Apologies.

The mundi club would like to offer its humblest apologies for the poor print quality of the last issue of ‘mappa mundi’. The newspaper articles and photographs came out clearly but the text was readable only with difficulty. This was partly our own fault for using a dot matrix printer with a brand new, but what turned out to be a somewhat desiccated, ink ribbon. Although the top copy prepared for the printers was readable the printing process lost of a lot of definition. Clearly the printer was heavily into ink conservation. Yet another example of an inappropriate application of a green idea! This may have been the reason why only a dozen of the 500 copies printed were sold but then, given the sales of other mundi club publications, this may not have been the sole reason!

Apologies also for the delay in the publication of this, the third, issue of ‘mappa mundi’. The last issue, ‘carbuncle’, was published nearly two years ago, may 1st 1992. So, to make up for the delay, the mundi club has embarked on a publication extravaganza by publishing simultaneously the next five issues of the magazine.

The mundi club was vaguely content that ‘carbuncle’ had uncovered most, if not all, of the absurd aspects of motorists’ worldview - their ignorance of ecological issues, their bigotry towards non-motorists, and their idiotic behaviour on the roads. But this has turned out to be something of an illusion. Since the publication of ‘carbuncle’ a huge amount of material has appeared exposing further aspects of motorists’ worldview. So much material has been acquired it would have been impossible to publish it all in one issue. It was decided therefore to spread the material over five issues; this issue concerns cars and the environment; the next on carism - the ideology of the car; the third on car culture; the fourth on car-diacs - the car’s supporters; and, finally, motorists and the car.

Acknowledgements.

The mundi club would like to thank those people who have sent in articles used in this work. It would be marvellous to thank them openly and fully but, unfortunately, naming names is likely to put their careers, reputation or social status at stake. As a consequence acknowledgements are indicated by initials enclosed in brackets and are to be found usually in the footnotes. None of these people have helped in the writing or publication of this work and thus cannot be blamed for its contents - although we hope they will not disapprove too strongly about what has been written.

Welcome to the Third Issue.

It is often suggested that motorists are rational creatures who use their cars only for utilitarian reasons, "Almost without exception it is access - to people, goods and services - which we value so highly rather than the travel itself." This is nonsense. Motorists are interested in cars for their social status, because they enjoy driving, and love the danger of fast driving. Cars are not just transport vehicles; they are racing vehicles, love objects, extensions of motorists’ bodies. Motorists are so wedded to their cars they persist in driving even when they know they are going to end up in a traffic jam.

The mundi club believes that it is not possible to persuade motorists to change their worldview by presenting them with a comprehensive, detailed, scientific case for banning the car. There are three reasons why motorists will not debate rationally about their cars. Firstly, they are emotionally involved with their cars. Trying to use reason to persuade motorists to give up their cars is like trying to use reason to persuade someone not to continue with an unworkable relationship. People’s love of cars is beyond the realm of persuasion. The emotional attachment which motorists have to their cars is reinforced by motorists’ ideology. Motorists have developed an ideology, carism, which promotes their interests and extols the virtues of the car. This makes it even difficult for motorists to dramatically change their thinking so that the car is no longer perceived as such a prized possession. Finally, motorists have taken control of society and since the opposition to autocentric societies is almost non-existent they have power without responsibilities - always a dangerous combination. Motorists do not have absolute power in society but their power contines to expand. These three elements, emotional attachment, ideology, and power, are synergistic and compose a rock solid obstacle to most critiques of the car. Motorists aren't just indifferent to the mass slaughter on the roads and the vast scale of the destruction which cars are inflicting on the Planet’s life support system, they are insane, reality-defying, bigots who refuse to listen to criticisms of their precious love-objects. It is not possible to be rational with irrational people. What is also needed are short, sharp shocks on their emotional attachment to cars and their preposterous worldview. It is hoped that highly offensive satirical attacks on motorists might bring these oomano-imperialists to their senses before they totally ruin the Planet's life sustaining processes.

The mundi club intends to continue its propaganda offensive against motorists in later issues of ‘mappa mundi’ so we’d be grateful for any further examples of the bizarre world of the motorist. Please see the back page for details.

Introduction.

