"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:11:21 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:05:25 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


That doesn't stop people owning pointlessly large uneconomical cars
for status reasons and/or some irrational belief about safety. Eg my
father has a 2.7 V6 that does 25mpg.


But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car and
fuel taxes and costs.

But mile for mile, 'don't we all pay for it' environmentally?

One can say that about virtually anything.


Now don't get me wrong, I own (bult) a 1978 1300 Escort based kut car
that currently does 25 mpg and with a poor emissions engine, however
it is used infrequently and for short trips so probably 'pollutes'
less / year than even the best 'catted' vehicle (in fact has only done
500 miles over the last couple of years).

This is self justification. The amount of use doesn't excuse a moral
position.

I could make the same argument about my use of a diesel 4x4. When I
am in the UK,

Those things should be banned. People who use those are irresponsible.

This is a bull**** argument. It isn't acceptable to expect people to
justify their personal choice of mode of transport if they are
prepared to pay for it. This is typical Livingstonesque focus on the
wrong issues just for the sake of propaganda and is not addressing the
real issues.

What balls. Ken L, runs London. If he ran the government he would ban, or
tax to the hilt, polluting cars. A part of his job is to keep London's air
clean, and he attacks that in a way that is becoming more effective. He
doesn't care too much about people in Wokingham who use London as a doormat.