Letters to Fleet News' editor Martyn Moore.
A case of double standards
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart suggesting that any cars not achieving 35mpg should be banned is, to put it mildly, “more double standards”.
It’s rather like our MPs telling us that we have to become greener and not travel abroad for our holidays in order to stem the destruction of the ozone layer, while they have total freedom to travel wherever and whenever they please at our expense.
One must ask the question in what cars was Sir Mark chauffeured around in during his working life?
I am sure nothing less than the odd BMW 7 Series or Jaguar?
Just another case of “don’t you dare do as I did but now do as I say”.
Such soundbites are rife in this country.
A man who was driven around London and the home counties and no doubt jetted around the world, now suggests that we must all stop this and drive frugal vehicles regardless of how many passengers we carry and whether or not on company business!
Let’s hope that no-one took him too seriously otherwise we’re in deep trouble, particularly when such statements come from the former chairman of Shell, one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon producers which can plant as many trees as it wants but will never negate its carbon footprint of yesteryear.
Small step in the right direction
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart was absolutely right in his comment on banning vehicles that can’t achieve a modest target of 35mpg (Fleet News, February 14).
Nothing meaningful has been done by any government with regard to the problem of reducing carbon emissions.
It took millions of years for the carbon in oil and coal to be secured into the Earth as part of the process to produce the atmosphere that we have and which sustains life.
Most of the energy used in the world is based on burning oil or coal which is releasing that carbon back into circulation.
Unfortunately, there is really no practical alternative energy source in the foreseeable future.
It beggars belief that anyone can think that tinkering with wind turbines and carbon trading will go any way to solving the problem and even that there will necessarily be some sort of technological solution – this is an incredibly high risk strategy.
Someone has got to take the bull by the horns and do something.
There really has got to be some inconvenience soon or there may be a lot of pain later.
Sir Mark’s suggestion is a very modest one but at least it would be a step in the right direction.
The comments by the SMMT spokesman were entirely predictable and laughable – if only it wasn’t such a serious matter.
Consumer will get no benefit
The article “All cars that do less than 35mpg should be banned” made me smile.
Some weeks ago you reported the head of Lloyds TSB Autolease saying: “Current indication from the motor industry is that the diesel engine has progressed as far as it can go with regard to particulates.
Further development would be costly and technology should concentrate on hybrids.”
I am sure most manufacturers are striving to meet current and future legislation to meet carbon emissions with increases in mpg.
- If this ban was imposed producers would see a huge fall in demand/sales, so they would increase the price to preserve profits.
- The Government would lose tax revenue so would increase duty to maintain it.
- Producers would seek new markets in the developing countries to maximise their profit.
The overall benefit to the consumer is zero – we will still be paying the same cost whatever the mpg figure.
BRIAN K RICHMOND
Transport co-ordinator, Kneesworth House Hospital,
Partnerships in Care