This work outlines the preposterous green views held by motorists and motoring organizations. Although motorists have a general ideology they have not yet managed to develop a single set of beliefs about the environment. Motorists hold a wide range of views about the environment. The majority of motorists are ignorant about the ecological damage caused by cars; many are not in the least bit bothered about the scale of the ecological damage. Some motorists know about various aspects of the ecological damage caused by cars but insist that technological innovations will soon/eventually reduce the damage. Other motorists believe that the most technologically advanced cars are already green and that as soon as old cars are off the road there will be nothing to worry about. A tiny number of motorists know about the ecological damage caused by cars and that technological solutions to cars are futile but persist in driving cars - as if they believed it necessary to sacrifice their integrity in order to avoid alienating those motorists who have some green tendencies and who might vote green. At the other end of the spectrum there are those motorists who defy reality altogether and argue that cars do not damage the environment. The most extreme argue that cars are good for the environment. This diversity of opinions indicates that motorists have not been able to decide which is the most advantageous line to take about environmental issues. Although motorists’ attitude towards the environment should be an integral part of their carist worldview this is not the case. It is thus better to explore motorists’ attitude toward the environment separately from their general worldview.

There are some common environmental views shared by virtually all motorists e.g. welcoming the construction of more car parks/roads/service station facilities (as long as they are not in their back-garden); support for the construction of supermarkets on green open spaces but strenuous objections to Dogs Manuring these areas. However, there are not enough common views to constitute a green ideology so this pamphlet outlines the many, sometimes contradictory, views which motorists hold about the environment.

ONE: THE FABULOUS REVIEWS OF ‘BAN CARS’.

One way of gauging the depth of motorists’ commitment to the car is by examining greens’ attachment to their cars. After all, if it’s impossible to get greens to give up their cars what chance is there of persuading motorists in general to relinquish their precious love toys? The mundi club devised a test to explore greens’ attitudes towards their cars. It produced a publication called ‘ban cars’, the first rational, scientific analysis of the car’s impact on the Earth’s geophysiology, and sent off review copies to a number of green magazines to ascertain their reaction. Surprise, surprise, most of them didn’t even bother to mention it let alone review it. This shows that it is almost impossible to get most greens to take car issues seriously, even when they know more than most about the scale of the ecological damage being caused by the car. It also shows something much more worrying. If greens won’t even publicize a magazine outlining a scientific case against the car then how are motorists ever going to learn about the ecological carnage caused by cars? It has to be suspected that many green magazines do not see their role as campaigning against the damage the car inflicts on the Earth’s life support system. Their role seems to be to protect the car and act as the roads’ lobby's loyal ‘gween’ opposition.

Especial thanks to the following publications for reviewing ‘ban cars’ or publishing the article based on the pamphlet:-

Paving moratorium update; (a brilliant magazine which is a must for all those against the car);

Greenline; (commissioned the article based on ‘ban cars’);

Yorkshire area green party newsletter;

Yorkshire green news;

Manchester green party’s newsletter; (Spencer fitz-gibbon reviewed the pamphlet and used it as the basis for some local campaigns);

‘Benign design’ (the green party’s permaculture policy group newsletter. Another review by spencer fitz-gibbon. Unfortunately, whilst the magazine doesn’t mind reviewing magazines like ‘ban cars’ it does not tolerate articles critical of permaculture!!);

‘Eco-motion’ the newsletter of the green party’s transport working group;

‘Econews’ (the green party’s newspaper. It was only after some pleading that the pamphlet was reviewed but even then it had to be flanked by another article extolling the virtures of ‘green’ car technologies);

‘Do or die’ (the magazine of the Earth first movement in great brutland. The mag seemed to be caught in two minds. For some bizarre reason, two versions of the first issue of ‘do or die’ were produced. The layout in both was entirely different but the text was exactly the same - except that one carried a short, very positive, mention of ‘ban cars’ whilst the other did not. Seems that the car-owning members of the hard-edge of the radical green movement didn’t like anti-car pamphlets. Organizes anti-mahagony campaigns but is positively wobbly over cars).

Thanks also to the following publications for mentioning the pamphlet/article:-

The lancaster bomber;

‘Dear motorist’ (produced by the institute of social disengineering);

‘Away with all cars’ (mr. social control, playtime forever press);

‘Green activist’ (the green party activists’ magazine - it stated that the pamphlet was recommended reading but its promised review never materialized);

‘Going green’ (magazine of the environmental transport association. The only mainstream alternative magazine to mention ‘ban cars’).

