"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - oldnotbold
"The EU should ban the sale of cars that do under 35 miles to the gallon, the ex-chairman of oil giant Shell says.

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart told BBC News the motor industry would adapt to cope with stricter environmental rules. "

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7225451.stm

"Sir Mark said the rich should not escape their responsibility to tackle climate change: "It is a social thing. We don't say the wealthy can avoid doing what is needed by society.

"When we eliminated coal fires in London we didn't say to people in Chelsea you can pay a bit more and toast your crumpets in front of an open fire - we said nobody, but nobody, could have an open fire.

"When we introduced catalytic converters the car-makers said it would put the price of cars through the roof - but it didn't. Now we all have to have catalytic converters - that's only right." "

Edited by oldnotbold on 04/02/2008 at 08:52

"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - b308
Think he'd be better telling his fellow-rich not to keep going on multiple holidays each year to far-off destinations in large polluting jet planes...

And whilst he's at it perhaps have a quiet word in the ear of our jet-set governement...

Perhaps if these people did as they preached to the rest of us we may be prepared to do our bit.....
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Alby Back
Easy to propose but very hard on those who depend on the industry for their living. There is an undeniable underlying thread of common sense in the thought though. I have often thought that a system of variable VAT on purchase price inversely proportionate to mpg would be a useful incentive.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - rogue-trooper
b308, I think that your comments rather miss the point and having a go at those that (presumably) are better off than you detracts from the point.

I can afford to own and run a car that does 18mpg but choose not to as I find it a waste.

I would personally take it a step further and link the mpg figure with co2 figure. I would use his 35mpg limit (presumably this is the average mpg) and also a limit of 200g CO2g/km

For example:

Ferrari 599
13.2 mpg
490 CO2g/km

35mpg - 13.2mpg = 21.8mpg
490g - 200g = 290g
Multiply these = £6322 a year.

I realise that this doesn't really put off people buying cars doing 30mpg so might have to have something different. For example BMW 335i (218g/31.0mpg) would come to an extra £72


(for info my car does 38.2mpg and 184Co2g - I know I could get a car that does less)
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - b308
No, its a valid comment - those that preach to us about using smaller less polluting cars, cutting down on our journeys, etc, etc tend also to be those who also go on multiple foreign holidays, visit countries abroad for some sort of "conference", etc.

Ok I haven't got the money to go galavanting all over the world, but thats not the point - I object to people who tell me what I should or shouldn't do and then see those same people doing it themselves....

Now if our little friend from Shell has currently got a garage full of cars with above 35mpg combined figures, none below that figure, and doesn't galavant all over the world then I'll happily take back my comments about him.....

But not about the rest of them....

I already try to do my bit, but I've yet to meet those in high places who practice what they preach, and until they do....

Edited by b308 on 04/02/2008 at 09:30

"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Sofa Spud
I think the EU should bring in legislation setting the minimum standards for fuel consumption on new cars and laying out standard categories of car types that conform to certain parameters. 50mpg is a good goal to aim for in a few years' time (with perhaps 40mpg for genuine 7 seaters). There was talk of the EU setting a minimum consumption equivalent to 60mpg but that seems to have gone quiet.

This needs to be done NOT because of all this global warming hoo-haa, but because the oil is running out and what's left might go somewhere else and not to Europe.

It's possible we're looking at an oil famine within our own lifetimes. So some of the younger people on HJ might be looking at a car-less middle-age.

However, energy savers should be turning their main attention to AIR TRAVEL and to high-speed rail - like TGV's, which consume vast amounts of (nuclear derived) energy to travel at their high speeds.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Armitage Shanks {p}
SS. Does a nuclear power station generate any CO2 at all? Isn't a high speed train a better way of moving 400 people around than 200 cars? I know there are end of life pollution problems re nuclear power stations but they are 'clean' in every day use, aren't they?
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - b308
Think that its the extraction of the stuff that goes into the nuclear power station that produces the CO2, oh, and the building of the thing..

