OT ML270CDI Mercedes (Tip Tronic)
Comments
-
Aidy wrote:Aguila wrote:Another thing worth mentioning is the huge amount of energy that is used making these things. The carbon footprint of building a merc ML is huge.
Especially more so than any other car?
Whilst we're at it, seen the stats for impacts of "green" electric/hybrid vehicles? Those batteries come from somewhere.
Yes more than smaller cars.
If you had bothered to read my post you would see that I have said there is no such thing as a non polluting car, the batteries is another example.
This is one of the main reasons I cycle to work.
Why do you people not care about this? i thought cylists would be more enlightened.0 -
Aguila wrote:Greg66 wrote:Aguila wrote:If I ruled the world all SUV style 4 wheel drives would be banned. Given what we know about climate change I cannot understand how anyone can justify owning these things.
What specifically is more environmentally unfriendly about an SUV-style 4x4 than either (a) a people carrier; (b) a people carrier with 4x4; (c) a car; (d) a car with 4x4; (e) an SUV with 2WD?
Quite puzzled by this claim.
What's to be puzzled about? Just look at the CO2 figures or fuel consumption.
Yes I grant you there is no such thing as a non polluting car and you can put the examples you have quoted into an order of badness. Generally speaking these huge SUVs (I'm thinking merc ML, X5 or X3, Cayenne, range rover etc) are very heavy and have fairly big engines. That adds up to high emissions. Bear in mind most of the time you will not need something that big. The vast majority of people you see in them are all alone with nothing towed etc.
Also dont get me wrong I do have a car but I bought the least polluting option and sold our second car using the proceeds to put in extra insulation to the house, change boiler and (hopefully) get a wind turbine for the roof.
It's incredible to me that people care so little about what is happening to the world, I have heard climate scientists talk a few times and it really is alarming. This is something that if not occuring in our lifetimes will certainly occur in our children's. There is no place for not acting now.
Did you know for example that in climate scientist speak the period we are entering is now officially a "mass extinction event" along the lines of previous ice ages etc.
All right, back in your stone age cave for you. Enjoy the lentils and grass salad.
Bet you were anti the MMR-jab too. And that natural stuff is all-good (arsenic and uranium are natural, y'know).
Anyhoo, I've got to go open some windows. The storage heaters round here get so hot by this time of the day that the only way to cool the place down is to open the windows nice and wide and let the heat out. One day I'll get round to adjusting heater settings, but I like my afternoon walk to the window. It keeps me fit.0 -
-
Build quality - Mercs are badly built with shoddy internal components - all that cheap and nasty plastic will really annoy you after a few months - get one of these and drive anywhere you like at 150mph
http://bowler-offroad.com/Nem_2009/Nemesis_intro.htm 8) 8) 8)0 -
Aguila wrote:Why do you people not care about this? i thought cylists would be more enlightened.
I think we have a dim view at people specifically slating 4x4's when other vehicle shapes can be just as polluting, if not more so. Maybe have a go at large engine sizes instead: we don't own a 4x4 but our car is fitted with a 4.4L V8 engine - there's a free one for you.
0 -
For me the environmental benefits of cycling to work are secondary (at best) to the enjoyment I get out of it! Then there time I save vs. using PT and the health benefits.
Besides can't some of us be enlightened and not just believe whatever is told to us by those in power? I've seen arguments against global warming that make just as much sense as the argument for it.0 -
Aguila wrote:Aidy wrote:Aguila wrote:Another thing worth mentioning is the huge amount of energy that is used making these things. The carbon footprint of building a merc ML is huge.
Especially more so than any other car?
Whilst we're at it, seen the stats for impacts of "green" electric/hybrid vehicles? Those batteries come from somewhere.
Yes more than smaller cars.
If you had bothered to read my post you would see that I have said there is no such thing as a non polluting car, the batteries is another example.
Of course, I had read your post, and the previous one - which is what you were actually referring to. I was addressing a particular point.
Whilst there is a large footprint associated with building a new car, I can't see that it's going to be especially larger for bigger vehicles, and in some cases, it could be lower.
Without having proper facts and figures (which I don't believe are readily available), you're going on "I think" and "The media tells me that...".0 -
Skins2 wrote:Aguila wrote:Why do you people not care about this? i thought cylists would be more enlightened.
