Search This Site
Forest on Twitter

TFS on Twitter

Join Forest On Facebook

Featured Video

Friends of The Free Society

boisdale-banner.gif

IDbanner190.jpg
GH190x46.jpg
Powered by Squarespace
« Shades of Gray | Main | Faking it - Parliament deceived, say MPs »
Saturday
Jul282007

Friend of the earth?

Freelander2_100-2.jpg In the last six months I have seriously considered buying a 4x4, a patio heater and a plasma TV.     
Now I am told that all three are symbols of "environmentally destructive consumerism".
Help!

Reader Comments (7)

If you do buy one of the top end range of 4x4s then you may well find yourself forking out ₤400 next year for road tax duty.

Please accept my thanks in advance as without this the treasury wouldn't be able to offer a road tax disc for my car for just ₤35 a year!!

July 28, 2007 at 11:15 | Unregistered CommenterRobert Evans

Whatwver we like is either, illegal, immoral, fattening or now banned.

July 28, 2007 at 12:00 | Unregistered CommenterAlun C

Well, if you're worried about trendy labels and being 'in with the in crowd' Simon, you might as well give up living right now.

The Puritans are now dictating 'fashion'?

God help us all.

July 28, 2007 at 15:14 | Unregistered CommenterGerry H

I brought a 4x4 two years ago due to the condition of the road that approaches my house ( private, no adopted}

The car is a Toyota Rav 4 petrol and on an urban run I get 35 plus miles to the gallon, a damn sight more that a porche, ferrari, jag and every other so called sports car that burn up our roads.So why is it just the 4x4 drivers being hit? Surely it should be any vehicle that does low miles to the gallon.

Furthermore, when I first started lokking for the car, I was intending to buy a gas version until Toyota informed me it would cost a further £2500.00 and I only had one station in Cornwall who sold the stuff - 35 miles away.
Surely the government should be encouraging this greener fuel with so called ' global warming' being the latest buzz word, and offer car manufacturers incentives to push the sale of them.

July 28, 2007 at 16:39 | Unregistered CommenterRichard of Cornwall

I have a 14 year old 3 litre TD Toyota Hilux Surf which I love dearly and which getting a measly 25mpg causes environmentalist no end of angst. Although with the recent floods and the cold snap during winter I was laughing - especially when I made it down a flooded road in which a family saloon car had been abandoned.
I only do 5000 miles per year (and most of that is my occassional run up and down the M6 to Scotland to visit the family) and to anyone who wants to condemn my car can first answer how many miles year THEY do?!?

Bringing this back to the smoking ban (as I inevitably must) even someone like Robert must question the logic of being able to run a beast of a car like mine in places where it's illegal to smoke!

July 29, 2007 at 14:33 | Unregistered CommenterRob Simpson

Rob, my car is a diesel too but is capable of delivering up to 78mpg. My primary motive in buying the car was economy rather than protecting the environment. Nevertheless the fumes that it throws out, particularly at first start in the morning, are obnoxious. Ordinary 'passive smoking' from others' lighted cigarettes would definitely be the lesser of two evils.

It would be very unfair of me to, for example, to stop outside a hospital entrance with the engine running with or without 'no smoking' signs up on the wall. If I was anti social enough to do that and have fumes drifting through reception, then there would be a certain irony in this against a background of smokers refraining from lighting up.

July 29, 2007 at 20:09 | Unregistered CommenterRobert Evans

I was thinking more along the lines of multi-storey or underground car parks which both count as enclosed public places and so places where it's illegal to smoke. Also just about every garage up and down the country, especially those that do MOT testing as some of that test, including the break test, is done indoors.
Thus there seems to be no problem exposing mechanics to diesel fumes providing they're not getting a whiff of a cigarette.

Getting back to the plot all three examples given by Simon will no doubt be subject to the tried and tested formula of demonization & taxation.

July 30, 2007 at 8:57 | Unregistered CommenterRob Simpson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>