Scrappage makes a taxpayer profit because the tax take from it is greater than the amount paid out and there would be none of that tax take if scrappage did not exist.
Asking people to drive 5 miles less week is completely ridiculous. Asking them to cut unnecessary journeys would not be. Asking them to drive lower CO2, more economical cars would not be. But asking people to drive a blanket 5 miles less a week whoever you are, whatever you drive is crassly stupid.
And as a (moderately heavy) taxpayer I strongly object to this public information advertising, as is my right, that has not yet been taken away from me.
HJ
Edited by Honestjohn on 08/11/2009 at 22:10
|
the only way forward is to stand for election
vote HJ
I would, if you dropped your agreement on scrappage, but i did see your agreement on that nice old ford yesterday
r added to you
Edited by bell boy on 08/11/2009 at 22:33
|
|
|
Scrappage makes a taxpayer profit because the tax take from it is greater than the amount paid out and there would be none of that tax take if scrappage did
Yes, you are right and I know it does, however my 'emotional' stance is that it singles out a particular marketplace for subsidy (why not others ?)and delays inevitable change in that marketplace.
Could it be that the scheme also encourages people who might not have changed their perfectly serviceable cars to incur consumer debt, one of the contributors to our current economic woes ?
Finally, whilst I concede you'll know far more than I, a proportion of this taxpayer subsidy goes abroad and damages our balance of payments, something my O level economics would suggest was undesirable ?
And as a (moderately heavy) taxpayer I strongly object to this public information advertising as is my right that has not yet been taken away from me.
I too am a moderately heavy tax payer and have long-since felt like the soft target for all government - both local and national. I would never question your right to object to these adverts.
|
At school, many years ago, I was given to understand that our green friends,,( no, not that lot ),... the trees, plants and grasses are rather fond of carbon dioxide and use it, with sunshine, to make oxygen which is a great help in keeping us alive. ( Confirmed by some egghead on the telly last week. )
I, therefore, feel I am doing a good thing by driving for the paper, etc.
Not been aware of much global warming in the 'rainy city' this week !
Ted
|
|
Maybe our green friends are wrong (that lot) but maybe not.We can cut a lot of our driving if we put our minds to it.
|
|
Bit by bit, they are being buttered up for a lower standard of living and the sheeple will damn well demand it too!
|
I do my bit by drinking far too much on a Saturday night meaning that I will probably be over the limit all day sunday which means I can't drive on a Sunday.
Also for most local jobs I do walk unless I am in a rush. I also use my car to drive to my local tram station a lot too. Having said that I always use my car for places say 3 miles away which I could get a bus to, but they take for ever, are expensive and I know a big PLC will just profit. I am also paying a lot for insurance and a flat rate for tax so by using my car all it costs is fuel an wear and tear so about £3 a mile in my case: p
I am sure a lot of us could use our cars less :).
|
We could use our cars less, cut our fuel usage and the tax take for the govt of the day (term used loosely) would plummet thereby triggering increases in fuel tax to re-establish those funds needed to reimburse MP's expenses (or compensatory salary increases) or reward failed bankers with bonuses or luscious golden handshakes.
This whole climate change* monster seems to me like a self feeding self perpetuating organism similar to other PC industries, there must be thousands of people employed in the 'industry' thankful they have got in on the act all spouting the current party line, and keeping an eye on the page number in case a shift catches them saying the wrong thing which was the right thing yesterday.
Nothing like a good generalisation eh:-)
*used to be known as global warming, wonder what it will be known as in 2 years time, and how many non jobs will be created with the next name change.
|
|
Will the last person to leave Britian - please turn the (low energy) light off.
|
|
|
This Government is schizophrenic about CO2. If they were so intent in reducing our useage of cars why did they introduce the scrappage scheme? Here was an ideal opportunity to reduce our carbon footprint.
If we all took them at their word we would be in an even deeper economic mess than we are now. Can you imagine if we stopped buying cars and used public transport: millions more would be out of work and the economy would flounder.
|
Ive started to 'act' but not by driving less - lve moved house and im now 12 miles from most of my customers instead of 3-4 miles. What ive done is try driving more gently, stick to 50 on the back roads when Im not going to hold up people who cant overtake ( luckily there are lots of long stretches where anyone can ) and carry a bit more speed through bends. Ive increased my economy from 56mpg to 65mpg on the last tank and in all honestly, Im not getting anywhere noticably slower.
