This article represents the personal views on MMGWT of an ABD member who is also a prominent member of the Jaguar Enthusiasts' Club. The views expressed may not represent the views of the Association of British Drivers.
Having listened to all the information given by the government and their advisors regarding global warming, the message is: Nasty big cars and 4X4's are killing the planet, so they can tax the crap out of us for "our own good". I decided that I needed to find out the truth, so I have spent the last six months trawling through the various reports submitted generally by scientists sponsored by the government. The alleged facts that I am about to give you are verifiable and the original reports are available.
If all forms of road transport: every car, motorcycle, and lorry was removed from the planet tomorrow it would reduce the CO2 emissions from the planet by 0.7%.
If there were no humans on the planet 95.5 - 96.5% of the total CO2 emissions would still be produced. The reason I state 3.5 – 4.5% as human emissions is because 1% of the CO2 comes from 'change of land use'. For instance; cutting down, now 93% of the Atlantic Brazilian Amazon rainforest has two effects: burning it turns the wood into CO2 and the trees which used to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere are no longer there. The 1% also includes natural land change; such as the deserts extending every year. Of the remaining 3.5% (or one good volcanic eruption) which is totally human produced, well over 1/3 and rising is produced by power stations. So how green exactly does that make an electric car?
CO2 is heavier than air, so it has to rise via convection currents. A large percentage of ground produced CO2 is absorbed by the trees. Planes go to 35,000 feet, then pump CO2 into the atmosphere, but don't worry! Planes must be green; otherwise their fuel would be taxed at over 300% just like road vehicles, wouldn't it? The government are now increasing this by calling it a "green tax" on both fuel and larger cc vehicles. There is no such thing as a "green tax" there is tax and then green policies. However using electricity to play computer games is environmentally friendly, watching TV is environmentally friendly as it is only taxed at 5%. Leisure is obviously more important than mobility.
CO2 levels must be horrific you would think, with all this end of the world talk. Well CO2 levels are around the lowest they have ever been in the planets history. Yes, for 600 million years the CO2 levels have at times been 18 times higher than they are today with climatic temperatures completely unrelated to the CO2 levels. However for the last 175 million years the CO2 levels have been dropping from 10 times of what they are now, to an all time low 20,000 years ago. Let's go to more recent history: between 150,000 and 115,000 years ago the CO2 levels dropped from 240ppm to 220ppm. The temperature in Britain 150,000 years ago allowed Hippopotamus to wallow in the River Thames. They found their skeletons when they excavated the foundations for Nelson's Column. Personally I would quite like to see Hippos once again wallowing in the Thames …at least it would get them out of the Burger bars!
Around 115,000 years ago the last big ice age began. 50,000 years ago Britain went from a climate similar to the South of France to a climate similar to Antarctica. At this time there was half a mile of ice above Birmingham. The CO2 levels continued dropping at a similar rate to that of before the ice age. About 20,000 years ago, the last major ice age started to come to an end and CO2 levels were 180ppm, the lowest level they have ever been in the planets history and the planet gets warmer?? The temperature increase caused CO2 levels to slowly rise. 12,000 years ago much of the ice had melted and woolly mammoths grazed the tundra that is now the North Sea. The ancestors of the political parties were wailing and gnashing their teeth at the terrible climate change that had caused the melting of the ice above Birmingham (I don't blame them).
8,000 years ago the last land bridge to the continent disappeared. Britain was covered in conifers and CO2 levels continued slowly to increase. Between 7,500 and 5,000 years ago Britain had temperatures similar again to the South of France with CO2 levels the same as they were at the start of the last ice age.
Let's bring it right up to date: to the last 1,000 years. Around 1050AD, after an increase in solar activity the temperature began to increase significantly - to the point that our ancestors were able to grow vines throughout England, not just the South East. In-fact at this time agricultural crops were being cultivated successfully in Greenland. Why do you think it was called Green-land and not White-land? At the end of the 1300's with rising CO2 levels solar activity reduced considerably and we entered a 'mini ice age'. There are paintings in the National Gallery showing people skating on two meters of solid ice on the River Thames - wine consumption obviously dropped considerably, but the malarial mosquitoes which caused the 'plague' mentioned in Shakespeare's plays were quite prepared to shiver through the cold! We began to warm up again in the late 1700's when the suns activity once again increased. From 1860 (when accurate records began) to date; solar activity has increased by 3% which surprisingly runs side by side with the warming of the Northern land mass.