I think we have a dim view at people specifically slating 4x4's when other vehicle shapes can be just as polluting, if not more so. Maybe have a go at large engine sizes instead: we don't own a 4x4 but our car is fitted with a 4.4L V8 engine - there's a free one for you.
My Uncle's Audi has a V6 engine. It's an A3.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Dear oh dear.
I'm not remotely some lentil eating hippy FWIW.
And I do also hate other types of car with big engines, if you remember the thread is about a massive SUV, hence the initial discussion being about them.
My kids have had MMR, I'm a doctor.
Oh and I hve no time for alternative medicine or any other hippy activity you might like to mention/accuse me of.
Do you really think that in order to be interested in climate change you must be some sort of bearded, hippy who hasn't washed since woodstock and lives in a rabbit warren?
@Greg66 I find your post so depressing. Do you not beleive that these things are real or just not care? The world seems to be like this now, the "I'm alright jack attitude". Nobody is interested in taking individual responsibility for things. "someone else can do it" is the response to such issues.0 -
That reminded me of a gagAguila wrote:...This is something that if not occuring in our lifetimes will certainly occur in our children's.Jimmy Carr paraphrased wrote:They say that the effects of global warming will not effect us, but will effect our children and our children's children. Phew - thank god for that!0 -
Bassjunkieuk wrote:For me the environmental benefits of cycling to work are secondary (at best) to the enjoyment I get out of it! Then there time I save vs. using PT and the health benefits.
Besides can't some of us be enlightened and not just believe whatever is told to us by those in power? I've seen arguments against global warming that make just as much sense as the argument for it.
Well you are in a very tiny minority with that view. There really isn't any place for not beleiving this problem is man made now.
The main reason I ride in is also enjoyment BTW. Sorry if that spoils your idea of me as a tree hugging lunatic.0 -
Aguila wrote:Bassjunkieuk wrote:For me the environmental benefits of cycling to work are secondary (at best) to the enjoyment I get out of it! Then there time I save vs. using PT and the health benefits.
Besides can't some of us be enlightened and not just believe whatever is told to us by those in power? I've seen arguments against global warming that make just as much sense as the argument for it.
Well you are in a very tiny minority with that view. There really isn't any place for not beleiving this problem is man made now.
Just like there's no place for not believing the standard model of physics I guess.0 -
Bassjunkieuk wrote:Besides can't some of us be enlightened and not just believe whatever is told to us by those in power? I've seen arguments against global warming that make just as much sense as the argument for it.
So if there was a 50% chance of your house flooding, would you try and insure against it? Or even 5% or 1%, or 0.01%? Probably, you would (if you were sensible).0 -
Aguila wrote:Do you really think that in order to be interested in climate change you must be some sort of bearded, hippy who hasn't washed since woodstock and lives in a rabbit warren?
Yes. Or a wannabe one.Aguila wrote:@Greg66 I find your post so depressing. Do you not beleive that these things are real or just not care? The world seems to be like this now, the "I'm alright jack attitude". Nobody is interested in taking individual responsibility for things. "someone else can do it" is the response to such issues.
This isn't the place to pore over it, but no, I don't believe. There. I said it. I'm a CC sceptic. I think in today's world that puts me somewhere between Hitler and someone who eats live baby pandas.
Why? Off the top: (a) I'm old enough to remember the threats in the 70s of a new ice age. Not so much; (b) it's a ridiculous bandwagon that's become an ethical justification for Govts to raise taxes. None of which are ringfenced for enviro-causes; (c) any science that hounds dissenters off the platform isn't science in my book; (d) if you want science funding you have to believe; (e) majority views don't mean right views. At the end of the 19th century Victorian scientists reckoned they had pretty much everything figured out, save for a pesky little thing that wouldn't fit. Which turned out to be quantum physics; (f) some of the claims are ludicrous: viz this week's Independent front page - "proof" that sunspots have no effect on the climate. Proof of an absolute negative. In respect of the energy source that keeps the planet going. Uh-huh; (g) it used to be Global Warming. Then someone figured that might be bad if the earth wasn't warming. Hence climate change. Well, duh-huh, the climate does, in fact, change. Like windy wind; (h) it's now used to scare people; think of a day when either terrorism, CC or the world financial collapse hasn't been on the front pages. Populations are easier to manage when they're scared; (i) have I mentioned taxes already?; (j) talking about temp change over a period of a decade is statistically meaningless in long term climate models; (k) cows produce more warming gases than all the wolds cars and planes put together. Any reason not to start slaughtering them? (l) I also remember the rainforests - CO2 sinks - being wiped out with complaints. That's still happening, without complaints. Because eg Brazil is a new big economy; (m) the whole "we must give up our cars/flights" wail smacks to me of simple envy politics; (n) those UEA boys weren't too smart, but the real giveaway was how slick the CC counter-offensive PR machine was.