Edited by b308 on 04/02/2008 at 09:37

"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - 2cents
'Isn't a high speed train a better way of moving 400 people around than 200 cars?'...

A motoring forum offering anti car veiws...now there's a novelty.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Happy Blue!
I have a lot of sympathy with this idea of minimum fuel consumption figures. I admit I am guilty as the next person, but if Road Tax was genuinely related to CO2 emmisions, such that the most wasteful cars were far more expensive that economical cars, I would vote for it, as long as there were exceptions for 'necessary users' such as farmers needing a 4x4 or moutain rescuse workers.

Engineering is at its best when facing difficult problems. I remember a programme about the Boeing 777. They wanted the doors to open outwards withut having to be pulled inwards little first, as all aircraft doors did before then. The door designer simply couldn't do it, but when he was told that the job would be handed to someone else, he found a way within 24 hours.

If car manufacturers will see sales dropping by 50% as a result of legislation, they will find a way around it. Just look at F1 and the various rules. The cars are no slower now than they were 20 years sgo, but safer, cleaner and with smaller engines.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Armitage Shanks {p}
NOT an anti-car view! A question! Isn't a train a more efficient way of moving people around than the number of cars required to do the same job. Train fares are high - I am asking about the carbon footprint.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - flunky
SS. Does a nuclear power station generate any CO2 at all? Isn't a high speed
train a better way of moving 400 people around than 200 cars?


A high-speed train is highly unlikely to take you from Leatherhead to Sunbury.

Trains only work for commuting into heavily built-up city centres, but they are already almost universally used for this purpose in somewhere like Surrey, and yet despite this, Surrey is still choked with traffic.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - oldnotbold
" I would vote for it, as long as there were exceptions for 'necessary users' such as farmers needing a 4x4 or moutain rescuse workers."

The problem will occur when you get dual-use vehicles - one man's Chelsea Tractor is another man's work tool/life-line, though most farmers I know drive a 4x4 pick-up, not a Disco - that's for the Mrs.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - b308
Trains only work for commuting into heavily built-up city centres >>


And long distance journeys (at least high speed ones do!) .. though there's nothing like an overnight cross-europe sleeper....
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - cjehuk
It's been said time and time again here and elsewhere that it's not just what you drive but how much you drive it too. A Ferrari driven 50 miles once a weekend at 10mpg creates less pollution in a year than the Focus driven 1000 miles a week but under such blanket terms the "cleaner" car would be banned. Now of course you have to accept that if the Ferrari did 35mpg it would be cleaner still but the whole thing smacks of avoiding the real issue of changing how we live - much easier and more press friendly to go after that top 1-2% that won't make much difference.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - oldnotbold
You also have the issue of seat utilisation. The Chelsea Tractor doing a shared school run with six little darlings and Mum will only do 18 mpg, but that's better seat mileage than a Focus with just the driver. OK the Disco has no passengers as it then goes on to Waitrose, while the Focus is in the company car park, but you get the picture.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - runboy
I loved the commentary on the news this morning as it shows this chap driving along in his ultra efficient Prius. I nearly choked on my bran flakes! Why doesn't he get a VW Polo Bluemotion and save a bit more fuel then? Granted the Prius is better on the fuel than a Jag XJ but then it isn't the last word in eco-freindly with batteries that cost a lot in envirmental terms to make.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - TheOilBurner
Funny how he plucked 35mpg randomly out the air. Why not 50mpg? Oh wait...the Toyota Pious wouldn't achieve that (not in the real world at least)...

The really annoying thing about this idea is how it penalises larger families and those that actually need large vehicles for other purposes.

I mean, it's very hard to find 8 seaters that can do 35 mpg, and pretty much forces you into diesel for 7 seaters, and as most people on here seem to agree, modern diesel engines aren't all they're cracked up to be...
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Waino
Ultimately, when the crunch comes, the only fair way of dealing with the problem will be by some form of rationing/allocation.