The following is a list of the ‘green’ magazines which refused/failed to review or even mention 'ban cars' - the first work condemning the car from a geophsiological perspective:-

‘The guardian’;

‘New statesman’;

‘London cyclist’;

‘Transport 2000’;

‘Greenpeace’;

‘Alarm uk’;

‘CTC cycle digest’;

‘the globe’; (a car loving, anti-roads ‘gween’ magazine);

‘Earth matters’; (the magazine of friends of the earth. The ‘publications and marketing manager’ (c.£15,000 pa) wrote to say that foE were unable to review it "due to a shortage of space." They were just about to relaunch, for the four thousandth time, their 1970 campaign to coax/persuade/encourage/tickle the government into setting up a national milk bottle recycling scheme);

‘The ecologist’; (declined to print the article because the magazine "tends to publish long, academic articles" and anyway the ecologist was not anti-cars. After 20 odd years in existence it published its first anti-car article in 1994. Of course now that the mag is promoting a policy of ultra localism none of them drive around in cars anymore - cough, cough);

‘Peace news’; (aims to bring peace to the Earth ... but loves cars so much it can’t quite bring itself around to criticizing them);

‘Fourth world review’ (the editor was too busy flying around the world to review the pamphlet - and anyway he loves london and what would london be without its constant lava flow of traffic);

SERA (a bunch of misguided ‘greens’ who still believe that members of the labour party i.e. paid up members of the transport and general workers union/car workers would be willing to give up their cars to save the Earth);

‘Analysis’; (car owning academics promoting a radical transformation of society where all people would own cars);

‘Anarchy’;

‘Earth first! journal’;

Greening the planet; (now deceased. It couldn’t face the prospect of criticizing the car);

Green revolution; (much too busy fighting the horrors of racism and sexism in this country to be bothered about the 5,000 people being slaughtered on the roads and the prospect of a global ecological collapse. Doesn’t want to upset the underprivileged who believe cars are a passport to social liberation);

‘Whole Earth review’;

Class war; (class war still hopes that once the plebs have all got cars they all drive into london, surround the house of commons and whitehall, and take over at the wheel of the banana democracy. It still completely fails to realize that the car is the main tool for destroying community life).

Perhaps most amazingly of all ‘ban cars’ was not reviewed or even mentioned by the canadian journal ‘world without cars’. Now that’s what we call a real ideological feat. It seems that ben elton’s novels are much more relevant to a scientific case against the car.

The mundi club sent a copy of ‘ban cars’ to earthscan asking whether it would be interested in publishing a book based on the pamphlet. The reply was, "I’m afraid we do not think the title would sit comfortably on our current publication schedule." In other words it wouldn’t have looked good for greenscam to have had a book entitled ‘ban cars’ sitting alongside the books it has printed praising the car’s amazing, Planet-saving, green credentials.

Finally ‘Green World’. It recently commented that, "It’s easy to criticize the car." Well, sorry this is far from being correct. Anyone who dares to criticize the car faces a nightmare of ostracism and abuse not so much from pro-car fanatics but from greens who own cars or who believe that, politically, the car cannot be criticized for fear of losing motorists’ votes - which, of course, is a good excuse enabling greens to go on driving around in cars. The only sort of person who could possibly believe it is easy to criticize cars is somebody who has never criticized cars let alone done the basic research which would prove that the road/car/oil industry is one of the three most ecologically destructive industries on Earth. Oh yes, and by the way, where’s the review we were promised?

The following chapter looks at the attitudes of both motorists and car related organizations towards the environment.

TWO: CARS AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

i) The Car and the Earth’s Life Support System.

Motorists have a wide range of opinions concerning the car’s relationship to the Earth life support processes.

I: At Long Last, A Green Motorway.

It was noted in ‘carbuncle’ that, "the motorway link between the A1 and the M1 has been hailed as the country's first green motorway." More recently it has been claimed that, "A road is getting the green treatment with a new environmentally friendly resurfacing process. The road is being pulverised, mixed with cement and then relaid .. The form claims the process saves up to 90% of the energy used by other methods of repairing badly damaged roads, and is often quicker. It also involves fewer big lorries to cart away rubble." So, once the Earth has been suffocated with roads everything will be environmentally sound because they’ll all be repaired using green technologies.

II: Motorways Do not Damage Wildlife.

Julian pettifer stated in a television programme that he couldn't detect any substantial damage to Wildlife as a result of the construction of the M40 link road between Oxford and Birmingham.

III: Roads Needed to Prevent an Environmental Disaster.