If we want to 'act' on CO2, why not build better roads which allow more constant speed driving, less roundabouts etc. Seems far more sensible.
|
As an (unscientific) experiment I went off to the post office that hosts my PO Box to collect some post. I set SATNAV for the shortest distance which took me through congested roads, roundabouts etc and the onboard computer read 32.7 over 9.4miles in the DTEC Accord.
On the way back I decided to take the long way which is mainly B roads, hardly anyone around and the onboard computer read 46.8 over 12.6 miles.
So I did more miles and used less diesel. Not sure if I used more or less CO2
|
Is this the same organisation that sponsors a disgraceful advert on British television featuring an upset little girl looking at a book full of pictures of drowning pets - blamed on global warming?
The first time I saw it I thought it was a piece of satire. Scandalous brainwashing of innocent youngsters who might otherwise grow up to think for themselves. If it was China doing this sort of thing the rest of the world would be up in arms.
|
Purely for entertainment purposes, an interesting and illuminating half hour can be enjoyed by going to the Google News Archive and entering the phrase "experts predict" and another word which can be pretty much anything really, but "climate" or "co2" are good ones, as are "ozone hole" and "AIDS".
You can then look at news items going back decades to see what was predicted, and for when.
Any conclusions from what you find are purely an exercise for the reader of course.
news.google.com/archivesearch
|
|
I`ve acted. Planted a few ornamental, purple cabbages.
|
Wasn't it proven recently that there has been no global warming at all for the past 10 years?
I want to know why this fact has not been mentioned, or even acknowledged by the propagandists. You just know if the figures had shown an increase in global average temperatures, we'd have had it shoved down our throats until the end of time.
It's a load of tosh. Nothing more than a tax raising tool, and a means for unelected, and otherwise completely irrelevant minority groups to gain a platform, and try to tell people how to live their lives.
Act on the forthcoming oil shortage - now THAT is far more scary, certain, imminent and problematic than any of this climate tosh.
|
I think it`s at a very basic level. That there is a `hard wired` belief system in Humans It`s there in all cultures going back, no doubt, into pre- history.
Sun gods and so on - not to mention the more popular current beliefs and cults.
Global Warming, or `Climate Change` taps the hard wired susceptibility quite nicely - despite scientific evidence that these are natural events.
If you looked at `belief systems` in detail, from the major to the minor, over the ages there most be tens of thousands, from unrealistic views on vitamins to beliefs that thetans have a charged cosmic battery.
I suspect that people with vulnerabilities to these things could succumb to to many of these options. Depending on which presented first, or with sufficient intensity
This is just a personal opinion, with no intended criticism.
|
Wasn't it proven recently that there has been no global warming at all for the past 10 years? >>
Proven? Where? When? By whom? Have you seen this:
www.voanews.com/english/Science/2009-11-05-voa21.c...m
Global Warming, or `Climate Change` taps the hard wired susceptibility quite nicely - despite scientific evidence that these are natural events. >>
You have scientific evidence that these are natural events?
All I know/believe is that:
1. on this forum you often get people who cannot understand even very basic GCSE maths or science, and yet are happy to expound on a very complex scientific debate as if they were experts on the subject.
2. no amount of science will convince some people that the changes that are happening are on a scale unknown in the evolution of the planet since the time humans arrived on the scene.
3. reducing the UK's CO2 emissions by 95% or even 100% will not have any measurable impact on the climate of the world.
4. the world cannot sustain the current population, let alone the future growth, in the long term. Demand for energy, food, water and raw materials just cannot be met ad infinitum at present levels of consumption.
5. none of the sceptics/skeptics on this forum ever counters the experts at:
www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
btw, I won't be surprised if this thread goes the same way as this one:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=69935&...f
or this one
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=79202&...e
Edited by jbif on 09/11/2009 at 17:27
|
I was referring to this
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm
Simple temperature measurements. Nothing more, nothing less. We can debate the causes and meanings, but the mean temperature of the planet has not increased in the last 10 years. The last warmest year was in 1998. That is a fact.
It also staggers me how anyone can claim to have any meaningful information about climate on a 4.6 billion year old planet when reliable surface temperature records go back to what, 1850 or thereabouts? 150 years out of 4.6 billion. Reliable atmospheric records go back little more than a third of that.