I must admit, I was a bit miffed last time when I was issued with fewer coupons for my motorbike than someone with a car. The best way would be to allow everyone the same quantity and let them use it as they wish i.e. 50 miles in a Ferrari or 1000 miles on a moped.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Ruperts Trooper
We need to get a level playing field first.

Road fuel has high duty rates plus VAT on top - commercial energy (electric/gas) just has VAT - domestic energy has 5% VAT - aviation fuel has no tax but a small fixed charge.

European road users can't save the planet on our own - not even if we were legislated out of existence.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - MichaelR
There is no irrefutable evidence and hard proof that everyones currentely favourite buzzword, climate change, is a man made thing or not. it's a great excuse to earn lots of extra tax revenue, though.

The surface of Mars has heated by 22c in the last 100 years apparently. Must be all those Range Rover Sports.

The whole obsession with C02 is a complete farce - if the entire UK population stopped driving tommorrow the change in global emissions would be so slight it would not even register on the scale.

This is all completely stupid.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Big Bad Dave
"This is all completely stupid"

Totally agree with you, when someone mentions climate change I yawn, disengage brain and automatically try to do the opposite.

If on the other hand they just said - look, fuels gonna run out sooner or later lets think of ways to use less - I might start to take notice. Although I'm quite lazy and selfish so I doubt it.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - grumpy100
"This is all completely stupid"
Totally agree with you when someone mentions climate change I yawn disengage brain and automatically
try to do the opposite.
If on the other hand they just said - look fuels gonna run out sooner
or later lets think of ways to use less - I might start to take
notice. Although I'm quite lazy and selfish so I doubt it.

>>

And therein lies the problem. Because the world is full of selfish people something in the way of legislation has to be done. No one likes the idea, but if it makes the oil last longer maybe we should face the fact that it's for the long term good.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - rogue-trooper
was discussing Mars warming up this weekend.

I would not say it is completely stupid. It seems that you and I have similar views on climate change but ........

surely it is nicer to not pollute the planet so much, whether it be packaging on your breakfast cereal or the fuel consumption of your car. I just hate waste.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - bbroomlea{P}
I thought the same about the 'ultra efficient' Prius! IIRC my A4 will do more MPG let alone the Polo! Prius is nothing more than a statement by supposedly green people that actually they dont know what they are talking about.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - FotheringtonThomas
This sounds like a very good idea that would cnsiderably aid technical development of the automobile. I can't think of any real reason why this should not be done.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Leif
I have sympathy with the idea, and yet it is in many respects half baked. As per the London Kengestion Charge.

It would not distinguish between a 4x4 with one occupant who could quite happily use a small car, and a farmer who needs a 4x4 for his work. Or someone who carries 7 people, often goes off road, and needs plenty of luggage space too.

We already have a form of tax on gas guzzlers, and it is called fuel duty. I don't see the government using the income generated to reduce our fuel use (research, infrastructure investment etc). Rather they use it as a nice little earner.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - BobbyG
And the other side of the argument is that the ones who have money will not be bothered and will find a way round any legislation eg. licensing their limos as private hires to avoid congestion charge.

I am sure with the right people getting paid the right amount they would soon be able to prove that Mr Millionaires Ferrari actually returns 35mpg.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - BobbyG
This goes back to the age old question of how does a govt manage its people to do what it wants them to do. If it can't, then how does it work it to their benefit.

So we have high tax on fuel, so if you use a lot of fuel you pay a lot of tax. Fair enough, as far as I can see thats the fairest way.

Its what the govt then uses that tax for which is the problem - do you use it to keep soldiers fighting a pointless war, do you use it to keep junkies on all the benefits under the sun, or do you use it to improve the alternative forms of transport ie public transport, cycle paths, working from home incentives etc etc to actually give people an alternative choice?
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Leif
Its what the govt then uses that tax for which is the problem - do you use it to
improve the alternative forms of transport ie public transport ...


