Diesel cars: in praise of Gordon Brown

[Frank Hovis]

A tad controversial but hear me out.

When back in the late 90s climate change shysters, sorry scientists, were insisting that the great evil was carbon dioxide politicians and the great unwashed swallowed it whole the government had under international agreement to make changes to reduce the evil carbon dioxide.

One obvious one was getting people to switch from evil petrol cars to planet cosseting diesels. Now instead of penalising those vicious planet-hating petrol drivers Gordon instead reduced the fuel duty on diesel and reduced substantially the road tax on diesel cars.

So many people went out and bought one, I did, and the number of diesel cars rose from 1.5m to 11m in ten years. Well played Gordon, job done by use of the carrot and not the stick.

Now however the climate change muppets have realised what everyone else knew at the time: that carbon dioxide is not the only pollutant.

So now diesel cars are evil and petrol cars are driven by latter day saints.

Under Gordon Brown the solution would be obvious: make petrol and petrol cars cheaper.

No, that's not going to happen.

Instead we have a proposed diesel congestion charge for a dozen cities and a mooted diesel scrappage to wilfully destroy the earth's resources and pollute it.

Bring back Gordon Brown.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3899830/Diesel-owners-face-congestion-charge-drive-16-cities-ruling-Government-not-doing-meet-EU-air-pollution-targets.html#article-3899830

[MrPin]

Yes I think Diesel engines were ridiculously promoted by various taxation methods as "good" for the world. I think the majority of "company cars" are now Diesel.

Maybe there will be a scrappage scheme for electric cars, when the government get told that a lot of electricity comes from coal and gas. Also, how are the batteries recycled?

[Bossybabe]

I fell for that one. Bought the Landcruiser just after the '90s. I've just sold it for almost what I paid for it all those years ago. New hybrid RAV4 expected in a fortnight. Good timing, just for once. 

[One-percent]

I learnt a long time ago not to trust so-called expert and government advice.  Drinking limit, where I'd that come from?  Plucked out of thin air.  Climate change.  Yes climates change. A brief look at one of the documentaries that deal with ancient history/geology/archeology  on the telly will tell you that.  Butter bad, margarine good, until it's not.  Superfood.  Wtf is that?  

A good starting point to to ask why we are being told something and whose interests are served by changing behaviour  

mind, we have a clapped out old diesel so a scrappage scheme would suit nicely 

I do actually believe the experts who argue that red wine is good.

[LiveinHope]

1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

A tad controversial but hear me out.

/SNIP?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3899830/Diesel-owners-face-congestion-charge-drive-16-cities-ruling-Government-not-doing-meet-EU-air-pollution-targets.html#article-3899830

I'm sure you know that you're conflating two separate issues, the effects of rising CO2 on the atmosphere and climate (long-term effects) and nitrogen dioxide on human health (short-term effects), one arguably, more important that the latter if you remove the 'individual'. I'd still argue for diesel over petrol, but not over electric. Personally speaking, nitrogen dioxide is a distraction to raise tax from car users who made a sensible choice.

And from the article I'd say It's the Mail up to it's usual scaremongering, rabble rousing, click bait attempts

Quote

Under the old plans, only drivers of diesel lorries, buses, taxis and in some cases vans would face charges. But in what will be a deeply politically unpopular move, car drivers may now be included.

Quote

Explaining why diesel car drivers may face charges, he said it was unlikely the Government could bring pollution levels down sufficiently without including them as they are the biggest source of nitrogen dioxide air pollution.

Quote

Mr Andrews said that if diesel car drivers are hit, the Government may have to introduce a diesel car scrappage scheme.

And what about Brexit as it's an EU-imposed target on nitrogen dioxide ?

[LiveinHope]

12 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

All these things seem to be coming out after discussion with Nissan. Vigorous plans to nudge consumers towards electric?

I feel sure there will be a push (incentivisation) for electric. Industry, from oil producers to motor manufacturers have been investing R&D in this as the future for several years.