"Road user groups warned against scrapping the Government’s plans to widen the M25 route round London. They said it would cause an ‘environmental disaster’."

IV: First We Decimate the Environment Then We Assess the Environmental Damage.

It was pointed out in ‘carbuncle’ that the european commission insisted that member countries should "carry out environmental impact statements (on roads) ONCE PLANS HAVE BEEN PASSED." Even this was regarded as being dangerous by one tory Earth-rapist shit who is probably on the payroll of a number of Earth-raping multi-national corporations, "Conservative MP Bowen Wells, secretary of the tory backbench environment committee, dismissed the commission's ideas as "absolutely crazy"." Carrying out environmental assessments after the environment has been devastated is standard practice for the department of transport, "One of the general criticisms of the DoT's Environmental Appraisal process is that .. appraisal tends to occur after the design process rather than in parallel to it, thereby enabling changes to be made in response to problems identified along the way."

V: The Best Excuses for Building more Roads.

"Peter Bottomley, UK transport minister in 1989 thought that "more roads must be built for cars yet to be acquired by women, ethnic minorities, and council tenants who do not enjoy the benefit of personal transport at present.""

VI: The Best way to Show that Cars are Environmentally Friendly is by Organizing Cross Country Rallies through Fragile Rainforest Areas.

There are now a number of annual cross country car rallies as well as one-off rallying events. These rallies are sponsored by multi-national car corporations who use the experience to carry out further technological improvements to their vehicles so that they can cause even more damage to the environment in the future than they did before. Since rallies take place off the roads, and thus ‘in the environment’, this enable those organizing the rallies to call them ‘environmentally friendly’. It doesn’t matter how much damage rallies inflict on the environment they are still defined as being environmentaly friendly. The people who organize and take part in these rallies ought to be strung up.

A: Camel Trophy.

"Landrover .. sponsored May's trans-Amazon four wheel drive 'Camel Trophy' from Manaus, Brazil to georgetown, Guyana. The event, billed as "the world's last great adventure" involved sending 37 turbo-charged Landrover vehicles including 4 tonne support trucks crashing through forest, wetlands, savannahs, and the territories of 6 separate tribes of indians. To George Monbiot, author of 'Amazon Watershed' who has travelled extensively in the region .. "the Camel Trophy is the definitive expression of the selfishness and insensitivity of rich foreigners.""

B: The RAC Rally.

The RAC Rally is a 1,600 mile marathon motorcade which roars through England, Wales and Scotland. The following support has been provided for just one driver, (called McRae), "Ten back-up trucks, an army of mechanics, a helicopter, chase cars, cross country jeeps and an aircraft to link satellite communications, will boost McRae’s bid."

C: The London-New York Rally.

"Six explorers (sic) set out yesterday to drive from London to New York. (Going eastward) through nine countries on a 15,867 mile overland marathon that will take them three months. The £2 million expedition is being funded by Russian and British TV companies who will screen a seven part series on the great trek. Ford have laid on the cars, plus back up vehicles for the tougher stretches."

D: The Arctic Auto Challenge.

The Arctic auto challenge takes place from paris to 200 miles north of the Arctic circle. Drivers are not allowed service crews but must carry out their own repairs. It is a three-day "4 Wheel Driving Force" event. The 1993 event attracted 100 entries, "An all-woman team is following the compass north to campaign a three year old Vauxhall Frontera 2.3 turbo-diesel in the Arctic Auto Challenge. They are driving the Frontera from paris to 200 miles north of the Arctic circle. The event has attracted 100 entries .. Backed by Vauxhall .. the winning vehicle should roll into London on October 25th".

E: The International Tundra Snowmobile Long Distance Rally.

"a 2.500 km course through some of the world’s most inhospitable terrain."

F: The Marathon Raid.

"Land rover is to be the official vehicle supplier to the first West-East Paris-Moscow-Beijing Marathon Raid. A total of 37 Land Rover vehicles will support the event in which 260 competitive vehicles will drive nearly 10,000 miles through six countries in 27 days. "With our tradition and heritage of adventure and challenge it is natural that we should be supporting this exciting event" said Chis Woodwark, managing director of land Rover."

G: The Paris-Dakar Rally.