Except that most (all?) so-called public transport is privately owned and managed, and the prices are sky high. I'm not fond of state ownership but there is something to be said for it in some areas. Or at least an alternative to the current badly managed rail network. (Badly managed due to short term leases, competing companies, a separate rail and infrastructure company etc).
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Focus {P}
Except that most (all?) so-called public transport is privately owned and managed and the prices
are sky high.


Not quite all- my commute is by train, Reading-Bath, approx 150 miles total, £22.90 (advance tickets) or about 15p per mile, at an average speed of over 70mph.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - FotheringtonThomas
It would not distinguish between a 4x4 with one occupant who could quite happily use
a small car and a farmer who needs a 4x4 for his work. Or someone
who carries 7 people often goes off road and needs plenty of luggage space too.


Does it need to distinguish? A farmer who "needs" a 4x4 should be able to find something suitable from any newly-developed machines (there are already 4x4s that easily exceed 35MPG), and ditto "someone who carries 7 people often goes off road and needs plenty of luggage space too" (although I can't help feeling that this sort of person would actually be a real rarity).
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Leif
Does it need to distinguish? A farmer who "needs" a 4x4 should be able to
find something suitable from any newly-developed machines (there are already 4x4s that easily exceed 35MPG)
and ditto "someone who carries 7 people often goes off road and needs plenty of
luggage space too" (although I can't help feeling that this sort of person would actually
be a real rarity).



If you are talking petrol, then probably not. But if you mean diesel, then yes there are such vehicles. But diesel stinks, and pollutes more than petrol.

Where I work people who need a people carrier (though not so much a 4x4) are 10 a penny. If you have 3 children, and give lifts to other relatives, you need one. Or go on holiday with 3 children (you need luggage space).
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - FotheringtonThomas
you need one. Or go on holiday with 3 children (you need luggage space).


Things must have changed - no parents driving a Morris Traveller with 4 children in the back, a dog, and the luggage?
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - barney100
Hope sir Markt enjoys his huge pension paid for by we motorists and suggset the gentleman would help climate change himself by emiting less hot air.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - oldnotbold
Cars, as we know, are only a small part of the total carbon fuel consumption. The time may come when we are allocated a personal carbon allowance, to be used when buying petrol, domestic gas, flights even, and we would have to buy traded carbon credits for consumption above our personal threshold. The carbon account could be just another account number and PIN operated by your bank, and used in the garage, online etc alongside a purchase of any carbon fuel.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Paul I
At last some common sense ......
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - zarqon
I'm sure that personal carbon allowances and the trading of such is in the pipeline - if only because of the margins the clearing houses (manly the big banks) will make.

But I can't help thinking its all just whistling in the wind - China has 17 trillion tons of coal and they intend to burn it. India also has big plans for coal powered power stations.

We need to be putting all our efforts into the big solutions - fusion, hydrogen based systems (the hydrogen produced using the nuclear generated power) and then we give, yes give, this technology to the 2nd 3rd world emerging countries.



"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Lud
We too have a lot of coal, 400 years' worth at least. What's more, it can be used relatively cleanly to make all sorts of things (petrol substitute for example, or the coal gas we all used to burn before most BR members were born). It's just that the processes are quite complicated, as well as rather dirty at close quarters, and we have allowed the infrastructure to be trashed and run down by crazed ideologues (no names, no pack drill).

"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - FotheringtonThomas
China has
17 trillion tons of coal


They also have, or had, a "one child" policy. Remedying global over-population is perhaps the best method of reducing the effects we have on the environment in general. It would also relieve road congestion.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Mad Maxy
I supose I could approve of the ban because it would stop me lusting after tasty, fast expensive machinery and being envious envious of those who can aford to drive them.

But this stupid idea is directed at high fuel consumption vehicles that represent only a small proportion of the total number and, by virtue of in many cases their limited use, represent an even smaller proportion of total emissions. There are already disincentives to use via high fuel costs and, daftly, high VED cost.

