris both of which are particulates. I'd agree with you on the planes front too, they need to make the other options competitive somehow, though the only solution the idiots we currently have in charge will be to make the flights more expensive somehow which won't really solve anything.

The only rationing that politicians will introduce is price rises. This enables them to do what they like because the tax payer foots the bill.

Tradeable carbon credits would be great in theory. Sadly they're a bastard to administer. I'd like to think we could make them work and use them to tax the greedy in favour of the (relatively static) poor.

the only electric vehicles that we will be driving in the future will be mobility scooters , might convert mine to petrol , who wants a race?
PS hi davew so my name is craig and i live in tasmania and drive a 1997 p38 petrol so what model do you have ?