"As the originators of the only sporting event ever to be condemned by the Pope, the French are following the progress of the Paris-Dakar rally with an appropriately heightened level of enthusiasm. The cars currently bouncing through the algerian desert have a remarkable record for killing not only their occupants but almost everything else that gets in their way. Old rally hands still recall the sad case of the world’s loneliest tree, which stood - hundreds of miles from any other known vegetation - on a windswept dune near Tamanrasset. Despite the not inconsiderable space around it, the tree was hit by a French driver and subsequently died."

VII: Motorists have the Right to Park their Cars Wherever they Wish, Especially on Green Spaces.

Motorists believe they have the right to park their cars wherever they wish - whether this is across the pavement or on grass verges designed to reduce the drab realities of concrete strewn estates. If small children have to run out into the road, or if mothers have to push their prams into the streets, to get around a car blocking the pavement this is a matter of total inconsequence to oomano-imperialist motorists. Motorists also believe that cars should be given access to nature reserves, parks, and playing fields so that they can race around churning up the grass leaving deep ruts in the turf. They are in effect telling children that they ought to go and play in the road, "Footballers on Hackney Down are putting mums and toddlers at risk by using the park as a race track before and after matches."

VIII: The Best Way to Protect Greenfield Sites is to use them to hold Car Boot Sales.

A journalist went to his first car boot sale and complained about the fact that it was held, "in a muddy field off the A40." The reason there was so much mud was doubtlessly because hundreds and possibly thousands of motorists had driven over the field to get into the car boot sale. This journalist will probably be leading a campaign to have the field cemented over so that car boot sales can be held there without such an inconvenience.

The trouble with this seemingly innocuous pastime is that most car boot sales are not held on car parks which are so common all over the country but on surplus farmland or on green spaces. It is almost as if motorists regard car boot sales as an opportunity to drive their cars over greenfield sites to which they would not otherwise have had access.

IX: There’s Nothing Wrong with Motorways in London or with Thorp but a Road in My Back Garden would be Environmentally Unsound.

One of the high-powered objectors to the proposal for a second ring road around oxford’s current ring road was sir frank layfield who lives in beckley just outside oxford. In the 1970s he headed a public inquiry which gave the go-ahead for a massive series of new roads through london (most of these proposals were later abandoned because of public protests). It was his report which lead to the construction of the M25. In the 1980s, he headed the public inquiry which gave the go-ahead for the sellafield nuclear reprocessing facility, thorp. Apparently new roads through london and nuclear reprocessing facilities are environmentally sound but roads through herr layfield’s back-garden are not.

X: If we Abolish Fossil Fuels we can have 1,600,000,000 Cars smashing up the Earth’s Life Support System. A Sustainable green Planet can support 1,600,000,000 Cars.

Greenpeace points out that at present, "There are 680 million vehicles on the planet, increasing at the rate of more than one every second, or a new car for every two babies born." It estimates that on a business-as-usual scenario the world vehicle fleet will grow to,

"1,620 million in 2030, and a massive

4,930 million by 2100." Trying to imagine what nearly 5 billion vehicles would be like is just impossible.

Greenpeace proposes that over the next hundred years fossil fuels should be replaced by solar power. In its fossil free energy scenario the world vehicle fleet would grow only to 1,600 million (sic). Although there would be no Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from these solar powered vehicles there would be nearly a billion extra vehicles on the roads in comparison to today’s level, "The total number of road vehicles is constrained to

960 million in 2010,

1,150 million in 2030 and

1,600 million in 2100."

Various types of solar power would be available, "A mix of alternative fuels was assumed. Biofuels meet 10% of fuel use in 2010 and 30% in 2030. Solar electric and solar hydrogen systems were assumed to .. meet 30% of fuel use in 2030 and 80% in 2100. Under these conditions, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels falls more than 40% by the year 2030, and 100% by the year 2100."

XI: The Department of Transport (dot) believes that if it doesn’t measure Pollution then it Doesn’t Exist.

"We have a crisis level in Britain with regard to oxides of nitrogen, which have increased by 126% between 1970 and 1990 says Keith Mason of the Centre for the Exploitation of Science and Technology. He cites recent research showing that levels of nitrogen dioxide as low as 2 parts per million are enough to trigger an attack of asthma. The DoT’s recently published research strategy mentions benzene only once; 1,3 butadiene (a product of combustion which the EPA classifies as a probable human carcinogen and a genotoxin) is not mentioned at all, and the report makes no reference to the harmful effects of air pollutants. (Whilst the dot claims a great success in removing lead from petrol), "Benzene is nothing to do with the DoT" said a DoT spokesman."