When the nation has its own house in order by addressing the real sources of CO2 emissions, then maybe, and only maybe, might it be justified in targeting this tiny problem. What really annoys me is the threat of another restriction on freedom to choose. Is the UK, and indeed the world, in such a state that we need yet another ban or additional tax?

The degree of control, manipulation, tax-extortion, surveillance and retribution (by the state, their agencies, corporate bodies and individuals) we endure in these blessed isles has reached incredible levels. How hong are we prepared to put up with it?
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - jbif
HJ asked "Why not fuel rationing instead? People with different needs would qualify for different amounts of fuel. "

Yes indeed, why not. IMO it is the best solution and methods can be devised to get around any objections (for example, the tax allowance system is a type of rationing system).

Just as there is "carbon trading" allowed for the carbon allowances currently allocated between the high and low polluters, the same could happen with fuel allowances. Those who use less or none could sell their "unused allowance" according tho the market value, maybe even on e-bay as someone already mentioned.
If anyone wanted to buy fuel without using their "fuel-allownace-card", the forecourt price would simply be say a huge multiple -say 5 or 10 times" of the normal "allowance" price. You get the cheaper rate with your fuel-card (topped up to an allowance according to a needs based system just as other Government grants/allowances currently are), or you pay 10 times more without it.
Simple. It can be done, and it would work. But it would have to applied universally at uniform prices across UK and the whole of the European/Asian Continent to prevent cross border trafficking of cheap fuel.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Ed V
HJ,

I think there's no supporting public policy to make rationing viable. It may not be economically important to visit Granny, but is it less valuable? Public transport simply cannot replace private now, and seems unlikely to be able to do so in my lifetime.

Better to persuade to private car manufacturers that they will be able to profit from massive investment in non-oil-based fuels, which is what the Shell guy [with others] is trying to do I think. The public wants to have freedom of movement, they want to get around locally, nationally and internationally. There are some that want green fields but most would vote for 6 x M6's if it meant getting to the Lakes more quickly, and the farmers/land owners.

My US-based brother asked, following my explanation of the green belt south of London, "did they ask the inhabitants of a grotty bedsit in Brixton if he'd like a bigger home", or only those living in West Sussex villages. 90% of us already live in urban areas; the 10% have a disproportionate amount of power. And maybe that's right, but it's a debate!

Edited by Dynamic Dave on 04/02/2008 at 19:06

"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - nick
For those that go on about public transport, remember we used to have a pretty good bus and train network which most people used most of the time due to not being able to afford an alternative. As soon as they could afford a motorbike or car they deserted public transport in droves. It simply isn't practical for the majority of journeys. For a regular commute in a big city or perhaps a very long distance, maybe, but otherwise it's less pleasant, less convenient, more expensive and takes longer than a private car or bike.
The future is cleaner, lighter cars, not more trains and buses although they will play a part.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - FotheringtonThomas
But this stupid idea is directed at high fuel consumption vehicles that represent only a
small proportion of the total number and by virtue of in many cases their limited
use represent an even smaller proportion of total emissions.


What proportion of private cars achieve over 35MPG, I wonder. Would a guess of 40% be way off?
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - stunorthants26
Im not against this idea actually and not just because both my vehicles will do over 40 mpg either.

I think though that the ban should be imposed on new cars and not on existing ones so that those out there who already own less economical cars are not forced off the road, but instead the manufacturers have to put the work in.
It has to be said that the vast majority of model ranges on sale have models that easily exceed 35 mpg so its not actually a big shift.

One idea I had and please dont shoot me down, I was just mulling it over, was how about some form of taxation for cars based on their weight and aerodynamics which as I understand it contribute a great deal to fuel consumption?
This way, IF a car maker can make a large car that is exceptionally slippery and light, people wont be forced into tiny city cars to reduce their carbon emissions. Obviously how you work out whats good and bad is for someone smarter than I, but its just an idea. At the end of the day, if a Merc ML did 50 mpg, Greenpeace would sound rather silly and George and Mavis could still have their shiny tractor with all the toys.