You worry about it all you want (and have a pop at people's education / intellect if it makes you feel better). Peak oil is a far more real, imminent and serious threat, WILL kill people through food shortages and wars over remaining resources, and will bring about a dramatic rise in the cost, and reduction of availability of a range of essentials including pharmaceuticals, fertilisers and pestcides, and food. This really DOES threaten society as we know it.
Edited by DP on 09/11/2009 at 20:08
|
>>> This really DOES threaten society as we know it.<<<
Personally, I think its the old divide & rule game - the world government puts the frighteners on us re: immigration/climate change/peak oil/high unemployment/ reds under the beds etc., etc., but the real villains are in numero diez.
|
2. no amount of science will convince some people that the changes that are happening are on a scale unknown in the evolution of the planet since the time humans arrived on the scene.
2 seconds to midnight. That's when we arrived on the scene. Our existence here is, and will always be, an almost insignificant footnote in the history of the planet. We will be gone very, very soon in terms of the lifespan of this planet. It barely matters a jot what we do. Even if we let off enough nuclear weapons to wipe out 95% of life on Earth, it will recover in the blinking of an eye. Not that any human will be around to see it.
|
Wasn't it proven recently that there has been no global warming at all for the past 10 years? I want to know why this fact has not been mentioned or even acknowledged by the propagandists. You just know if the figures had shown an increase in global average temperatures we'd have had it shoved down our throats until the end of time. It's a load of tosh. Nothing more than a tax raising tool and a means for unelected and otherwise completely irrelevant minority groups to gain a platform and try to tell people how to live their lives. Act on the forthcoming oil shortage - now THAT is far more scary certain imminent and problematic than any of this climate tosh.
Completely disagree with all of your post except for the last bit. Climate change can be argued for and against, peak oil is for certain and will be scary, especially for us in the west. In the short term peak oil will have a far greater impact on us than climate change.
|
It's not only TV. I was idling away a few minutes in WH SMiths looking at GCSE course books while my daughter looked at Mr men books, or similar.
It staggered me that most of the curriculum for many of the science subjects seems to be based around climate change.
|
There was a radio advert from a Government department a few months ago quoting that over 48600 languages were spoken in the UK etc. etc. I rang the department (learning and educational department with hands) and asked for a list of these languages as according to my research there are only 6912 languages. They recommended I call their agency.
They got their information from an Advertising Agency whom I also spoke with and they thought their information was correct because someone told them it was true but they had not checked the accuracy in any way. They too were not at all bothered with the inaccuracy of the actual facts.
|
If all government ministers and civil servants start taking buses & taxis rather than limos.
I might consider it
|
|
Boris'n'Dave ride bikes. Boris does so in Government. Wonder if Dave will.
|
i was also annoyed that cars were "blamed" for CO2 production but hey
lets not mention all those unnessary plane journeys
burning almost untaxed fuel
|
That advert really boiled my urine!
Full of lies, misinformation and deceptive wording. Utter garbage and hopefully anyone with half a brain will have seen it for what it is.
|
|
Apparently it the truth. Communists would have us believe that anyway.
|
|
It sounds like because the '5-fruit-and-veg-a-day' message has been somewhat successful, someone has thought the same kind of simple message can be transferred directly to car usage...
|
I think about the climate change message in the same way I would look at the 5 a day message being delivered by John Prescott while stuffing his face full of takeaway food.
Its amazing how they target the little man and let the big polluters get away with it and then have the nerve to tell us how terrible we are.
|
I've done my bit. Volvo gone. Merc' gone. New Colt ATM on the drive which I love. Sad I know, but hey. Gotta get old some time.
Just hope she doesn't spot the broken plastic grille!!! Pesky Squirrel unfortunately.
MD
|
pity the government doesn't do an infommercial aimed at livestock farmers along the lines of 'breed five less cows every week', afterall its cows and pigs that contribute more in greenhouse gasses than all the car drivers put together. Besides, livestock produces methane which as a greenhouse gas is far more damaging than CO2.
But of course the government wouldn't want to tax the poor old farmer. Oh no, they'd rather pay a farmer for unused land and for not breeding pigs.
Us motorists as usual are just an easy target!
