What vehicle for bushcraft?

[Martyn]

How strange - my last post disappeared - ah well

Yes lets factor in 110s and 90s - oh no - hang on 110s and 90s ARE Defenders

Spinning it right back

I was simply pointing out that you picked on ONE model, from a vast range from ONE manufacturer. I think you would get a little more accurate results if you spanned your numbers to include the whole commercial landrover range, discos and RR's, not to mention all the big US and Japanese 4x4's - if you are going to assess the global CO2 impact of big, fuel hungry 4x4's, you have to include them all dont you?

Surely if you want to work out if your elephant craps more than my horse, you have to look at more than just the one.

 

[British Red]

Well as fun as playing "mythbusters" has been I'm off to the land of nod - and I'm walking all the way

Night all!

Red

 

[Martyn]

Well as fun as playing "mythbusters" has been I'm off to the land of nod - and I'm walking all the way

Night all!

Red

On the point of busting myths, will you at least conceed that the idea of the long life of a landrover compared to other vehicles, does NOT offest it's higher CO2 production?

Or is that gonna get brushed aside?

 

[Martyn]

...and its still your turn to publish hard evidence

Tons of CO2 produced in manufacturing a car: 5.25 (4.76271989 tonnes) [source]

I'll use your figures for the rest of the calculation.

For a Defender, Assume a 15 year working life

g of CO2/km output 299 (Gov figures for a manual diesel 110 defender)
number of avearge miles driver 12,000
number of kilometeres 19312
annual tonnes co2 per vehicle 5.77
annual tonnes of co2 for a 1.4 hatch 3.4

All the above are your figures, apart from the 4.76 tonnes used in the manufacture of an average car. Obviously manufacturing processes differ, but the CO2 output for the manufacture of steel and aluminium is pretty constant. The more steel & aluminium used in a car, the more CO2 it takes to produce the car. For every tonne of steel made, 2 tonnes of CO2 are produced. For every tonne of aluminium, 1.5 tonnes of CO2 are produced. You could calculate pretty accurately the CO2 production on a per-car basis, simply by knowing the % constituent materials and kerb weight for each vehicle. But for the sake of argument, we'll err (strongly) in the favour of the heavier landrover and assume CO2 production is the same for both vehicles.

The working life of a vehicle varies, so lets do a number of comparisons. We'll assume the mileage for each vehicle, to be 12,000 a year in all cases.
-------------------------------------------------------
First, lets assume the working life for both a landrover and 1.4 is equal at 30 years

Landrover: 4.76tonnes +(30 x 5.77tonnes) = 177.86 tonnes
1.4: 4.76tonnes +(30 x 3.4tonnes) = 106.76 tonnes ~ WINNER!
-------------------------------------------------------
Next, lets assume the working life of a landrover is 30 years and the working life of the 1.4 is 15 years...

Landrover: 4.76tonnes +(30 x 5.77tonnes) = 177.86 tonnes
1.4: 2x4.76tonnes +2x(15 x 3.4tonnes) = 111.52 tonnes ~ WINNER!
-------------------------------------------------------
Next, lets assume the working life of a landrover is 30 years and the working life of the 1.4 is 10 years...

Landrover: 4.76tonnes +(30 x 5.77tonnes) = 177.86 tonnes
1.4: 3x4.76tonnes +3x(10 x 3.4tonnes) = 116.28 tonnes ~ WINNER!
-------------------------------------------------------
Next, lets assume the working life of a landrover is 30 years and the working life of the 1.4 is 5 years...

Landrover: 4.76tonnes +(30 x 5.77tonnes) = 177.86 tonnes
1.4: 6x4.76tonnes +6x(5 x 3.4tonnes) = 130.56 tonnes ~ WINNER!
-------------------------------------------------------
Next, lets assume the working life of a landrover is 30 years and the working life of the 1.4 is 2 years...

Landrover: 4.76tonnes +(30 x 5.77tonnes) = 177.86 tonnes
1.4: 15x4.76tonnes +15x(2 x 3.4tonnes) = 173.4 tonnes ~ WINNER!
-------------------------------------------------------

What this shows, is that you could buy a brand new 1.4 every 2 years over a 30 year period and still not put as much net contributions of CO2 into the sky as buying one landrover over the same period.

If you do the above calculations but instead of basing the CO2 production on 12,000 miles a year, halve it and use 6,000 miles a year, then the landrover doesnt look quite as bad. But all this proves is that the more you drive it, the worse things get.

Myth busted, ...I think.

Feel free to critique the above with anything but rhetoric.

It's simple maths. If your vehicle does 15mpg, then you are putting twice as much pollution into the air as a car that does 30mpg, regardless of the make/model of the vehicles involved.

 

[wingstoo]

Martyn,


It's no good arguing with Red, he is right, you are not...