"Traffic fumes continue their growing threat to the nation’s health. Latest DoE figures show that road vehicles now emit nearly 90% of the unpleasant toxic gas carbon monoxide. Traffic emissions of nitrogen oxides, which are involved in a number of respiratory complaints, rose 73% during the 1980s. Black smoke from traffic rose 86%. The reason the extent of traffic pollution is not fully appreciated lies mostly in the extraordinary placing of DoE monitoring sites, most of which are not near busy main roads. This is probably why both the public and the medical profession have been slow in making any connection between car fumes and the rapidly growing asthma epidemic, now affecting one child in seven and killing 2000 people a year."

ii) Motorists’ Concept of Pollution.

Motorists have a wide range of opinions about the relationship between the environment and car exhaust pollution. Some motorists believe that car pollution poses no threat whatsoever to ooman health. Some environmentally-aware motorists believe that car pollution does not damage the health of Wildlife. Even those motorists who accept that vehicle exhaust pollution is a hazard to ooman health do not believe it is a danger to the health of the Earth. Most motorists believe there are far more dangerous and more insidious forms of pollution than vehicle exhaust fumes, i.e. Dog Manure.

I: Vehicle Exhaust Fumes No Danger to Ooman Health.

The following quote featured in ‘carbuncle’ but no apology is offered for reproducing it again because it epitomizes the oomano-imperialist atitude of many motorists. When asked about vehicle exhaust pollution, christopher chope, who was at the time a tory transport minister, stated that, "There is no danger to cyclists from air pollution."

II: Cars Helping to Reduce Atmospheric Pollution.

According to some front-line motoring organizations the most technologically advanced cars are helping to make the atmosphere cleaner. This surprising view comes, unsurprisingly, from the aa - many of whose members seem to be participants in a synonym similar organization - alcoholics anonymous. This view is the modern equivalent of the biblical fantasy concerning the transformation of water into wine. .. "car pollution is decreasing due to the use of catalytic converters. A spokesman for the AA .. said studies in London had shown that the air coming out of a car with a catalytic converter was actually cleaner than when it went in." So, is the aa recommending that asthmatics desperately needing a breath of fresh air should rush to the nearest high tech car and take in deep breaths from exhaust pipes fitted with a catalytic converter? What this fact points to is not that cars are cleaning the environment but that the environment has become so highly poisonous that even after it has been pumped through a petrol engine it comes out less poisonous.

III: The worst Pollution is caused by the oldest Cars.

The corollary of the view that the most technologically advanced cars are cleaning the atmosphere is that most car exhaust pollution is caused by old cars which have poor fuel efficiency, "Cars built before 1970 cause the most pollution. One (American) gas guzzler can cause as much pollution as one hundred of the new cars. The new cars are getting even cleaner. America's cars are 50% more fuel efficient now than they were 20 years ago. And alternatives to petrol exist already. Cleaner cars and cleaner petrols have already reduced Los Angeles's smog by 25% in the last ten years."

This argument is not true. The worst pollution is caused by motorists speeding in highly fuel efficient engines with vast horsepower. The scale of speeding is colossal, almost as if motorists are engaged in a massive civil disobedience campaign, "A department of transport statistics bulletin shows that, "In free flowing motorway traffic, 56% of the forty two million cars surveyed at twenty sites exceeded 70mph, while 18% exceeded 80mph and 2% exceeded 90mph."

One of the main ideological advantages of this argument is that it enables rich motorists in big, new cars to put the blame for environmental pollution on poorer motorists in smaller cars.

III: The best way to Reduce Atmospheric Pollution is to sell More Cars.

The main reason why multi-national car corporations and their allies promote the argument that most pollution is caused by the oldest cars is that it enables them to encourage motorists to go out and buy new cars. Car manufacturers/retailers are constantly looking for new ways to sell cars. When environmentalists began complaining about pollution from car exhausts some car sellers reacted by ignoring or dismissing the problem. Others, however, were bright enough to try and turn a disadvantage into a new sales pitch. If people want to reduce atmospheric pollution they should go out and buy a new car. Ian mccallister, the ford uk managing director said, "Ten per cent of older vehicles cause 50% of pollution - particularly unregulated diesel cars. It is time for the government to look at the actions taken in France and Spain to stimulate sales of new cars - and more importantly (sic) encourage removal of the older vehicles that do most damage." Mr McCallister said they (‘cash for bangers’ policies) have had a big impact on sales - up by 14% in France and 19% in Spain, compared with 9% in Britain.". The argument that most pollution is caused by the oldest cars is not put forward not to reduce pollution but to sell even more cars - after all, if motorists buy a new car and sell their old cars, RATHER THAN HAVING THEM SCRAPPED, this will increase the number of cars on the roads and thus increase, not decrease, car exhaust emissions.