Of course, CO2 from cars isnt the real issue in global terms, but since one must work within the framework that all cars are evil, one must try and find a solution that solves the problem without unduly punishing car drivers.

And what about people living near where they work? My misses is going to look for a job within 10 mins walk of our house so she doesnt need the car - how about some town planning to make this possible for more people?
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Waino
> ... how about some town planning to make this possible for more people?>>

Exactly ..... we should be thinking 30, 40, 50 years ahead - and what government is going to stick its scrawny neck out that far?

Global warming or not, fuel is going to get scarcer and more expensive and we are going to have to change the way we work and think. There will, of course, be upsides - school buses, works buses, village shops will re-open etc. It always amuses me when village dwellers have a moan about the increasing cost of fuel hitting rural life - when it's their love of the cheap/convenient car that caused its demise in the first place!
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - DP
James May had it spot on when he was interviewed on the radio earlier. Yes it's true that driving a car returning <35 mpg is completely unnecessary. However, if they bring such a ban in, they should extend it to people living in a bigger house than is necessary, people taking more than one overseas holiday a year and all the other things that "aren't necessary" that we do, and have a marked impact on the environment.
I also find it a bit rich that such concern for the environment could come from a bloke who's made a heck of a lot of money and doubtless enjoys a big fat pension fund, the proceeds of which have come directly from the sale of oil. It's easy to be philosophical when you've "made it" and are living, very comfortably I would imagine, off money you've already made.

Cheers
DP
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Leif
James May [ blah blah ] Cheers DP



I largely agree with you. Cars make an easy target. A nice big fat milch cow.

But what about massively improving insulation on homes and factories, reducing food miles and waste. Each time I order a new book, it arrives wrapped in 5,000 layers of mile wide bubble wrap, inside a pile of plastic peanuts, inside a large box. Banning such things as bubble wrap whilst promoting a viable alternative will help reduce waste. we need practical ideas and not just sticking a silly wind mill on each roof.

Oh, and while we are at it, how about sacking 68 of the 70 marketing and media staff Ken Livingston employs, and using the money in a positive way, such as replacing street lights with low energy ones?
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - rogue-trooper
Oh, and while we are at it, how about sacking 68 of the 70 marketing and media staff Ken Livingston employs, and using the money in a positive way, such as replacing street lights with low energy ones?




Not really worth it. You cannot turn power stations off and on every 12 hours and we are yet to find a truly efficient way of storing generated electricity so street lights burn brightly using the electricity that is not really needed. If someone is ITK about this, I would really like to heat about it as I really HATE street lights.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - FotheringtonThomas
However if they
bring such a ban in they should extend it to people living in a bigger
house than is necessary people taking more than one overseas holiday a year and all
the other things that "aren't necessary" that we do and have a marked impact on
the environment.


Why? Not the same thing at all - only your (or "james may's", whoever he is) words. A start on waste is a good idea. Remember the possible benefits of a move such as in the title of this thread, which it seems is becoming forgotten.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - DP
Why? Not the same thing at all - only your (or "james may's" whoever he
is) words.


So perhaps you can tell me what the difference is in principle between me driving to work in a 25 mpg car, or my family of four living in (and heating / lighting) a 6 bedroomed house, or taking four long haul flights a year. I'm not being flippant - it's exactly the same,as I see it.

If concern for the environment is really such a big issue, why pick on the car? You cannot selectively apply this kind of thinking, and certainly not at the expense of ignoring the real consumers of fossil fuels, and contributors to this so-called "global warming". Power generation, industry and aviation are far more worthy targets.

Finally, I can't believe you can be a motoring enthusiast and not know who James May is....

Cheers
DP
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Leif
Finally I can't believe you can be a motoring enthusiast and not know who James
May is....



Oh yes him. That chap that writes increasingly twee and rambling articles in the Saturday Telegraph.