That enough to be going on with?0 -
Well - I have cycled to mwork, off and on for about 17 years! So, I guess my CF is quite small...:-)
Anyway, 3 kids, dog and so on means a big car for us and we have had old, small estates for some time.
Ultimately, I see no increase in pollution or costs on owning the ML....
I guess everything has a "building" carbon footprint, particularly that awful Hybrid thing with the Lithium batteries!!!
If I could avoid having a car at all, I would (I would own a big fast polluting motorbike!) - but with the fambly, I can't! So, I may as well get something useful for all of us and that will last us quite a few years! Rang a Specialist Merc engineer earlier - he has one custer that has completed 500,000 miles in his ML without chaniging the cam chain - Thats my kinda reliabilty and durability!
Is his carbon footprint offset by the fact that he has completed so much mileage without changing cars....?!?!?!0 -
Greg66 wrote:Aguila wrote:Do you really think that in order to be interested in climate change you must be some sort of bearded, hippy who hasn't washed since woodstock and lives in a rabbit warren?
Yes. Or a wannabe one.Aguila wrote:@Greg66 I find your post so depressing. Do you not beleive that these things are real or just not care? The world seems to be like this now, the "I'm alright jack attitude". Nobody is interested in taking individual responsibility for things. "someone else can do it" is the response to such issues.
This isn't the place to pore over it, but no, I don't believe. There. I said it. I'm a CC sceptic. I think in today's world that puts me somewhere between Hitler and someone who eats live baby pandas.
Why? Off the top: (a) I'm old enough to remember the threats in the 70s of a new ice age. Not so much; (b) it's a ridiculous bandwagon that's become an ethical justification for Govts to raise taxes. None of which are ringfenced for enviro-causes; (c) any science that hounds dissenters off the platform isn't science in my book; (d) if you want science funding you have to believe; (e) majority views don't mean right views. At the end of the 19th century Victorian scientists reckoned they had pretty much everything figured out, save for a pesky little thing that wouldn't fit. Which turned out to be quantum physics; (f) some of the claims are ludicrous: viz this week's Independent front page - "proof" that sunspots have no effect on the climate. Proof of an absolute negative. In respect of the energy source that keeps the planet going. Uh-huh; (g) it used to be Global Warming. Then someone figured that might be bad if the earth wasn't warming. Hence climate change. Well, duh-huh, the climate does, in fact, change. Like windy wind; (h) it's now used to scare people; think of a day when either terrorism, CC or the world financial collapse hasn't been on the front pages. Populations are easier to manage when they're scared; (i) have I mentioned taxes already?; (j) talking about temp change over a period of a decade is statistically meaningless in long term climate models; (k) one third of the world's CO2 is produced by cows. Any reason not to start slaughtering them? (l) I also remember the rainforests - CO2 sinks - being wiped out with complaints. That's still happening, without complaints. Because eg Brazil is a new big economy; (m) the whole "we must give up our cars/flights" wail smacks to me of simple envy politics; (n) those UEA boys weren't too smart, but the real giveaway was how slick the CC counter-offensive PR machine was.
That enough to be going on with?
Sh*t just got real, yo!Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Greg66 wrote:Aguila wrote:Do you really think that in order to be interested in climate change you must be some sort of bearded, hippy who hasn't washed since woodstock and lives in a rabbit warren?
Yes. Or a wannabe one.Aguila wrote:@Greg66 I find your post so depressing. Do you not beleive that these things are real or just not care? The world seems to be like this now, the "I'm alright jack attitude". Nobody is interested in taking individual responsibility for things. "someone else can do it" is the response to such issues.