Also, I am not getting into your denial line...

Just enjoy the heat while you can...before the next ice age takes a grip...

Well done Red...You are the one who is keeping to the point....


How does my LPG conversion change the outcome?

LS

 

[scanker]

To pick up on one of the earlier points, has anyone seen an episode of "Inventions that changed the World" with Jeremy Clarkson? Can't stand the man, but the programmes were good.
In the jet episode, where he flew around the world, it was stated that the weather system changed in the days following Sept 11 when no planes were allowed over US air space. I can't remember exactly what it was, but I think average temperature dropped by 1 one degree in those few days. I'll try and find a reference.

(Edit) Not to do with CO2, but interesting:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/index.html

 

[British Red]

Martyyn, have you ever read the OED definition of rhetoric?
"language designed to persuade or impress - often with an implication of insincerity or exaggeration"

Shouldnt bushcrafters be encouraging the protection of the environment, rather than the destruction of it?

If thats not a piece of rhetoric, I don't what is! You started this debate in the rhetorical style mate, not me!

Want some more examples?

the old series landies are eco-vandals, no question.

Comparing all the landrover emmisions in the world to aeroplanes is nonesense, it's just spouting a meaningless set of numbers that dont add up to anything, except perhaps a seat on the Labour Party back bench.

Those are all nice examples of the rhetorical style don't you agree? I haven't been drawn by being accused of "nonsense", "meaningless" etc. and I won't be provoked into an outburst - simply not my style, but I think we can all see where the rhetoric lies in this discussion can't we? ANyway, back to my final post on the topic

But all this proves is that the more you drive it, the worse things get.

Absoulutely - thats as true of every other vehicle on the planet too! Your figures suggest BTW that 12,000 is an average mileage - that implies that Landrovers drive 360,000 miles before wearing out - do you REALLY think thats true Martyn? Or even 180,000? Do you think most 1.4s really cover 160,000 miles without an engine change etc. If they don't you are of course underquoting the manufacturing figures. Please quote your source for this information. I used 12,000 a year to show Landys in the worst possible light to show my maths to be fair - your using it to show them in a poor light.

What this shows, is that you could buy a brand new 1.4 every 2 years over a 30 year period and still not put as much net contributions of CO2 into the sky as buying one landrover over the same period.

It shows nothing of the sort Martyn. The amount of CO2 you put into the atmoshphere depends on the way you live your life - this incoprorates huge numbers of factors. I have already demonstrated that there are many ways to offset CO2 emissions - please include in your calculation the number of LandRovers that use biodiesel, the number of Landrover owners that carbon offset etc. Both of these are ways to make net CO2 emissions zero. Then publish a similar, sourced, comparison for the other car. You cannot quote gross figures - even in the absurdly meaningless thought of determining someones green standing by vehicle choice alone - its the net figure that counts not the gross figure


Now my entire point is that accusing series Landrovers (as you have) of being "Eco Vandals" is deliberately inflamatory and just plain wrong. A series Landrover used occasionally produces less CO2 than a 1.4 used daily - yet you reject the idea that someone can make valid ecological choices by varying their lifestyle. I have proved that driving a Defender is no less damaging than taking a foreign holiday. I have proved that removing a vehicle you don't want to see used will have no material effect. If you want to have an ecological or lifestyle debate, you cannot ignore 90+% of causes of pollution because they don't suit your argument or chosen lifestyle.

By all means give your opinions but they are that - one persons opinions and, in MY opinion you are wrong

I think we are getting no-where with this - I can't get you to admit that everyone needs to change lifestyle to have a significant effect on global warming. It seems to be more comfortable for you to focus on a tiny fraction of 1% of CO2 pollution and feel that gives you the right to us other rhetorical terms like "Eco Vandal". It doesn't. I've shown it to be a fallacy.

In MY opinion the facts are obvious now - lets let people draw their own conclusions .


Red

 

[mark a.]

Although interesting, these are all moot points. Ray Mears drives Defenders, so that's the end of the argument.

 

[EdS]

The average older Land Rover has less CO2 in its production than a small family eurobox - you don't get all the plastic and carpet for a start.

The other thing is that they can be repaired and parts reconditioned rather than having to keep making whole new engines, gear boxes etc.

At the end of the day my 90 (only became the Defender in 1989 with the introduction ofthe 200TDi engine) is a bit more environmentally firendly than my 1.7TD Astra, when age and repaiablitiy are considered.

Also a 4x4 with the correct tyres and well driven leaves a lot less visable trace than a car that struggles and wheel spins.

