Multiply up all these economical yet polluting vehicles and we arrive at millions of tonnes of extra C02, NOX, THC needlessly being emitted into the air of the population in urban areas.
Not to mention the harmful ozones, and brake and tyre particulates (typically more than 50% of a conventional cars particulate emissions) that elecreic cars produce. Of course, if you live next door to the gas powered power station that has to work extra hard to charge these vehicles then you may have your own views on air pollution.
And then theres my own Volvo. Every single MOT it has emitted no detectable smoke, ie, particulate emissions. The levels were so low they do not even trigger the machine. The claims about air polltuion are not a universal truth, and the reality is incredibly diverse, complex, and interconnected.
There is no free lunch pollution wise with powered vehicles. They all cause air pollution somehow, somewhere. In the case of electric vehicles like Mrs D's car they trade a modest reduction in cradle to grave CO2 emissions for a massive rise in industrial chemical pollution and irreversible damage to water tables from the 50,000 to 2 million litres of fresh water required to produce a kilogram of lithium carbinate or hydroxidemfor their batteries. This massive polkution and environmental damage is rarely considered by people rushing tompush their environmental credentials.
Pollution wise all we are doing is shuffling pieces around the board and maybe changing the nature of the pollution. They still pollute, and while they do so less while in use, the rise and diversification of that pollution during production is massive.
Mrs D has an electric car and is a convert. I don't, im not. Anyone who claims to care about the environment or the health of their fellow humans and holds up their electric car ownership as a sign of virtue is an idiot. If they
reall, really cared they would not use a car at all, but the typical reality is that people usually manage to find excuses as to why their
need for a car is more important than than the pollution caused in its manufacture, use and disposal.
No vehicles are the answer, but these more frugal cars are better than your panzers - but hey ho, mummy has to run little 'Henry' and 'Daisy' to the school in a tank.
To be fair Foss, most of the cars lined up outside our village school are modest hatchbacks. They outnumber the big saloons and chelsea tractors by a big margin.
I - occasionally - drive my tank (never to school), but im doing a lot less damage to the health and environment thatpn these mums driving their Festers and i10s 500 metres to school and back on cold engines twice a day.
The real cost to environment largely isn't in the type of vehicle, but rather in how the fools use them. In all areas of consideration, be it pollution, congestion and danger, my 800-900 miles a year in a tank compares extremely favourably to 12,000 a year in a fiesta or an e-car.
I like small cars. No, I
love them. I'm a fan. But use them excessively an inappropriately and us drivers compleyely undermine the benefitsmof having a small car in the first place.
Personal sized, one or 2 seat electric cars, perhaps Twizy sized but with a proper cabin, would be great if people could be persuqded to adopt them. Id have one. This new Citroen is on the right ljnes, although with a 30mph top speed its inappropriate for anywhere except town use, and the town is really the last place one should be encouraging people to drive a carmof any type. But yes, micro electeic cars, massievely less resources, smaller footprint, less load on generation capacity, cheaper, but people will never go for it. Theyd rather buy 2 tonnes of Tesla or Polestar, drive around with 4 empty seats and then lecture the rest of us about how theyre good for the environment.
Quite.
