Eco-Bentley. Now there's a term I'll bet you never expected to see! But, according to this from ThisIsCheshire, Bentley are indeed trying to implement a "far-reaching environmental strategy to reduce CO2 emissions and improve fuel economy."
"A new powertrain will be introduced by 2012, delivering a 40% reduction in fuel consumption, while maintaining current levels of performance. And all engines across the range will become compatible with the use of renewable fuels by 2012, with the initial rollout beginning by next year."
OK, maybe I've been a little sarcastic, and perhaps I even owe them an apology; but I do find it quite hard to equate luxury, extremely expensive vehicles, that only the top 1 or 2 percent of the wealthiest amongst us can even contemplate buying, with the word Eco.
Green stretched limo anyone?
Addendum:
Bentley maybe going to do Eco-Cars, but Rolls-Royce do it up in the stratosphere with their updated Trent 'Eco-Engine'! No, I'm being unfair, I made that up, but how long before we see RR marketing claiming the updated engine actually is eco-friendly because it consumes 30% less fuel? I'll give it three months tops.
Showing posts with label ECO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ECO. Show all posts
Friday, March 07, 2008
Thursday, September 20, 2007
There's a hint in the word 'stay', guys
From The Guardian (travel, not environment - different dept.): The green rooms - New green places to stay are popping up all over the world. Here are the latest from five bloggers with their ears to the ground
There's getting there, too, guys, so I'm guessing Cornwall should come top.
There's getting there, too, guys, so I'm guessing Cornwall should come top.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Martin in the Middle
As predicted, and feared, I am seeing eco-issues being stretched to extremes by the various camps with vested interests: If the eco-snobs had their way, none of us would go anywhere
I see our value now in trying to be a voice (hopefully of reason) for the middle ground:
'In the world of green, things are seldom black or white. Unless of course, you are in government, an activist... or the media.
For the rest of us poor slobs, weighing information and exhortation can be less than satisfying.
Things tend only to get published if they are at extremes. Or have extreme solutions.
Hence if you think everything is more tickedy boo than being doomsaid you are a climate denier, and if you think things may being erring on the dodgy and may need some allowances you are an ecosnob.
Here’s a bit of engineering for you. If one person takes a pebble from a dyke it will hold. If they keep on doing it likely will still hold as they are just one. But if they are joined by more and more it will eventually fail. And no technology can plug that gap if the combined efforts of individuals are determined to erode them.
Even those who demand freedoms have a responsibility to themselves, their fellows and the future to adjust their expectations and actions.
It’s a mess. Something has to be done. But what has been, is being and looks like being done doesn’t fill me with much confidence. All I see is battle lines. And while wars get fought little else happens and certainly nothing much positive. Meanwhile those who could be harnessed to help hunker down as the broadside sail overhead.
Maybe we have become too used to mobility, not just socially but also though necessity, especially for business. And here the policy makers have to figure out what they want and facilitate it.
But then the ‘its my right’ brigade need to meet somewhere (I’ll avoid halfway). I can visit my relatives in Singapore by means other than air, just as my Victorian ancestors did. If I am demanding the convenience and time and cost of an airplane that’s another matter. It isn’t the only method.
With an ever expanding and more affluent population, worldwide (China: fifty airports coming soon. They do of course have a child limitation policy to compensate, though it seems the rich can circumvent this. Was it ever thus), what does the author anticipate? Sorry if it takes her a bit longer to get to the opera or pop over to Verbier to catch the snow before it has gone for ever (there’s always a longer haul to Canada), but some poor sods walking across the Kalahari to find water, not factored into the carbon trading scheme, may feel certain restrictions of movement are in order.
Of course the government has seen what’s coming, but if yesterday's report is to believed and their solution is to tax households who add ‘value’ to homes via double glazing then we can see what their motivations and hence use as leaders really is.
Personally, I’d prefer to see about avoiding a Malthusian scenario by assuming that if something didn’t happen once before it won’t again. That’s a bit like jumping off a building and because you land on a truck full of mattresses (it happens all the time in movies) it will be there if you do it again.
If we really are facing an environmental crisis, maybe we can innovate and engineer our way out of it, but to give us the time to do so (it would be great for instance if we had figured out what to do with all that nuclear waste we assumed we’d have a solution for by now) before we are all toast, I’d suggest we accept we all need to cut back a tad.
Doing it fairly and equitably of course, is where the real fun begins. At least DOING whatever we can is a good start. But perhaps accepting that we DON'T DO everything we need not is a reasonable thing to consider as well?'
I see our value now in trying to be a voice (hopefully of reason) for the middle ground:
'In the world of green, things are seldom black or white. Unless of course, you are in government, an activist... or the media.
For the rest of us poor slobs, weighing information and exhortation can be less than satisfying.
Things tend only to get published if they are at extremes. Or have extreme solutions.
Hence if you think everything is more tickedy boo than being doomsaid you are a climate denier, and if you think things may being erring on the dodgy and may need some allowances you are an ecosnob.
Here’s a bit of engineering for you. If one person takes a pebble from a dyke it will hold. If they keep on doing it likely will still hold as they are just one. But if they are joined by more and more it will eventually fail. And no technology can plug that gap if the combined efforts of individuals are determined to erode them.
Even those who demand freedoms have a responsibility to themselves, their fellows and the future to adjust their expectations and actions.
It’s a mess. Something has to be done. But what has been, is being and looks like being done doesn’t fill me with much confidence. All I see is battle lines. And while wars get fought little else happens and certainly nothing much positive. Meanwhile those who could be harnessed to help hunker down as the broadside sail overhead.
Maybe we have become too used to mobility, not just socially but also though necessity, especially for business. And here the policy makers have to figure out what they want and facilitate it.
But then the ‘its my right’ brigade need to meet somewhere (I’ll avoid halfway). I can visit my relatives in Singapore by means other than air, just as my Victorian ancestors did. If I am demanding the convenience and time and cost of an airplane that’s another matter. It isn’t the only method.
With an ever expanding and more affluent population, worldwide (China: fifty airports coming soon. They do of course have a child limitation policy to compensate, though it seems the rich can circumvent this. Was it ever thus), what does the author anticipate? Sorry if it takes her a bit longer to get to the opera or pop over to Verbier to catch the snow before it has gone for ever (there’s always a longer haul to Canada), but some poor sods walking across the Kalahari to find water, not factored into the carbon trading scheme, may feel certain restrictions of movement are in order.
Of course the government has seen what’s coming, but if yesterday's report is to believed and their solution is to tax households who add ‘value’ to homes via double glazing then we can see what their motivations and hence use as leaders really is.
Personally, I’d prefer to see about avoiding a Malthusian scenario by assuming that if something didn’t happen once before it won’t again. That’s a bit like jumping off a building and because you land on a truck full of mattresses (it happens all the time in movies) it will be there if you do it again.
If we really are facing an environmental crisis, maybe we can innovate and engineer our way out of it, but to give us the time to do so (it would be great for instance if we had figured out what to do with all that nuclear waste we assumed we’d have a solution for by now) before we are all toast, I’d suggest we accept we all need to cut back a tad.
Doing it fairly and equitably of course, is where the real fun begins. At least DOING whatever we can is a good start. But perhaps accepting that we DON'T DO everything we need not is a reasonable thing to consider as well?'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)