The conclusion from the above information is that CO2 does not appear to have anything but a very minor influence upon the planets climate. It's a lousy greenhouse gas anyway! The estimate is that if CO2 levels doubled, it would only affect temperature by 0.4 to 1.2∞C maximum and this would include additional feedback from water vapour, which is currently not happening. It is however the perfect gas for generating Tax.
The main greenhouse gas is water vapour, this accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. How water vapour effects the planet is a complicated subject, but briefly: water vapour in the upper atmosphere deflects heat cooling the planet, water vapour in the lower atmosphere reflects heat back towards The Earth making it warmer. The levels of water vapour in the atmosphere are significantly influenced by solar activity.
Now for the really dangerous 'health harming' gasses:
Methane: this has 2300% more greenhouse potential than CO2 according to the IPCC. People laugh when the talk is about cow's farting, however an average cow passes around 90kg of Methane each year, so when you look at a small country like New Zealand with only 8 million cows, a quick calculation gives a figure of 720 million kilogrammes of Methane, or the equivalent of 16.5 billion kg of CO2 produced each year by the cows of New Zealand alone. And now imagine how many cows a large country such as the USA contains, as well as other livestock and humans all producing methane.
3,000 years ago Methane levels were 600ppb (parts per billion), 2,000, 1,000 and 200 years ago levels were at 650ppb, now it is an astonishing 1600ppb! The greenhouse effect of the increased amount of Methane in the atmosphere is 167% higher then the entire human produced CO2. However the government cannot tax food production because food has to be so cheap that people can afford to throw between a quarter and a third of what they buy into the dustbin, so that it ends up in the environmentally friendly landfill sites producing methane.
Think of the volume of gas required to make up 1kg. There is a new sport: called "smoking a fag behind a herd of cows", this should be in the 2012 Olympics.
The nitrogen oxides make Methane look like a walk in the park as far is health and the planet are concerned. Nitrous oxides are 30,000% more efficient a greenhouse gas than CO2. In other words 1kg of NOx is equivalent to 300kg of CO2, NOx concentrations in the atmosphere (311 parts per billion) and rapidly rising have a quarter of the greenhouse effect of all the CO2. The natural nitrogen cycle is in cascade. Therefore human activity producing so much NOx means that the planet's ability to convert it back to nitrogen and oxygen is significantly reduced. Less than 20% of the NOX pollution comes from burning fossil fuels, over 80% comes from current farming methods, which includes deforestation. When Fritz Haber first produced nitrogen based fertilizer he inadvertently produced one of the biggest and longest lasting pollutants on the planet. The level of NOx that falls as acid rain and particulates each year is the equivalent to the amount of fertilizer the farmers ploughed into their fields in the 1950's. This is destroying many species of plants that prefer to grow on poorer soils. As well as this acid rain falls upon and consequently dissolves limestone and chalk releasingÖyou guessed it: CO2!
The greenhouse effect of all the NOX in the atmosphere are now around 25% of all the CO2 put together, or 700% of the total of human produced CO2. The NOX runoff on just one of the 146 heavily polluted rivers - The Mississippi in the USA, results in a dead area of ocean spanning 15,000 square Kilometres at the rivers mouth. The worst affected country with the highest level of NOX deposits is the Netherlands. The dykes are polluted (not a reference to the Amsterdam sex trade) with NOX from pig farms and other agricultural run offs. There are major health problems associated with contamination of drinking water by NOX. You could argue quite successfully that your bacon sandwich does more damage to the planet than your Hummer. However there does not appear to be any tax opportunities with this gas.
The amount of UV light hitting the planet increased by over 1% in the few days after 9-11 or 11-9 as I call it: due to all aircraft being grounded. Planes convert 100% of the fuel into water vapour and CO2 so Virgin Atlantic should change its name to: 'Married with six children' Atlantic. Almost certainly reduced water vapour not CO2 caused the increase in UV. Wait! Let's just look at that again, more UV means more heatÖso the vapour trails from the aircraft are helping to keep the planet cool. This must mean planes are environmentally friendly and thus saving the planet, so its name can be changed back to Virgin Atlantic again.
All this bull about CO2 annoys me because it disguises the true problems with the planet which is the destruction of eco systems and the extinction of around two species each and every day in the never ending quest to supply more and more food and living space.
The population of the planet is currently ridiculous: 6.5+ BillionÖsorry by now its 6.6+ Billion - and still rising - farting, consuming, polluting people. When was the last time you heard the comment "what the planet needs is more people"? Only from governments: as the larger the growth in population the larger the growth in economy therefore the better the useless governments look.
