honestly.

Climate change is happening, yes. We have a hand on it, yes.


But, I'm more on the side that we are making it happening faster, not the sole reason why it happens.

absaloute tosh ! worst statement ever ! .... in the middle ages here in the
UK we used to grow grapes ...yes here in the UK we had vinyards ... also in the 18th century our elders used to ice skate on the river thames ........WHICH WAS WELL BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION !!!!


facts young padwan !! get your facts RIGHT ! before jumping on the bandwagon !

im not suggesting we arnt assisting ...but FFS ! cows fart more c02 than we produce ...shall we kill all of them aswell ....

"duh!" headbutt to the fkn face for uninformed stupid post !

sauce?
I believe you im just qurious

Lol, that's what I always used to say to my buddies.

Use more of that stuff the faster it's gone the faster people might come to their senses.

warmer climate might actually make places like Greenland arable, or at least a major portion of it, together with raising the arable land lines on Siberia and Canada.

While more CO2 is bad for crops, It is more worrying what the effect of more atmospheric CO2 might have on general health. Decreased crop yeld per square km is only that bad if you actually lose those square km on where to farm.



then again, the loss of square km by sea level rising might counterbalance those square km we gain by the receding permafrost on the northern hemisphere.

as an environmentally conscious petrolhead, I do believe that anything that can make my wheeled passions greener is good.


Carbon tax however, does not and it's horrible. Here in Europe, the shift towards diesel-powered vehicles is quite lol-worthy as they require more costly maintenance, and they actually pollute a bit more if not properly maintained. Yes, in terms of power and useability, diesel engines are nice. Thanks to them we actually got a nice technology boost on turbocharger development and direct-injection technologies, which later applied to petrol engines, and made them much greener and performing.

Honestly, and in the case of my country, as I usually say: petrol engine cars' only expensive running cost is the fuel, while diesel engine cars' only cheap running cost is the fuel.

I've heard the Mazda Atenza diesel gets very good MPG. But i hardly ever drive in Tokyo, so much easier to take the train.

petrol smells a bit better than manure tho





I know the most recent C3 is better looking than the first gen, but... dude....

Toyota? As I said above, their D4-D engines are good.

not seeing many evolutions on the hybrids for the next few years, besides maybe lighter batteries.

all in all, and things considered, specially the price of such vehicles, you're either better off in a car with an engine with very small displacement, if it's for going around town, or something akin to a 1.6L with forced induction for longer travels, or going full electric.

This is all considering if you don't want engines with power, of course. At the moment I'm trying to get an older car with a relatively large engine but more geared to torque and not HP. Early 90's 2.2litre accord for example is a car that has nice figures for such a large displacement engine, and it's quite reliable and comfortable, even considering the age of it. The F22-series block is a heck of an engine.

yeah but how long until this tech gets cheap enough to be used in smaller, cheap cars that anyone can buy? One of the issues I had and still have with hybrid vehicles is that you get less "car" for the price they ask for. There are a few, rare exceptions like the Insight, but it's also a kinda big car for a very tiny powerplant.

ahhh but conspiracy theorists reckon theres a top secret alien base there ...plus apparently the nzisa have a bolt hole there from WW2

didn't an American fleet pop down there in the 50`s to have a butchers to see ?..... and got there butts kicked !


I seen it on youtube ! IT MUST BE TRUE !!!!!!!!!