But...I have an idea. I propose on 1st Mayl 2010 (to coincide with the anti capitalist marches) ALL motorists must stop their cars 5 miles before they would normally end their journey or simply choose an alternative mode of transport. It doesnt matter where you are, simply get out, lock up and walk away. Then we'll see how the infrastructure copes when we all pile onto the underground/buses/network rail and completely clog the arteries of Britain. If our bosses don't like it we can declare we are simply following government requests. They can't sack us because we can claim unfair dismissal.
I reckon HJ should start a campaign to prove just how futile it would be if the majority of law abiding tax-paying motorists suddenly ditched their cars on the same day and brought this country to a halt. The French can do it. The Americans can excercise their power to vote so its time we did too.
ok rant over as I'm gonna watch Collision on ITV1 now.
|
I'm waiting for someone to suggest we could save the planet by leaving the car at home and taking a taxi instead!!!!
Edited by Sofa Spud on 09/11/2009 at 21:03
|
|
Maybe some look at population control would be nice too but noone seems to go near that one!
|
>>Maybe some look at population control would be nice too but noone seems to go near that one!<<
Well no, I mean, any curbing of immigration is racist and and denial of a woman to give birth to as many babies as her instincts decide is a violation of her human rights, so who would :-)
All good fun watching them dance around it on Question Time though!
|
Its not just the UK population that needs to be controlled, its the global population. All the poor people in the world want to have a life like us in the west, and who can blame them? Unfortunately there just isn't enough resource to go around.
I wonder how much a litre of petrol/diesel would cost if car ownership in India and China was the same as the UK/US?
|
|
If there really is a problem with CO2 then why hasn't the national speed limit been lowered to 50mph?
|
If there really is a problem with CO2 then why hasn't the national speed limit been lowered to 50mph?
Because the government would not get as much income from fuel tax.
|
If there really is a problem with CO2 then why hasn't the national speed limit been lowered to 50mph?
Maybe it should be? The thing is, who would vote for a party that introduced such a measure? Politicians have to balance the good of the country and getting/remaining in power. Maybe if voters could vote with intelligence rather than what the Sun told them we might be in a better position.
PS - I dont think we should lower speed limits. Instead we should increase fuel duty.
|
Because it would increase congestion and hence CO2.
|
The problem is the polarised views, the tree huggers such as Al Gore and these Act on CO2 people on one side and the Clarksonite petrol heads on the other, there is no sensible middle ground rationalising the issues.
|
|
The problem is that tree huggers behave like religious extremists which then stokes the fires 0f revolution amoung petrol heads, not to mention the hypocracy of the tree huggers.
|
I agree Stu though you could also say:
"The problem is that petrol heads behave like religious extremists which then stokes the fires 0f revolution amoung tree huggers, not to mention the hypocracy of the petrol heads."
Just playing devil's advocate, I find myself as one of the few in the middle, well perhaps on the PH side of the middle ;-).
|
>>I agree Stu though you could also say:
"The problem is that petrol heads behave like religious extremists which then stokes the fires 0f revolution amoung tree huggers, not to mention the hypocracy of the petrol heads."<<
I think the difference is that petroheads dont try to impose their values on others to the effect that they should change their behaviour, whereas tree huggers want everyone to follow their 'faith' in a scarily unwavering way.
|
I think the difference is that petroheads dont try to impose their values on others to the effect that they should change their behaviour, whereas tree huggers want everyone to follow their 'faith' in a scarily unwavering way.
What? Petrolheads are imposing their values all the time.
People driving into towns in their cars clog the city streets, making movement much slower. Volumes of car traffic deter parents from letting their children out to play in the street (as I did as a kid), and leave them feeling it's unsafe to walk to cycle to school.
Fumes from cars in cities are a major factor in reducing air quality, and noise from cars wrecks sleep in many areas.
|
>>What? Petrolheads are imposing their values all the time<<
They dont impose their values at all because they dont drive their cars just to get up peoples noses or to try and encourage people to drive cars more. If someone chooses to live near a busy road, that is their choice - I live in a quiet cul-de-sac because I didnt want alot of through traffic - as such children play out in the street just fine here.