(And, after 34 years of motoring, I'm about to buy my first ever new car - a diesel)

[dgul]

At the time they should have increased the incentives towards LPG, not diesel*

There would have been a penalty in CO2 output but it wouldn't have been that big -- all the high milers would have stuck with diesel (for high mpg reasons), but it would have got the half-baked 'environmentally friendly' sort who only do low mileage into something with a cleaner exhaust (eg, loads of retired people I know have diesels because it is 'better for the environment' even though they only do 6k a year and would almost certainly be better to simply have petrol, let alone LPG).

Anyway, now it is too late for LPG and any incentive would have to be hybrid/electric (petrol based for hybrids).  Probably they'll cope with putting up taxes on everything...

*coupled with incentives towards public transport, cycling, walking, etc.

[MrPin]

Maybe LPG would have been a good idea. Very popular in Korea. It's certainly fairly clean. However, call me a cynic, but I think if it had have become popular, it would have been taxed more. Doh!

Anyway, the best lesson is not to listen about what government tell you is "good".

[LiveinHope]

1 minute ago, MrPin said:

Maybe LPG would have been a good idea. Very popular in Korea. It's certainly fairly clean. However, call me a cynic, but I think if it had have become popular, it would have been taxed more. Doh!

Anyway, the best lesson is not to listen about what government tell you is "good".

We can be sure of at least one thing, Governments have come to rely too much on tax income and they'll get it in the end.

[spyguy]

Gordon Brown - poisoning citizen living in Cities to impress his international mates.

What a stupid, useless tnuc.

[SNACR]

Hard to believe this is anything other than a result of people keeping their cars too long. There's been an explosion in growth amongst motor parts factors in recent years to accompany this.

[MrPin]

2 minutes ago, SNACR said:

Hard to believe this is anything other than a result of people keeping their cars too long. There's been an explosion in growth amongst motor parts factors in recent years to accompany this.

Cars last so well Mr SNACR. Not like the old days. Mine has just got it's 20th MOT with no warnings. I'm not changing it just yet.

[dgul]

1 hour ago, SNACR said:

Hard to believe this is anything other than a result of people keeping their cars too long. There's been an explosion in growth amongst motor parts factors in recent years to accompany this.

Keeping cars too long!  For years now the UK has had by far the youngest car fleet in Europe...

Anyway, I see your point -- that older cars are the polluters -- but it has to be more considered than that.

In short journeys around towns/cities LPG would have been far better for the environment than diesel -- it warms up faster and gives cleaner emissions.  Petrol wouldn't have been far behind.  But we've had a pile of people with really modest requirements going for diesel for quite middling co2 benefits.  These people shouldn't have been given these incentives.

Sure, for longer haul diesel is probably fine -- the co2 benefits shine for long motorway journeys.  But these users would have had a massive cost benefit for diesel even without the incentives.  

The policy from the 90s has probably given close to the worst possible compromise -- no influence at all in the users where diesel really is the most environmentally friendly compromise*, but massive behaviour change where the diesel would have a net negative impact.  It was stupid and unnecessary -- doing nothing would have been better for the environment.

I can imagine that they'll do something similar now:

• For low mileage per year (<12k pa, maybe retired, wealthy stay-at-home mums) it is probably best to stick with a low capacity turbocharged petrol, but these people will be pushed into city battery-only or big hybrids.
• For medium mileage (12k-18k pa, normal commutes these days) they'll be pushed into hybrids, where the cost benefits would pay for the change anyway so there'll be no reason to incentivise (they'll probably do something really dumb and push these people into hybrids and away from the small battery-only cars which probably make most sense for a well defined commute)
• For longer range requirements (>18k pa) people will be pushed from diesels into hybrids, whereas for the time being diesels really make the most environmental sense.

* (and others) - Of course, what they should be doing is discouraging people from driving, but for some reason that seems to be the option which is never really pushed.

[SNACR]

16 minutes ago, dgul said:

Keeping cars too long!  For years now the UK has had by far the youngest car fleet in Europe...

Anyway, I see your point -- that older cars are the polluters -- but it has to be more considered than that.