This isn't the place to pore over it, but no, I don't believe. There. I said it. I'm a CC sceptic. I think in today's world that puts me somewhere between Hitler and someone who eats live baby pandas.
Why? Off the top: (a) I'm old enough to remember the threats in the 70s of a new ice age. Not so much; (b) it's a ridiculous bandwagon that's become an ethical justification for Govts to raise taxes. None of which are ringfenced for enviro-causes; (c) any science that hounds dissenters off the platform isn't science in my book; (d) if you want science funding you have to believe; (e) majority views don't mean right views. At the end of the 19th century Victorian scientists reckoned they had pretty much everything figured out, save for a pesky little thing that wouldn't fit. Which turned out to be quantum physics; (f) some of the claims are ludicrous: viz this week's Independent front page - "proof" that sunspots have no effect on the climate. Proof of an absolute negative. In respect of the energy source that keeps the planet going. Uh-huh; (g) it used to be Global Warming. Then someone figured that might be bad if the earth wasn't warming. Hence climate change. Well, duh-huh, the climate does, in fact, change. Like windy wind; (h) it's now used to scare people; think of a day when either terrorism, CC or the world financial collapse hasn't been on the front pages. Populations are easier to manage when they're scared; (i) have I mentioned taxes already?; (j) talking about temp change over a period of a decade is statistically meaningless in long term climate models; (k) one third of the world's CO2 is produced by cows. Any reason not to start slaughtering them? (l) I also remember the rainforests - CO2 sinks - being wiped out with complaints. That's still happening, without complaints. Because eg Brazil is a new big economy; (m) the whole "we must give up our cars/flights" wail smacks to me of simple envy politics; (n) those UEA boys weren't too smart, but the real giveaway was how slick the CC counter-offensive PR machine was.
That enough to be going on with?
Agree with all of this, well said. For me being a cyclist has nothing to do with supporting this well-funded and noisey brainwashing and all to do with saving time and cash (so, incidentally, I can run my two - and soon to be three - cars). Fear is an excellent way of suppressing people (and, in this case raising millions of pounds). It's just very sad that to even question the basis for these claims makes you the equivalent of the modern day child catcher.0 -
gtvlusso wrote:
Is his carbon footprint offset by the fact that he has completed so much mileage without changing cars....?!?!?!
Yes, which was why the scrappage scheme was such a poor idea even for this looney green government, as is also why all those people buying new "hybrid" cars to get off the pollution (nee congestion) tax can't be smug about their "carbon footprint".0 -
Well said Greg.Not climber, not sprinter, not rouleur0
-
If you are worried about lack of concern about climate change, I think Peak Oil might come to the rescue. The price of oil will eventually become so high in the next few decades that big SUVs will be history for all but the richest people (or the military). Of course with most of our agro-fertilisers based on petroleum products, millions will starve too.
Most of us will be dead by the time things get really bad, so I reckon just enjoy yourselves while the good times last...0 -
Third the 5 Series Touring. Our other option was the XC90, but I don't need 4x4.Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
Sun - Cervelo R3
Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX0 -
Greg66 wrote:Aguila wrote:Do you really think that in order to be interested in climate change you must be some sort of bearded, hippy who hasn't washed since woodstock and lives in a rabbit warren?
Yes. Or a wannabe one.Aguila wrote:@Greg66 I find your post so depressing. Do you not beleive that these things are real or just not care? The world seems to be like this now, the "I'm alright jack attitude". Nobody is interested in taking individual responsibility for things. "someone else can do it" is the response to such issues.
