Anti-4x4 Greenpeace bandwagon.

[steel]

This is the first Debate to be started by me in here, but anyway.

Greenpeace, among other so-called "activitists" (more like communists) are forever chasing after trying to get what they call, SUVs, banned fully.

An example of how idiotic they are, is the following...
www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/
And the following incident pretty well pissed me off....
www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/climate.cfm?&UCIDParam=20050516075938

Why are they so dumb to go after these vehicles and manufacturers, when really, it is the big industries which are the main problem currently? They try banning 4x4s, yet, 4x4s in total, arn't as bad as many would beleive when it comes to pollution.
Greenpeace also have their facts wrong about certain vehicles. An example is that they say the new Discovery 3 (LR3 in the USA) only does 12mpg... when in reality, it does 20+mpg. Not bad for a vehicle weighing in a almost 3 tons I think.

The anti-4x4 bandwagon groups also, as I have seen in the past on other sites while such things being discussed on the Land Rover forums I visit, is that some activists go round and put stickers on the vehicles.

The most annnoying thing for me out of all of this, is that, Land Rovers inpaticular, tend to last longer than most cars. An example, i that 75% of all Land Rovers built are still in use and on the roads today! Now imagine how much less pollution has been put out from not having to build so many newer cars at the factory... seems that these people are 1.) Very communist and 2.) Have totally lost the plot.

There, rant over for now, and I feel better....

[The Giant-Size Man Thing]

Hey, I wouldn't mind 4x4's and SUV's if it wasn't for the fact that they are gas guzzlers and nobody can fucking drive one properly. That combined with high roll-over rates and traffic accidents, these things are a fucking dangerous. Me? I'm getting a Corolla.

[steel]

commander said:

Hey, I wouldn't mind 4x4's and SUV's if it wasn't for the fact that they are gas guzzlers and nobody can fucking drive one properly. That combined with high roll-over rates and traffic accidents, these things are a fucking dangerous. Me? I'm getting a Corolla.

Erm.. was that sarcasm? *has trouble telling if it is sarcasm or not*
I certainly hope it was...

[The Giant-Size Man Thing]

Not sarcasm, but my post mostly applies to SUV's.

[steel]

Are 4x4s really that bad? That’s the question Autocar, Britain’s oldest motoring magazine, answers this week. Offroaders are currently on the receiving end of a fashionable tide of negative opinion; now, Autocar states some cases for their defence.

Those united against them are convinced that they’re oversized, gas-guzzling polluters that pose an increasing threat to other road users. The truth, as Autocar deputy editor Chas Hallett explains, is that "the vast majority of 4X4s sold in this country pump out no more CO2, use no more fuel and, in fact, are no bigger than their lower-slung alternatives. Some are only guilty of being taller - but that also makes them more visible to the environmental lobby.The SUV is an important product for the motor industry," Hallett goes on, "and a desirable one for consumers looking for versatility, towing ability, increased seating capacity and true go-anywhere capability Consumers have the right to choose the vehicle of their choice and must not be intimidated by campaigners - especially when the facts they are using are out of date and misleading".

"4x4s are bigger than other cars": WRONG
In relation to the amount of road space they take up, 4x4s are comfortably overshadowed by big luxury saloons. They are taller than average, and as such harder to see around in traffic, but even in this respect they’re not the worst offenders, Citroen’s Berlingo mini-MPV, for example, is taller than a BMW X5.

"4x4s are less economical than other cars": WRONG
The prevalence of diesel engines makes many 4X4s no more thirsty than a typical family car. The Land Rover Freelander Td4 diesel, one of the UK’s most popular 4X4s returns an average 37.2 mpg - identical to that of a 1.8 Ford Mondeo 1.8 petrol.

"4x4s pollute more than other cars": WRONG
CO2 levels from 4X4s have dropped by 14.6 per cent since 1997, and a Volvo XC90 D5 4x4 now produces less than the maker’s 2.4-litre V50 estate. Emission free 4X4s will soon appear on the roads – Lexus has just launched a hybrid RX400 - which has both a traditional petrol engine and two powerful electric motors.

"There are more 4x4s in urban areas than elsewhere": WRONG
Only 7.1 per cent of cars sold last year were 4x4s - 179,439 were registered in 2004 in a new car market of over 2.5 million cars. In London, only 3.5 per cent of privately registered cars are 4x4s.

"4x4s are unsafe": WRONG
As a general rule 4x4s protect occupants very well in a crash and contrary to popular belief they’re no more dangerous to pedestrians than most ordinary hatchbacks. European testers EURO NCAP have certified the BMW X5, Volvo XC90 and VW Touareg as top-ranking five-star vehicles.

Besides, I'd like you to find an engine which won't use up alot of fuel when moving a 3 ton vehicle about...

There's also this thing where there are more enviromentally friendly fuels that can be used, but the government here just wants to tax us, because they can't tax us on Bio-Diesel due to EU laws, they will therefore not allow it to be sold here.

EDIT: 4x4s to the general idiotic public seem to be classed as SUVs, just because they're tall and have a higher ground clearance.

EDIT2: I wonder if my Land Rover is classed as an SUV.. really, SUVs to me, are things like brand new Range Rovers, the Discovery 3 (LR3 over in the USA). Because they are not just an off-roader, they're good on road too and all sorts.

[The Giant-Size Man Thing]

Okay, so I'm a little biased against the SUV. I don't really know much about 4x4, and honestly not many SUV's are 4x4. My major complaints are about the SUV DRIVERS, really. My rant really shouldn't have included 4x4's in the first place.

