|
Why does Cameron need an entourage? Has he become a pop star???
|
As a matter of historic interest a government car and driver was first offered to the Leader of the Opposition after Ted Heath saw Harold Wilson standing in the rain in a taxi queue.
How times have chnaged...
|
How times have chnaged...
yes we have a drought now caused by too many government cars
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Cameron. Damned if he does - damned if he doesn't.
At least he has been known to arrive at the Commons on a push bike, nor does he run two Jaguars.
As for chameloens, Blair was the orignal...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Motoring, not politics please.
smokie, BR Moderator
|
"Motoring, not politics please"
Hands up anyone who would - seriously - rather have an Omega - or a Prius! - than a Lexus GS 450 h?
And, if I read the report correctly, it's going to be leased commercially, rather than provided from public funds ...
Jack
|
Anyone who believes any spin from any party on motoring (or other non motoring subject which we are not discussing on this thread).. is weak in the head and should lie down until they recover.
madf
|
Anyone who believes any spin from any party on motoring (or other non motoring subject which we are not discussing on this thread).. is weak in the head and should lie down until they recover.
I agree. I so detest the traffic management and 'calming' measures being instituted and generally encouraged by the London Mayor's office that I have been thinking seriously of voting something other than Labour. Then on reflection one realises that any party in power would be unable to resist a) the revenue to be obtained by torturing and persecuting motorists and b) the idiot clamour from sentimentalists who think cars are responsible for a lot of pollution.
Fortunately I am going to be away for the council elections and can't find a doxy poxy enough to be my proxy. So they can all drop dead for the time being.
|
Cameron was quoted today that his party is not against cars as such, but will endeavour to encourage greater takeup of more environmently friendly models.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Really Lud, you must try to get out more if you can't find a poxy doxy, ideally foxy and preferably called Roxy, to be your proxy!
Jaxy
|
|
Poxy yes, foxy no problem, but poxy enough, much more difficult. I agree the name Roxy wd be a step in the right direction though.
|
Lud - sounds like you are half way there ....
Back on motoring, our local mayor used to drive around in a Prius - bit of a giggle seeing His/Her Worship struggling out of the back of a Prius in all their finery, and the mayoral flag on the bonnet never looked quite right on a Prius.
Jack
|
I'll be your Proxy Lud. I like Roxy Music* if that's any help?
* Which I listen to in the car sometimes. Sometimes I amaze myself at how I'm able to keep things motoring related
|
I looked in Whatcar magazine and found that there are lots of cars with less CO2 than Dave's new Lexus. Nearly all diesel cars are less, why didn't he get one of those instead of buying Japanese?
I went to hear Dave speak near Chatsworth House before he became leader of the Tories. He arrived and left in a helicopter, I thought if he is using a chopper before even becoming leader, will he get Concorde out of retirement when and if he becomes PM.
I do hope so, I love Concorde. Hang the emmisions.
|
You're all (older) and wiser than I am so you should all know what I'm about to say.
It doesn't matte rone iota what they drive. It doesn't matter whether he drives a LS400, a GS450, a Smart Car or pretends to ride a banana to work every day. It doesn't matter because they're the leaders (and opposition) of this country.
It doesn't matter that Prescott has two Jags, that all the ministers have Omegas or that Cherie Blair spends 8 grand on her hair.
It's all spin and publicity for the first couple of days that it happens and then it's gone. If Blair decided to buy a Mini then it would be news for a week tops. Then nothing more would be said about it. Cameron rode a bike to work once. I've not heard anything more about it since that day.
There's not a damn thing we can do. They'll end up trying to out green each other and it will become silly but even then, we're powerless to do anything.
|
Touching that you are willing to impersonate a poxy doxy, Adam, but I'm afraid it wd be a long drive for you (NB motoring connection), and for what really?
|
I'm all for trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars in order to reduce the impact of global warming.
BUT: methane is worse in global warming. Cows produce lots of methane.
We subsidise farmers to produce cows.
tinyurl.com/m9o3o
There are more drivers than farmers.
So clearly the government has not thought through its policy properly and it's full of contradictions.
(so what's new?:-(
madf
|
You leave farmers out of this, we are in enough trouble already.
You subsidise farmers to produce good quality, enviromently friendly cheap food. Look at the prices for food against other things.
By the way cows eat grass, which takes up CO2 and converts it to oxygen.
Oh and there are more cows than drivers.
|
I thought methane (bovine by-product...) was greenhouse gas?