Driving a car in the face of little alternative in many cases is not imposition of values, it is the funneling effect of poor infastructure by government of the last 40 years. If anything, the fact that we have a society so reliant on cars is an imposition by those who have failed to make alternatives viable.
|
Driving a car in the face of little alternative in many cases is not imposition of values it is the funneling effect of poor infastructure by government of the last 40 years.
Excellent posts Stu, agree with every word.
|
The problem is the polarised views, the tree huggers such as Al Gore and these Act on CO2 people on one side and the Clarksonite petrol heads on the other, there is no sensible middle ground rationalising the issues. >>
I don't agree! [How's that for a polarised view?]
There is plenty of sensible middle ground rational thought and discussion among the climate science experts. You need only read up the Met Office scientists papers to find evidence of rational thinking.
I was referring to this news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm
Simple temperature measurements. Nothing more, nothing less. >>
In reply to DP: There is a better scientific version of that article by the same author at his blog:
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/ and the Met Office's article at
www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/po...l
You illustrate a fallacy/trap that many lay people fall in to. It is the long term trend that matters, and not the absolute averages from one year to the next or one decade to the next. This is why you will find Met Office scientists state
" the projections for global climate do not include continual warming year-on-year. Instead they more closely reflect the reality we would expect, with some years warmer than others and even some series of years cooler than a preceding year. "
I am not a climate scientist and have no expertise in that field, but I find the arguments of those who say that the evidence points to global-warming/climate-change more convincing than the arguments of scientists in the opposing camp.
|
HJ
No you haven't missed owt or a bit late or whatever. I agree what a waste of money. However on the estate where i live it is around 700metre's to local school. I am embarrassed to say that all the children and there are lots all get taken in there parents car rain or shine morning noon and night. Over 5 days this would be about 5 miles. I am sure this advert is targetting these kind of people.
|
Don't forget that a walking human being emits some CO2. For a "Racing Snake" like HJ it wouldn't be much - for a chubby chappy like me it could be quite a lot!
|
|
I may have found 'the answer' ... tinyurl.com/yetwpvg
|
Erm
Whoever that was making the comments about farmers and their cows methane production
Simples really
YOU eat less meat
& Farmers keep less cows
they do need a market for these cows after all
They can then grow rice instead.
My take on the whole subject from "O" levels 35 years ago
The Earth had extended very warm periods and extended very cold periods when we were still running around with clubs & spears, Ok some even before we had got down from the trees, or even even climbed outta the slime
PS re the methane
the cows are no odds if the worlds oceans decide to break wind , which seemingly the could.
Edited by dieseldogg on 10/11/2009 at 09:51
|
I am sure this advert is targeting these kind of people.
Exactly. I see just the same on my school run, cars everywhere, some of whom will have to scoot off to work, others I know for a fact do not work and live very close. Madness.
Although it does make me smile when I see little darlings shepherded out of the car, having been driven less than 1/2 a mile from home to front of school gates, wearing a hi-viz jacket for that oh-so dangerous walk of 5 yards from car to school gate...
I walk my 4 year old to school, 1.5 miles there (he likes it, lots of cows, tractors etc to see en-route) and then walk back after, taking torches if it's dark. I'm lucky because I work from home, and I don't begrudge anyone who uses their car because they need to get to work quick smart, etc. However, the lady who literally drives 200 yards (maybe less) and back (housewife too, probably doesn't want to miss Jeremy Kyle...) has my complete contempt... I'm fairly sure she spends more time circling looking for a space than it would take to walk.
I also see someone who lives on my street and works at a pub about 5 minutes walk from my house. He's about 18, lives with his parents (i.e. no chores to do, no kids to look after etc), and yet he drives to work and back. I've driven that way many times, it takes 2-3 minutes by car because of a long wait at traffic lights, so he's saving a whopping 2 minutes or so by driving! How much of the traffic clogging up local roads is made of pointless short journeys like this?
All the same, I'm glad we have a choice still, I just wish some would use it more wisely.
Edited by TheOilBurner on 10/11/2009 at 09:57
|
oilburner
A true but humorous post. I totally agree well said.
|
You illustrate a fallacy/trap that many lay people fall in to. It is the long term trend that matters and not the absolute averages from one year to the next or one decade to the next.