But to be fair to him, he often provides the humour in Top Gear.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - rogue-trooper
Stu, the EU proposed this and there was a massive reaction to this from the FGerman manufacturers. This was especially vehemant from VW whilst wearing their Porsche hat. I looked at the figures and for Porsche, Audi, MB and BMW their fortunes are a little different.

Porsche - currently the best mpg in the range is 29.7 so all would get the chop.

BMW - actually do OK -in the 1 and 3 series only the 135i and 335i get the chop. IN the 5 & 6 anything with a petrol engine larger than 3 litre gets chopped. The 7 series goes as does the Z4 coupe and roadster (save for the 2 litre). The x5 goes as do petrol x3s

Audi - A3, A4 and A5 are ok if you stick to petrol engines 2 litre or smaller without quattro. A4 cabriolet petrols are all sub 35. A6 quattros are bad inc the 2.7 diesel. The A8, R8, Allroad and Q7 are all sub 35mpg as is the bigger TT.

MB - too many cars here! The A and B all survive save for the 200 turbo. C class is ok with its diesels and engines upto 200. E class estate is stuffed but the saloons diesels are OK. CLS, S, SLK, CLK petrols, CLK Cabriolet, CL, SL, M, GL, R and Viano all are sub 35mpg.

Therefore you can see that these 4 manufacturers who are amongst the biggest employers in their countries are not too keen on all this. I would say that I am not sure what the EU proposal was but I am just using the 35mpg one to compare their ranges. Seems that BMW are the best prepared for all this and that MB and Porsche aren't.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - stunorthants26
Rogue T, Porsche could find more mpg if they wished to, but there arent yet the market forces to encourage them enough since their customers are happy to pay big fuel bills along with the purchase price. Yes it would require a shift to lighter cars, but Lotus manage it ok and with Porsche's resources, Im sure they could do so with relative ease.

Its not so much a matter of 'chopping' models out at all, rather modifying them to increase their fuel efficiency - VW claim to have managed to make large gains with their Bluemotion models in relatively simple ways - this would certainly help most models get above the threashold and with a certain amount of switch towards giant killing diesel engines in fast cars now, its not like high performance need be a thing of the past.

However, that said I think instead of legislating for a certain mpg, legislating against weight and for aerodynamics - this would have a knock on effect for mpg anyway but wouldnt penalise any particular type of car although obviously large heavy cars would not do so well ( unless incredibly aerodynamic ), already some large cars are using light-weight materials and as such, the idea is already in the minds of makers, it just needs a firmer push in that direction.

Cars today really arent that aerodynamic given that they seem to have hardly moved on since the 80's in this respect.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Mad Maxy
FT, the 35 mpg figure is just a putative benchmark. The real target is vehicles that only manage the low 20s or worse.

And of course an individual can turn an 'official' 40 mpg car into one that gives much less by driving like a nutter. And of course driving 25K miles a year will create much more CO2 than driving 5K.

It must be time to ban taxis that only have one passenger or, worse, drive around empty looking for fares, (In London there are so many taxis they create their own traffic jams.) together with buses that are carrying only a handful of passengers.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - FotheringtonThomas
And of course an individual can turn an 'official' 40 mpg car into one that
gives much less by driving like a nutter.


Presumably, any cars that might be affected by such a ban as the one proposed, would have their consumption measured accurately by "the authorities" and (perhaps) the manufacturer's figures, rather than by the individual.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Kevin
SNIP! Non motoring comment removed.

Edited by Dynamic Dave on 05/02/2008 at 10:34

"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - AlanGowdy
Rail against it as much as you like folks - the minimum permitted fuel economy of new cars in the future will be decreed by Brussels, and the figure will be steadily increased as time goes by.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - truckle
Why the great emphasis on the pollution produced by cars? They are simply an easy target. Lorries consume large amounts of fuel but I can't see anyone making them do better than 35mpg.. If all the cars in the UK were within acceptable limits, would it really make much difference to the general pollutant levels in the country?