Why? Off the top: (a) I'm old enough to remember the threats in the 70s of a new ice age. Not so much; (b) it's a ridiculous bandwagon that's become an ethical justification for Govts to raise taxes. None of which are ringfenced for enviro-causes; (c) any science that hounds dissenters off the platform isn't science in my book; (d) if you want science funding you have to believe; (e) majority views don't mean right views. At the end of the 19th century Victorian scientists reckoned they had pretty much everything figured out, save for a pesky little thing that wouldn't fit. Which turned out to be quantum physics; (f) some of the claims are ludicrous: viz this week's Independent front page - "proof" that sunspots have no effect on the climate. Proof of an absolute negative. In respect of the energy source that keeps the planet going. Uh-huh; (g) it used to be Global Warming. Then someone figured that might be bad if the earth wasn't warming. Hence climate change. Well, duh-huh, the climate does, in fact, change. Like windy wind; (h) it's now used to scare people; think of a day when either terrorism, CC or the world financial collapse hasn't been on the front pages. Populations are easier to manage when they're scared; (i) have I mentioned taxes already?; (j) talking about temp change over a period of a decade is statistically meaningless in long term climate models; (k) cows produce more warming gases than all the wolds cars and planes put together. Any reason not to start slaughtering them? (l) I also remember the rainforests - CO2 sinks - being wiped out with complaints. That's still happening, without complaints. Because eg Brazil is a new big economy; (m) the whole "we must give up our cars/flights" wail smacks to me of simple envy politics; (n) those UEA boys weren't too smart, but the real giveaway was how slick the CC counter-offensive PR machine was.
That enough to be going on with?
I honestly thought that very few people were this ill informed, let me take your points in turn.
If you have any genuine interest in this Wikkipedia has a well referenced page summarising the current evidence regarding climate change/global warming, whatever you want to call it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
This is a summary of well conducted careful research rather than just wild allegation.
(a) new ice age, not old enough to remember that but can you say kill science because they got it wrong once? I dont think so.
(b) In fact one of the best ways to avoid tax is to minimise your use of fossil fuels/cars etc. If you have a fuel efficient home and dont own 3 SUVs you will pay a lot less tax than if you do. So, if government wanted more tax they'd be encouraging us to just keep on. the taxes are to try and change selfish behaviour. The truth is that it's very easy to adopt a greener lifestyle (and pay less tax in the process) with zero inconvenience to your life. I've saved loads by being greener, much of which would have been going to the government before in tax.
(c) when has this hounding occured, people have simply reviewed the evidence and shown the effects and their cause.
(d) Funding to try and disprove the link between climate change and fossil fuels was very easy to come by. Massive amounts of money were pored into this by the oil companies in much the same way as the tobacco companies tried desperately to prove that smoking didn't cause lung cancer. However even the oil companies have been forced to conceed defeat:
"With the release of the revised statement[77] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]"
(e) Your right that there's only one way to see if predictions of the future are correct, wait for the future. However all the worst case scenario predictions from pre-Kyoto have been met and exceeded to date. (this if you are interested is because they forgot to include positive feedback from the losing the effect of ice reflecting heat)
(f) I cannot decifer this!!??
(g)the term climate change is in fact chosen because the effects are far more than just temperature, see also flood, extreme weather, total failure of agriculture in certain areas etc
(h) I think we should all be very worried about it, most of the scaremongering about the other issues comes from the press IMO. Dail Mail anyone?
(i) repetition.
(j) This is just plain wrong, all the evidence is based on temperature data from at least the last 100 years. See the consensus statement from the IPCC (2007).
(k) probably the most misleading of all your claims, utter nonsense. there is absolute global consensus that the main source of warming gases is the burning of fossil fuels. I assume you are refering to the UN report from 2006. The figures in there quote the total impact from agriculture ie deforestation for grazing plus power for farms plus transport energy for cattle plus feed plus all the rest. the direct emmissions from cows is actually small.
Oh and actually people are suggesting eating less meat as a way to combat climate change:
http://www.supportmfm.org/helptheplanet/
(l) There is still massive vocal outcry about deforestation. Sky has a good campaign currently running about this:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/ ... te_Of_Acre.
Please give as much as you can Greg.
(m and n) Back to the conspiracy theories.
That enough to be going on with?0 -
Aguila wrote:I honestly thought that very few people were this ill informed, let me take your points in turn.
Wow. I'm really happy to know that not only are you super clever, you're super patronising too.
That's awesome. You're definitely my hero.Aguila wrote:Wikkipedia [sic] has a well referenced page summarising the current evidence regarding climate change/global warming, whatever you want to call it:
Well that must be true then. Tell me, can you vouch for the impartiality in that article? No. Thought not.Aguila wrote:yap, yap, some argumentative crap, and nothing reasoned.