I accept that, but why then does a new "hot" year make headline news, or a run of a couple of weeks temperatures that do not conform to seasonal averages have the climate doomsayers all over the press citing the end of the world? We had a heat wave in May of this year when temperatures reached the 30's for a week. I saw prominent features in most of the national newspapers telling us this would be the new norm, and it was climate change at work. All the usual eco groups got their fourpenneth in as well. If we can't draw conclusions from 10 years (and I agree), how is it right that so many see fit to do so from 1 week, as long as the numbers are in support of their arguments.
I do struggle with a simple concept that if ongoing increases in atmospheric CO2 really are linked to catastrophic climate change, how does a decade of unprecedented industrialisation in China (now no1 emitter in the world) and India, plus a steady rise in emissions from the established polluters like the US result in cooling temperatures? This is a cumulative issue - emissions rises are on top of the rises from last year, and the year before that and so on. The previous year's emissions are still in the system.
I looked at some of the links you posted, and they were very interesting. There is a great debate on one of them about this 10 year cooling period (which even the site author does not dispute). He then goes on to say that although the recent trend is downwards, there is more energy going into the system than coming out, so the earth is still warming up (that was a new one on me). The ocean data to which he refers, and which is apparently the most reliable out there comes from a system which only measures to a depth of 2km. Reliable deep ocean data, as far as my reading takes me, simply doesn't exist yet. So, in effect, the oceans (and the El Nino / La Nina phenomenon) are cited as having a sizeable influence in global temperatures, but we don't know what's going on below 2km because we can't measure that far. That is a lot of water which we know nothing about.
Simple supply and demand will reduce fossil fuel consumption over the coming decades. If there were 200 years worth of oil at present consumption rates left in the ground, climate change would be worth worrying about. There isn't. Peak oil, if it isn't here already, is coming in the next decade. Then people really will start dying and suffering. And emissions will reduce because the stuff won't be there to burn.
|
... why then does a new "hot" year make headline news, or a run of a couple of weeks temperatures that do not conform to seasonal averages have the climate doomsayers all over the press ... >>
I find these stories are usually written by journalists or non-expert "loony greens" who are looking for a cheap shot at a headline/story. The scientists (and certainly the Met forecasters on BBC) usually make it obvious that these events in isolation are not proof of anything.
There is a great debate on one of them about this 10 year cooling period (which even the site author does not dispute). >>
Other people have described what science does better than I could, and so I quote them below:
"Technically, what science deals with are hypotheses. A theory is a hypothesis which has been well supported by experiments. However, hypotheses, and even theories, are most always considered to be tentative. That is, it is always allowed that some valid experiment could show that the hypotheses is incorrect, either wholly or in part (referred to as falsifiability), so that it must be rejected or modified. So in science, absolute proof is usually impossible. Essentially it would require proving a universal negative: this hypothesis does not fail under any circumstance. And as they say, to prove a universal negative requires universal knowledge. A hypothesis which is not "falsifiable" is not generally considered to be scientific. That's not the same as being untrue; there might be any number of truths which are all the same beyond the reach of science.
Science is nothing more or less than a method of enquiry based on hypothesis testing facilitated by data collection. It is distinct from - though intimately connected to - logic and rationality. Notably, the concept of falsifiability is key to this tradition - hypotheses must be stated in such a way that they can be disproven with but one antagonistic observation.
Science doesn't prove a thing, but that doesn't mean science is useless! What science does is pare away less plausible explanations for any given phenomenon, thereby hopefully leading us closer and closer to the truth about the phenomenon. Of course, it can fail to significantly improve our understanding of a topic or even lead us temporarily away from the truth. However, when applied correctly and with a bit of luck, it can vastly increase human comprehension of the natural world. "
|
jbif, I agree with all of that.
My issue is, when was the last time you heard the word "hypothesis" in any debate or coverage of this subject? I hear the word "fact" a lot, most often from the green movement.
|
If there really is a problem with CO2 then why hasn't the national speed limit been lowered to 50mph?
In Switzerland it is 50mph (80kph) on non-motorway roads and life seems to go on as usual. I find driving there is actually less hassle than anywhere else I can think of and you seem to make just as much progress as usual.
Just a thought...
|
I did more miles and used less diesel. Not sure if I used more or less CO2
produced less CO2, you mean. And yes, you produced less, if you used less fuel. Isn't the fuel economy figure calculated from CO2 emissions? Therefore better economy = less CO2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