IV: Public Transport causes Similar Levels of Pollution to Private Transport.

Atmospheric pollution is becoming so widespread in most cities around the country that motorists can no longer deny its existence, like christopher chope, so they have been forced to change their ideological tactics and have tried to shift the blame elsewhere. Desperately trying to protect their polluting cars, an increasing number of motorists are starting to blame buses for pollution. The pollution caused by buses should be highlighted but it should not be allowed to obscure the pollution caused by motorists.

A: The Brutish Government.

The brutish government has made the amazing discovery that private transport isn’t that much more polluting than public transport, "The government’s other alibi is that public transport isn’t much less polluting than cars. The 1990 Environment White paper included an index table showing relative CO2 emissions per passenger km from different modes. With car emissions at 100, regional railways and the London Underground are 85-90, Network South East is around 70-85. Only with Inter-City and London Bus (around 50) do you get serious reductions. This nonsense is about average occupancy rates and empty running. Commuter trains do a lot of empty running outside peak hours, while rural trains are not very well used."

B: Irate Motorist.

Over the summer of 1994, a report was issued which highlighted the huge number of cancers caused by fine particles emitted by diesel engines. One motorized loony living in oxford used this information to write a letter to the local paper denouncing the city council’s plan to combat the high levels of pollution in the city centre by banning the prvate car, "Do they know that the pollution in the air has been found to come from diesel, and 38% of particulate matter could cause 10,000 deaths a year from heart attack and strokes. I believe that it is not the car that should be banned; it should be the buses and the lorries." This motorist’s ability to regurgitate research findings let alone interpret them, leaves a lot to be desired. Give motorists a clean smelling fact and they’ll turn it into something poisonous.

C: Oxford Journal; Car Ban May Boost Pollution.

A local freebie paper in oxford picked up on the same report about the cancers caused by pm10s, "Plans to ban cars from the centre of Oxford could lead to an increase in pollution. As more and more car drivers take public transport an increase in buses is anticipated. Recent studies point to a link between pollutants emitted by buses’ diesel engines and cancer, whereas car pollution is decreasing due to the use of catalytic converters." Quite how long catalytic converters are going to function efficiently to reduce vehicle exhaust pollutants has not yet been determined.

V: Government set to Ban Pollution .... from Cigarettes not Cars.

It was pointed out in ‘carbuncle’ that in australia in the early 1990s, a bus driver, who was diagnozed as having lung cancer, sued his employers on that grounds that his illness had been caused by passengers smoking on his bus. He won his case and was awarded a large sum of money. It was suggested, somewhat fantastically, that 20,000 pedestrians then sued the driver for a range of lung and respiratory ailments caused by the vast amounts of pollution emitted by his bus.

Most motorists believe that more pollution is created by cigarette smokers than by cars. There are various individuals within the brutish government who are passionately against smoking in public - cigarettes that is not cars, "Smoke free zones should be provided in pubs and restaurants, the government urged last night. Environment minister baroness denton insisted that, "People rightly expect to be able to breathe unpolluted air." - but presumably not in places outside pubs and clubs. Indeed she probably wouldn’t object to motorists driving their cars into pubs and revving their engines whilst supping a pint or two.

VI: Motorists and Dog Crap.

It was pointed out in the first issue of 'mappa mundi' that at the 1990 tory party conference, many delegates speaking to a motion praising the policies of the then secretary of state for the environment, Chris Patten, concentrated their ire not on the colossal pollution from heavy industries or power generation or the toxic waste disposal industry, but on dog manure. One delegate even went so far as to suggest that, "Dog manure was easily the worst form of pollution on Earth."

In the preposterous cosmology of the motorist, Dog Manure occupies a role similar to that of the devil in christianity. It preoccupies the minds of middle class motorists more than any other environmental issue. Bhopal leaves motorists indifferent, chernobyl causes a degree of annoyance, toxic waste incinerators stimulate anger, but only Dog Manure turns motorists livid.