Seriously, if this is the best you have, go back into the cave, get scared when the moon comes out, and shut up.Aguila wrote:you say kill science because they got it wrong once?
You're certain the science is right this time though. Good for you.Aguila wrote:(f) I cannot decifer this!!??
Read it slowly. Say the words out loud as you read it.Aguila wrote:(i) repetition.
D'yer think? Work that out all by yourself? With no help?
Wow. I'm totally won over. Refer me to some internet articles and it's all so clear to me now.
Where do I sign up?
Better yet, you sign up. I'll carry on just as. You do the same. Come back here in 20 years and we'll see how thing are. Then we can shoot the breeze about how things will work out for our kids.0 -
Wow! What well reasoned well thought out counter argument, well done.
The Wikki page is largely a list of statements (direct quotes) from scientific bodies (with no poiltical affiliations) around the world. If you have doubts about its content or impartiallity it's all referenced, let me know where the inacuracy is.
Also please point out the argumentative content. Do you really think saying "if that is the best you have go back in your cave" is a winning counterargument?
Where is the substance you have not put forward any evidence for your claims. I'd say it is you being argumentative and patronisisng, presenting nothing but insults as you do. I really have no interest in your opinion of me, you don't know me. We are discussing scientific evidence here.
You say I have "nothing reasoned". What's the basis for that comment? I've put froward a lot of facts from a range of organisations. Just because they dont fit in with your views you can't just dismiss them.
Oh and I've read the sunspot thing several times, it just doesn't make sense, please re-phrase it.
Really all we have from you here is patronising insults. I had taken the time to put some real evidence in front of you about your concerns. Where are your reasoned responses to the statements about man made emmisiions from all those bodies (including the oil companies), the deforestation, cattle etc.
BTW I fully accept your right to your own opinion, is it too much to hope for reasoned discussion? I want to be able to say to my daughters that I tried to do all I could, even if things do go horribly wrong. And remember the people who will really suffer are those least equipped to deal with it in the poorest countries.0 -
It may just be happening on my laptop, if so this post will seem wierd even by my standards
I'm loving the fact that page 3 of a thread on big 4x4s is unnecessarily wider than every other thread.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
gtvlusso wrote:1, Am I insane for buying a sodding great big thing?
You wouldn't be buying it if you didn't need the space.Brody wrote:Your going to need a bigger boat"
What is insanse and AFAIK leaves a bigger carbon footprint and hole in your bank account is buying new versus nearly new2, Anyone got any good/bad experiences of such a vehicle?
Not yet, the renault scenic accomodates Me, Mrs WMC 2 kids and 2 infants with just about enough room for a double buggy in the boot.
A Voyager style vehicle is in our future.
Look for a car with seperate seats in the back as it's easier for the fitting of car seats. It's also easier to get the kids in and out if the car belt points extend from the seats on 'stalks' rather than sit flush to the seats“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It's quite an interesting insight into the lives of people with money, this thread. I must say, it's disenheartening to see people so blithely discuss the purchase of unnecessarily large and innefficient vehicles that cost more than most people earn in a year.
To the OP, has your wife given you any reason for her desire for this car? I'm assuming she has a reason for wanting this particular car over, say, an estate.0 -
To be fair to Mr. GTV, as a cyclist he's probably doing a great deal more for the environment than the average driver of a super-mini, regardless of what car he occasionally drives. It's reasonable to think that a car which uses a gallon every 30 or so miles is better for the environment than one which uses 50% less fuel, but is driven twice as often.
Mrs. Elephant also wants a bigger car next time, we have three kids, but sometimes we need to take other people's kids too. That sais, her car does less than 4000 miles per year, so it's not likely to kill the earth is she does want something bigger.0 -
-
UndercoverElephant wrote:To be fair to Mr. GTV, as a cyclist he's probably doing a great deal more for the environment than the average driver of a super-mini, regardless of what car he occasionally drives. It's reasonable to think that a car which uses a gallon every 30 or so miles is better for the environment than one which uses 50% less fuel, but is driven twice as often.
.
Fair point about usage, although in the example you cite the two vehicles would produce the same emmisions over a given time period. i think the bottom line is however far you drive you will leave the smallest footprint with the most efficient car that meets your needs.0