But something to think about: Yes, that's good for a three ton vehicle, but what do you need one for in the first place? Sure, I can understand people owning trucks who have to haul shit around constantly, or someone who constantly has to go offroad or go over rough terrain for work or get home or something like that, but if all you're getting it for is to do donuts in the neighbor's yard, you don't need it. Or how about the stereotypical soccer-mom who needs the bigass monster to take her kid to school or a game. She certainly doesn't need it.

[steel]

That is true, Gojira, and I too do understand that point.

However, there is also a thing that is known as right of choice. If people can afford to use these things, then they should be let to do so.

It's no worse than, like, a Jaguar turning up to drop off 1 kid at a school while he only lives 500 yards away. It's the right of choice, something which is being slowly but surely taken away in every damned possible way.

[The Giant-Size Man Thing]

Yeah, I see that point too. My mother drives a Mercedes E500. I'm just saying, sometimes something like that is too much. I mean, a Jaguar is still just a car, a big and expensive car, but a car nonetheless. A Suburban on the other hand is big truck.

[steel]

commander said:

Yeah, I see that point too. My mother drives a Mercedes E500. I'm just saying, sometimes something like that is too much. I mean, a Jaguar is still just a car, a big and expensive car, but a car nonetheless. A Suburban on the other hand is big truck.

Pardon me.. but what the hell is a Suburban? I'm sorry lol, but we don't have nearly as many trucks like you do, yet we are being targetted worse by the general public over here...

I still hate Greenpeace... always getting their facts wrong... and they won't let there be wind farms be built, yet they complain we need such things to replace our fossil fuel burning power stations, but refuse to see ways around it. Bloody communists they are!

[Draco Starcloud]

steel said:

commander said:

Bloody communists they are!

Don't insult the Communists.

Greenpeace, as you describe them, sound like a bunch of confused idiots who don't know what they want.

[The Giant-Size Man Thing]

steel said:

commander said:

Yeah, I see that point too. My mother drives a Mercedes E500. I'm just saying, sometimes something like that is too much. I mean, a Jaguar is still just a car, a big and expensive car, but a car nonetheless. A Suburban on the other hand is big truck.

Pardon me.. but what the hell is a Suburban? I'm sorry lol, but we don't have nearly as many trucks like you do, yet we are being targetted worse by the general public over here...

I still hate Greenpeace... always getting their facts wrong... and they won't let there be wind farms be built, yet they complain we need such things to replace our fossil fuel burning power stations, but refuse to see ways around it. Bloody communists they are!

Suburbans are basically Chevy Silverado chassis but instead of a truck bed they make from the front seats to the back into sitting area.

[Xtermo]

Eco-Extremists kinda weird me out. People are worried about climate change, but there's minimal substancial evidence linking human activity to climate change. That's not to say that there aren't a significant changes in toxin levels made by fossil fuels and other industrial activity, but I just have a hard time swallowing the whole "we'll incinerate the planet with our greenhouse emissions" thing.

I mean, we've only even been accurately measuring and recording the climate and weather for just over 100 years or so. And as late as 35 years ago, the people who were keeping track of the trends were SURE that we were moving into a new ice age, following a cooling trend lasting some several dozen years.

Not that I think we should take the condition of the planet lightly, but come on. Let's not resort to lies and idiocy because of an irrational fear produced by a warming trend that can only be theoretically linked to anything besides natural cllimate cycles. (actually, on top of the earlier cooling trend, there's significant geological evidence that another ice age is coming within the next several thousand years)

I guess I'll believe it when someone come from the future and tells us accurate statistics about the next 100 years of climate. Or at least when we get there ourselves.

[steel]

Xtermo, that's the exact same thing that most of the "proper minded" people believe. However, these Greenpeace activists and such are just too single minded and want to spoil the fun for everybody. ;D

[Cygnus X-1]

For Christ’s sake, Greenpeace isn't PETA.

Early this morning 35 Greenpeace volunteers shut down the assembley line making gas-guzzling Range Rovers. Urban 4x4s made at this site are wrecking the climate.

And guess what? IT'S TRUE.

Steel, if you don't believe in global warming... I wouldn't even know what to say.

Now imagine how much less pollution has been put out from not having to build so many newer cars at the factory...

It has been a long time since I've encountered such an ignorant and inane comment as that. You have NO mathematical data to support that.

seems that these people are 1.) Very communist

The Soviet Union probably has one of the worst environmental track records of the entire world. (Of course, that's partially due the sub-bituminous coal it sits on.)

Greenpeace, as you describe them, sound like a bunch of confused idiots who don't know what they want.

He clearly does not know what he's talking about.

minimal substancial evidence linking human activity to climate change. That's not to say that there aren't a significant changes in toxin levels made by fossil fuels and other industrial activity, but I just have a hard time swallowing the whole "we'll incinerate the planet with our greenhouse emissions" thing.

Wow. Well, if you want to stay in the dark ages and cover your ears, that's fine, but most scientists and educated thinkers know that there IS global warming and that it IS caused by fossil fuel emissions and the subsequent green-house gasses. You might as well try to deny the Holocaust or believe that Adam and Eve procreated the entire human race.

It's no worse than, like, a Jaguar turning up to drop off 1 kid at a school while he only lives 500 yards away.

No it isn't. Compare the fuel an SUV uses in 500 yards to the fuel a Jaguar uses. Those cars are beautiful and unnecessary... but they are FAR more efficient, far more safe, and far, far less dangerous to the environment than those gas-guzzling monoliths you like.

And how DARE you get all huffy, Steel. You childish and expensive hobby is not as important as the rainforests. Our grandchildren will need to breath, and take a wild guess as to where air comes from.

[Raz V5.0]

Steel, you are fucking English. Stop trying to be a redneck you fuck.