In short journeys around towns/cities LPG would have been far better for the environment than diesel -- it warms up faster and gives cleaner emissions.  Petrol wouldn't have been far behind.  But we've had a pile of people with really modest requirements going for diesel for quite middling co2 benefits.  These people shouldn't have been given these incentives.

Sure, for longer haul diesel is probably fine -- the co2 benefits shine for long motorway journeys.  But these users would have had a massive cost benefit for diesel even without the incentives.  

The policy from the 90s has probably given close to the worst possible compromise -- no influence at all in the users where diesel really is the most environmentally friendly compromise*, but massive behaviour change where the diesel would have a net negative impact.  It was stupid and unnecessary -- doing nothing would have been better for the environment.

I can imagine that they'll do something similar now:

• For low mileage per year (<12k pa, maybe retired, wealthy stay-at-home mums) it is probably best to stick with a low capacity turbocharged petrol, but these people will be pushed into city battery-only or big hybrids.
• For medium mileage (12k-18k pa, normal commutes these days) they'll be pushed into hybrids, where the cost benefits would pay for the change anyway so there'll be no reason to incentivise (they'll probably do something really dumb and push these people into hybrids and away from the small battery-only cars which probably make most sense for a well defined commute)
• For longer range requirements (>18k pa) people will be pushed from diesels into hybrids, whereas for the time being diesels really make the most environmental sense.

* (and others) - Of course, what they should be doing is discouraging people from driving, but for some reason that seems to be the option which is never really pushed.

 

The behaviour of governments implies though that the emissions reductions are only part of the goal, if they even are really one at all. The whole thing may just be an excuse to force people to buy new cars. Note that they are not considering options like trams and it's all about cars. Car finance is a major method of hosing large chunks of bank credit into the economy at large.

[happy_renting]

6 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

A tad controversial but hear me out.

When back in the late 90s climate change shysters, sorry scientists, were insisting that the great evil was carbon dioxide politicians and the great unwashed swallowed it whole the government had under international agreement to make changes to reduce the evil carbon dioxide.

One obvious one was getting people to switch from evil petrol cars to planet cosseting diesels. Now instead of penalising those vicious planet-hating petrol drivers Gordon instead reduced the fuel duty on diesel and reduced substantially the road tax on diesel cars.

So many people went out and bought one, I did, and the number of diesel cars rose from 1.5m to 11m in ten years. Well played Gordon, job done by use of the carrot and not the stick.

Now however the climate change muppets have realised what everyone else knew at the time: that carbon dioxide is not the only pollutant.

So now diesel cars are evil and petrol cars are driven by latter day saints.

Under Gordon Brown the solution would be obvious: make petrol and petrol cars cheaper.

No, that's not going to happen.

Instead we have a proposed diesel congestion charge for a dozen cities and a mooted diesel scrappage to wilfully destroy the earth's resources and pollute it.

Bring back Gordon Brown.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3899830/Diesel-owners-face-congestion-charge-drive-16-cities-ruling-Government-not-doing-meet-EU-air-pollution-targets.html#article-3899830

I drive a diesel, with a complicated particulate filtering system.

But now you remind me that Gordon Brown approved of them, I feel kinda dirty.

[Frank Hovis]

5 hours ago, LiveinHope said:

I'm sure you know that you're conflating two separate issues, the effects of rising CO2 on the atmosphere and climate (long-term effects) and nitrogen dioxide on human health (short-term effects), one arguably, more important that the latter if you remove the 'individual'. I'd still argue for diesel over petrol, but not over electric. Personally speaking, nitrogen dioxide is a distraction to raise tax from car users who made a sensible choice.

And from the article I'd say It's the Mail up to it's usual scaremongering, rabble rousing, click bait attempts

And what about Brexit as it's an EU-imposed target on nitrogen dioxide ?

Indeed, many were critical at the time with the narrow focus upon carbon dioxide whilst ignoring a lot of other pollution with negative effects upon people if not the climate.