(Desperately trying to think of a link between b*llsh*t and motoring!).
|
It's what most of the motoring policies are?
|
|
Of course - why didn't I just think of that :-)
|
97% of global CO2 emissions are natural. Cars account for less than 10% of the man made emissions. In other words, if you took every car in the world off the roads it would reduce CO2 emissions by 0.3% pa. What you and I and David Cameron or even 2 Jags Prescott drive makes sweet FA difference to CO2 emissions - but it's a damn good excuse for non-driving Gordon Brown to extract an extra £40 a year from "gas-gussler" drivers in "road fund" tax, or petrol/diesel duty for all of us.
--
Phil
|
PhilW, try to engage your brain before you start spouting statistics. I don't know whether your 97% figure is correct, but let's say it is. The point is that those "natural" emissions are a closed system. CO2 is produced and absorbed by living organisms on the surface. There is no net increase as a result. The remaining 3% is a massive problem because we're taking carbon that was buried countless millions of years ago and reinjecting it into the atmosphere.
The level of atmospheric CO2 has just rocketed. In the last 200 years we've managed to cause a huge surge of over 30% in the level of CO2 - it's far higher than it has been for 500,000 years. And there's no sign of it slowing.
I agree that the choice of car of 1 or 2 politicians is utterly irrelevant, but don't try to use nonsensical numbers to pretend that we've not created a huge environmental problem for ourselves by burning oil.
The planet historically (100 millions of years ago) was much hotter than it was today, and by reinjecting the CO2, we're heading back that way. But potentially far, far too fast for life to adapt.
|
>>In the last 200 years we've managed to cause a huge surge of over 30% in the level of CO2 - it's far higher than it has been for 500,000 years.>>
Re "spouting statistics", isn't that a classic example?
How can you prove the percentage figure involved?
Or, indeed this figure: "The planet historically (100 millions of years ago)...?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
It's one of the few things that you actually can prove. Ice cores, for example, let you directly measure atmospheric gas concentrations going nack for thousands of years.
|
"PhilW, try to engage your brain before you start spouting statistics. I don't know whether your 97% figure is correct"
That's a very strange argument.
"The point is that those "natural" emissions are a closed system."
Doesn't matter whether it is closed or not - it matters though, where the CO2 is - ie is it locked up? Is it being released by your organisms or absorbed by your organisms - the balance between these will affect the amount in the atmosphere - and by far more than anything man can produce. (And of course you have totally omitted to mention the vast amounts of CO2 emitted by volcanic activity)- here's a quote to ponder- "Above or below average rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been explained in the past by natural events".
Anyway, while engaging brain, and not quoting statistics perhaps you should research some of the eminent scientists who claim that CO2 increases do not CAUSE global warming but are a RESULT of global warming.
I'm no expert, I merely quoted figures from various sources (they range from 95% natural to 99% natural, so I chose the middle figure).
"don't try to use nonsensical numbers to pretend that we've not created a huge environmental problem for ourselves by burning oil." - they ain't nonsensical and it ain't just oil - ever heard of coal and wood? - look up how much coal China and India mine and burn.
"historically (100 millions of years ago) was much hotter than it was today," - how did that happen then? It certainly didn't have much to do with burning oil in my car.
"by reinjecting the CO2," so how do we do that into your "closed system"
"we've managed to cause a huge surge of over 30% in the level of CO2" - You sure about that - we've done it?? See the quote below
"It is back to the drawing board for carbon cycle models. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration varies in a manner which has not been predicted successfully by existing models. There was significant variability before there could have been a human contribution. This variability appears to have followed temperature changes, rather than being responsible for them. Although there has been an increase during the period of industrial development, the increase has not been uniform. Thus, the period between 1935-45 showed no change. The period since 1972, when the increase has been linear despite an increase of over 45% in emissions, suggests that there are new carbon sinks being established in the ocean and in the terrestrial biosphere to absorb the increases. This behaviour plays havoc with previous predictions of global warming, but it is difficult to know how long the present apparently stable rate of increase will continue."
Oh, and so glad to see that you agree with my main point (and back to motoring)- "I agree that the choice of car of 1 or 2 politicians is utterly irrelevant"
As I said "it's a damn good excuse for non-driving Gordon Brown to extract an extra £40 a year from "gas-gussler" drivers in "road fund" tax, or petrol/diesel duty from all of us."
--
Phil
|
|