 

[JonnyP]

Assume a 15 year working life


Red

My landy has been a working vehicle all its life, starting with the council. It is now 20 yrs old and still going fine, still passing the mot, including the emissions test. My landy is not on its last legs and I still see plenty of older, working landys on the road and we all wave to each other, cos we know we bought a superb motor

 

[Doc]

Anyone ever had one of these?

http://www.wastemonsters.org.uk/TrueGenericFeb06-Web.pdf


Apparently only 5% of 4x4s are ever used off road.

 

[Martyn]

I think we are getting no-where with this

I'd agree with that. The lengths you are going to, to avoid actually addressing the point of lifespan is staggering. I (or anyone else) can re-run the numbers with an average mileage of 6000 year if you like. Doesnt matter how you try and spin this point Red, the landrover looses out every time and the numbers prove it.

On the other hand, I may just take your refusal to address the point as conceeding it by default. I'm sure if you could spot an error in it, you would've jumped on it.

In MY opinion the facts are obvious now - lets let people draw their own conclusions .

I agree with that also. Thanks for the definition of rhetoric, I think you've defined it very well.

 

[Martyn]

Martyn,


It's no good arguing with Red, he is right, you are not...

....nah, na, na nahhh na..?

LS that's not exactly constructive. You're a landrover owner right?

 

[Martyn]

Apparently only 5% of 4x4s are ever used off road.

Not if you believe Red, they are all used only at the weekends, with 6 passengers, exclusively off road, by people who walk to work in the week, fuel them with rapeseed oil, never fly in planes and ease thier concience by paying someone to plant trees.

Do we believe that?

 

[pumbaa]

Anyone ever had one of these?

http://www.wastemonsters.org.uk/TrueGenericFeb06-Web.pdf


Apparently only 5% of 4x4s are ever used off road.

I havn't , but then i would have to disagree with some of their facts . For instance my Land rover Discovery returns 30 mpgs round town . Which completely screws their argument . Its not a case of which type of motor vehicle is the worst at producing CO2 . Its a case of ALL motorvehicles . There is really only one answer to this situation , and that is to produce a form of transport that doesnt cost the enviroment . Its not going to work suggesting Bicycles or other "man powered" vehicles as the majority of the population are lazy and wont bother , opting for the less effort rather than the enviroment ! I have heard of instances wher the big oil industrys have bullied small time business who have started to come up with a viable alternative , into giving up and all because they would lose out on money !! The internal combustion engine has pretty much had its day , its time to find another power source to propel us around while we grow fatter and less fit !
Pumbaa

 

[Buckshot]

Not if you believe Red, they are all used only at the weekends, with 6 passengers, exclusively off road, by people who walk to work in the week, fuel them with rapeseed oil, never fly in planes and ease thier concience by paying someone to plant trees.

Do we believe that?

Crickly Martyn, mine would struggle on cooking oil - I find it runs best on petrol

 

[Doc]

The whole question of cars and CO2 is a tricky one. I have read that most journeys are under 7 miles and given the huge and increasing prevalence of obesity the bike is the obvious choice. Then again, cycling on a busy road is often neither pleasant nor safe.

Here on BCUK I suspect a lot more than 5% of 4x4s are actually used off road. It is interesting that the BCUK 4x4s of choice seem to be the Landie and Toyotas which do seem to be preferred by those who have to go off road. I have yet to see a Mercedes M class with mud on its tyres.

I agree the leaflet is rather one sided (though the mpg figures are the official urban cycle) but I suspect the 'only 5% are used off road' statement is pretty accurate.

Our current fossil fuel use and CO2 production is not sustainable. I don't think fashion, image or lifestyle statement is a good enough reason to drive a more polluting vehicle. However, I readily accept I am being somewhat hypocritical as I often use my car to go wildfowling or canoeing, which are not really any more necessary or important than someone elses lifestyle statement. We are all in a glass house, and it's not a good place to get out the catapult.

 

[Martyn]

We are all in a glass house, and it's not a good place to get out the catapult.

True, I'll put mine away now.

I would like to own a landrover, but as you say, I think it would be more of a lifestyle choice than a need. I think I would fall into the 95% of owners who dont take it off road and just end up driving round polluting the place for no good reason. I'm not gonna give up my holidays abroad and I dont have the resources to make biodiesel. No matter how much I may want one, this is always in my head. But I aint gonna go round putting "eco-vandal" stickers on em either. If other people can justify it, then that is thier business.

 

[pumbaa]

Those eco vandel stickers may get you in a whole heap of trouble . As an example , my mother in law is in a wheelchair and part of some front line disability rights organisations . One of these organisations made a load of stickers for cars who park in a disabled bay with no badge . They ended up getting done for criminal damage because the stickers were very difficult to get off . So any eco-warrior using these will likely as not end up with a criminal record .
Pumbaa

 

[Buckshot]

I have yet to see a Mercedes M class with mud on its tyres.
.

Doc,
One of the guns I work for uses his Merc all the time and gets most places the rest of us do with our Landys.


Mark