After the tsunami, 2 years ago, the greatest natural disaster in years when over 300,000 people died, how long do you think it took to restore the numbers? The answer is: 19 hours. The expression "breed like rats" should be changed to "breed like humans". The population of the planet has exploded six fold in the last 100 years. If we carry on breeding as we are currently the population will be 36 billion 100 years from now, with more than six times the NOx and methane pollution (48 million cows in New Zealand?). So what is going to damage the planet more do you think? Having four children — who when they grow up will eat bacon sandwiches all day, have two foreign holidays a year each, four houses, four central heating systems and four TV's which may or may not be left on standby. Or having no children and driving a 4X4 instead of a Nissan Micra.
So lets look at some of the governments 'green policies': it would take around 180 LPG converted modern jaguars to produce the same NOX and particulates as a single 2002 London bus, which also emits the two most carcinogenic chemicals known to science every time it pulls away from a bus stop. Why are the government increasing the duty on LPG at a greater rate than diesel?
Gas and electricity: they got rid of the standing charge then introduced primary and secondary units. The primary units are charged until you have more or less paid the standing charge, then you go onto cheaper gas and electricity. Therefore the more you use the cheaper it becomes. Great!
If over 90% of homes had just a small wind generator and two solar panels fitted this would supply around 40% of domestic electricity. This would nullify the requirement for at least one power station. However there is no need to bother with this.
The entire governments CO2 emissions reduction targets were achievable without any lifestyle penalties through adoption of indium doped gallium nitride illuminations for the nations traffic lights, however this would mean spending money and as everyone knows you can only combat global warming by taxing people. Perhaps they could spend some of the one Billion plus pounds that they extort from the motorist each and every week on something useful.
We can give farmers subsidies with no restrictions on fertiliser use, as they are custodians of the countryside.
If you have ten children your social security payments are such that you can sit at home watching TV all day with no requirement to work. In-fact everyone should have ten children that would mean more people to help save the planetÖFantastic! The Chinese had what I consider the only long term solution, which is a one child per family policy (enforced).
Here's a good idea: to help British CO2 levels, we could destroy British manufacturing and buy all our goods from the Chinese, who are putting a new coal fired power station online every week subsidised by the British government. You didn't know China was on a different planet did you? Just the massive increase in CO2 emissions from China in the next 400 days will equal Britain's total CO2 output. So aiding and abetting Chinese growth must be a good thing for the planet.
There is no point in blaming the air lines, like some government idiot, people need to travel. At least Richard Branson has allocated a large amount of money to go towards green projects. Whether it is being wisely spent or not is another question. Do you accuse the electricity companies of being irresponsible for allowing you to switch your lights on?
The fact about climate change is that the climate is always changing! By far the main reason is solar activity. Gordon Brown may as well tax the Sun for shining. Taxing UK's 4x4s is equally pointless, they are 8% of car sales, so are responsible for 8% of 16% (car emissions) of 2% (UK share of global emissions) of 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted each year by humans. That's 0.00087% of the carbon dioxide total, less than one thousandth of once percent.
Britain should be showing an example to the rest of the planet, not as this government is doing giving misinformation and using it as a gravy train to collect more money and make motorists feel guilty about driving their cars. There are many policies that could help improve the planet; however they will not be implemented. All we appear to get is: 'whack up the tax on the motorists' and 'don't leave your TV on standby'. Let's see what happens after 2012: when solar activity is forecasted to start diminishing and the planet will again begin to cool.
If you wonder how the heavily funded I.P.C.C. scientists can spend years researching and then have the exact opposite of their findings quoted I think the words 'heavily funded' give you the clue. A typical resignation letter you can read is from a Dr Chris Landsea found at: This highlights my concerns.
Much of this information has come from the ABD website found: (and the I.P.C.C. website before they became government stooges), should you desire to know more.
I now believe if you are over 40 years of age most of you will see your lives out without too many major problems. Today's children however will almost certainly witness a collapse in the planets eco system, with mass extinctions of plants and animals and CO2 will remain as irrelevant as it always has.
Interesting quotes:
The above article represents the personal views on MMGWT of an ABD member who is also a prominent member of the Jaguar Enthusiasts' Club. The views expressed may not represent the views of the Association of British Drivers.

Top  ABD Home Page     Environment     Contact the ABD