Far more comes from industry with little control over them. Taking a whole earth view, the 3rd world countries such as India, China and the industry controlled policies of the USA will be dwarfing any minor effects of the UK car drivers being targeted.

Keep it in perspective, car drivers can't be responsible for much of the worlds troubles.

Politically correct or not, I am going to enjoy my Porsche, and no apologies to anyone for it.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - L'escargot
The newspaper article was too vague to mean much. It didn't state the driving conditions under which 35 mpg should be the allowable minimum. Obviously we don't know what Sir Mark Moody-Stuart actually said.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Kevin
DD.

My post was attacking the climate-change credentials of the man who is calling for measures that would put some motor manufacturers out of business.

I fail to see how that is not motoring related.

Let me rephrase it:

I was driving along this morning noting that my fuel computer indicates that I have averaged 23mpg over the last 2000 miles. It struck me that if Moody-Stuart were allowed to interfere in an industry that he has no professional connection with, I would not be able to buy a similar car in the future unless Jaguar fiddled the figures a la Prius.

I then thought -

"Moody-Stuart is Chairman of Anglo, he controls one of the largest mining conglomerates on earth. They own more than 20 mines in Africa alone that burn huge amounts of fuel and consume vast amounts of electricity just to produce diamonds for jewelery. What is he proposing his own industry does to "tackle climate change?"

The answer is nothing.

The man is a hypocrite. He should put his own house in order first.

Kevin...
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - NVH
The Germans have a different approach.
Some cities are introducing Red-Yellow-Green badges (Plaketten) linked to the MOT.

No green badge = you can't come into the city centre. Even if you live there !

Guess how many tradesmen won't be able to work there until they buy a new van / lorry ?

Guess how many visitors & foreigners will have their cars towed away ?

I am so surprised Oxford didn't get there first.

Hopefully it will promote the sale of imported vehicles :)

/ironyoff
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Dynamic Dave
DD.
My post was


Kevin, there was another reason - you have mail. DD.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - FotheringtonThomas
Now we all have to have catalytic converters - that's only right." "


Hang on a minute, I've just read this again. I disagree with Moody-Stuart's statement above.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Kevin
>Hang on a minute, I've just read this again. I disagree with Moody-Stuart's statement above.

Catalytic converters contain Platinum.

Guess who is Chairman of a corporation that, among other things:

"mines, processes, refines and markets the entire range of platinum group metals (platinum, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium and osmium), and is the world's largest primary producer of platinum, accounting for some 37% of global supply."

Guess which companies are going to benefit most if the auto industry has to increase their use of non-ferrous metals to meet emissions targets plucked out of thin air.

See a pattern emerging?

Kevin...
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Cliff Pope
I don't think statements by comfortably-retired ex-chairmen or ex-anything are worth paying much attention to. It's statements by current experts with jobs at risk that are worth hearing.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - mss1tw
Preventing """Climate Change""" (Hmmmmm...) - Farcical

Prolonging availability of a finite resource - Laudable.
"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Kiwi Gary
Didn't Big Arnie in California legislate for manufacturers to have an average maximum fuel burn over the fleets that they sold in Cal ? A certain number had to be zero-emission [ i.e. electric ]. I haven't heard whether it was successful or not, although my Brother working in the U.S. tells me that several manufacturers are still running trials on electric vehicles. They don't seem to be too concerned about the pollution caused by battery manufacture and disposal.

BTW, I hate the term "carbon footprint". It has become a meaningless political weasel-word that, to quote Alice in Wonderland, means "just what I want it to mean - nothing more and nothing less" . The only natural forms of carbon [ as distinct from carbon compounds ] are graphite and diamonds. Who will dare tell her Ladyship that her diamond-encrusted jewellery is increasing her carbon footprint and must be disposed of forthwith ?? { In an environmentally friendly manner of course.}

"Ban sale of cars below 35mpg" Shell ex-Chairman - Leif
Preventing """Climate Change""" (Hmmmmm...) - Farcical



Just reality. Sadly.
 

Value my car