I agree that "may" is in there but I was hearing that one paper has an editorial accompanying this story that wants to rid cities of these terrible diesel engines; I think it's happening and the way is being prepared by briefings.

Diesel would still save me a packet so I'll keep driving it, and with a diesel scrappage scheme floated and my car coming up for eight years I'll definitely hold onto it for the next few years.  As I imagine would anybody else with an older diesel would also do, so the effect will be more people hanging onto older diesels in expectation of scrappage rather than buying cleaner newer models - so more air pollution!

[spyguy]

Oh, I dont doubt diesels will be banned from cities.

The level of particle pollution in most is horrendous.

[MrPin]

12 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Oh, I dont doubt diesels will be banned from cities.

The level of particle pollution in most is horrendous.

Tokyo has some sort of ban.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

My diesel has been great. I was a bit worried at first because the daily commute is only 15 miles each way. But it gets a run of 100-200 miles at least once per month so that cleans out the cat.

Over the 3 years I have had it, I have saved £1000 per year on petrol, plus £250 per year in tax, so almost £4k over the petrol. If the particulate filter or dmf goes then I guess you are looking at a grand or so total in repair charges. So still well up in terms of savings.

Overall I'm happy with the diesel.

[davidg]

10 hours ago, MrPin said:

Yes I think Diesel engines were ridiculously promoted by various taxation methods as "good" for the world. I think the majority of "company cars" are now Diesel.

Maybe there will be a scrappage scheme for electric cars, when the government get told that a lot of electricity comes from coal and gas. Also, how are the batteries recycled?

It's lithium, just incinerate them.

[dgul]

31 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

My diesel has been great. I was a bit worried at first because the daily commute is only 15 miles each way. But it gets a run of 100-200 miles at least once per month so that cleans out the cat.

Over the 3 years I have had it, I have saved £1000 per year on petrol, plus £250 per year in tax, so almost £4k over the petrol. If the particulate filter or dmf goes then I guess you are looking at a grand or so total in repair charges. So still well up in terms of savings.

Overall I'm happy with the diesel.

I'm not sure about your numbers -- you've got about 10k a year, so comparing 40mpg to 60mpg (sounds plausible) you'd be talking £500 a year. 

You've also not included the additional costs of buying a diesel (depending on how new it was it could be a tangible input to your calcs).  You've also not included differential servicing costs, but admittedly that will be relatively minor.

[MrPin]

5 minutes ago, davidg said:

It's lithium, just incinerate them.

How would you like to be Minister of Environment in the Pin Government?

[long time lurking]

6 hours ago, SNACR said:

Hard to believe this is anything other than a result of people keeping their cars too long. There's been an explosion in growth amongst motor parts factors in recent years to accompany this.

It certainly has never been cheaper to keep cars on the road .just bought 2 front wishbones 2 anti roll bar links 2 track rods with track rod ends and 2 anti roll bar bushes all in one package for under £100 

in fact it was not a lot more than i was paying for a pair of wishbones in the late 90`s early 00`s

[long time lurking]

13 minutes ago, dgul said:

I'm not sure about your numbers -- you've got about 10k a year, so comparing 40mpg to 60mpg (sounds plausible) you'd be talking £500 a year. 

You've also not included the additional costs of buying a diesel (depending on how new it was it could be a tangible input to your calcs).  You've also not included differential servicing costs, but admittedly that will be relatively minor.

Not many petrol cars will achieve 40 mpg around town (other than micros) .motorway driving they are getting close to comparable at the 50-60 mph range

[dgul]

1 minute ago, long time lurking said:

It certainly has never been cheaper to keep cars on the road .just bought 2 front wishbones 2 anti roll bar links 2 track rods with track rod ends and 2 anti roll bar bushes all in one package for under £100 

in fact it was not a lot more than i was paying for a pair of wishbones in the late 90`s early 00`s

I agree.  I find it very odd -- compared with 20-30 years ago cars don't particularly rust, most engines can be expected to do well over 150k miles, and, as you say, parts are generally cheap.  Yet so many people choose to only buy new or dealer reg cars.