It's bad enough that motorists consume so much of the Earth’s non-renewable resources; that they devastate large areas of the Planet; and that they are creating an ecological holocaust, but what makes this situation so nightmarishly ludicrous is that they condemn as a source of pollution a natural process which is crucial to the survival of the Earth's life sustaining processes. Motorists seem to be totally unconcerned about the deposits left behind by their cars, no matter how many thousands of people are being slaughtered by damage caused to human health by car exhaust fumes. The are incensed, however, about Canine deposits which, as far as is known, have not yet killed a single person. There are a couple of new ‘motorists-hate-dog-crap’ stories from those outlined in ‘carbuncle’.

A: The Government’s Poopa-Scoopa Campaign.

The government was forced to jump on the ‘Dog Manure is the biggest threat to western civilization’ bandwagon by the massed ranks of tory motorized loonies and then spent a couple of million pounds producing a tv commercial requesting dog owners to clean up their Dog’s Manure. There has not yet been a commercial persuading motorists to clean up their deposits and to stop murdering thousands of people each year.

B: Flying Shit.

A large number of motorists in thame, a small village in oxfordshire, became extremely irate at the amount of Manure being deposited in the town’s parks. Action was needed, "They plan to tie a balloon to every piece of excrement in Elms Park to show how bad the problem is." As has been indicated above the mundi club believes that motorists attitudes to Dog Manure are hypocritical and insane but when members of one of the world’s most technologically advanced and culturally sophisticated countries, decide they are going to spend their evenings tying up Dog Manure then it is transparent that oomans are on their way out.

Perhaps there was some reaction to this idea of acting like anal rodeos pouncing on Dog Manure and tying it up (thereby preventing it from running away ... between people’s fingers) because a month or so later the plan had been changed. Apparently suffering not the slightest embarrassment from this public relations disaster, the good motorists of thame decided their protest would take the form of a mass drive-by past the town hall before driving into the park and then, leaning out of their vehicles, planting a balloon above each piece of Manure. In the history of modern lunacy the photogenic possibilities of this protest were unsurpassable but, unfortunately, whether the local papers were on the spot to record the event for posterity is not known.

The leader of thame council, sniffing on the car exhaust pipe he has taken to carrying around with him because of the clean air it has provided him with over the last two decades, stated that the aim of the protest was to highlight the fact that the biggest environmental problem in the country was Dog Manure and that it was about time people made a stand on the issue, "Thame’s dirtiest problem (sic) is to get the pretty balloon treatment in a bid to make people aware. Every little pile of dog’s mess in Elms Park will have its own special coloured balloon on April 16th. The Balloons will be planted by members and officers of the council." It is believed there will be red balloons for pieces over 16 ounces; blue for the 16-8 ounce range; and orange for the diddy 8-0 ounce range.

iii) Motorists and the Environment.

I: Car Names: If it Sounds Green Then it must be Green.

It was pointed out in ‘carbuncle’ that many multi-national car corporations were greening the Earth by giving their poisonous, Earth-wrecking vehicles environmentally friendly names e.g. 'ghia' (Gaia?); 'terra' and 'umwelt' (german for environment). Since then symbolism has continued to flourish in the car industry.

A: The Terrano; Mondeo; Savannah and Rio.

In the run up to, and in the immediate aftermath of, the rio Earth summit a number of global car manufacturers showed their environmental credentials by giving their cars green sounding names e.g. the ‘terrano’; ‘mondeo’; ‘savannah’ and even ‘rio’ itself.

B: The Probe and the Clio.

It wasn’t long, however, before car manufacturers reverted back to their old ways and came up with names which once again manifests the car’s power/sexuality - the most blatant of which was the thrusting ‘probe’. All credit to the manufacturers, however, for noticing that increasing numbers of women have started driving cars - despite the eco-feminist crap about women being so-called Earth Mothers. One of the new names designed to gratify these new entrants to the car market is ‘the clio’ driven by both essex girls (e.g. sharon and tracey) and by sloane range(rove)rs as an urban run around. This does not surprise the mundi club whatsoever. The car has always reminded us of the clitoris. At night it’s tucked away in its little garage to make sure that it doesn’t get wet or frosty. Then, in the morning, when its time for action, the garage doors burst open and out glides this gleaming bonnet. Rhhhhhmmmmm, rrrhhhhhmmm.

C: The Calibra.

Another car celebrating the liberation of rich women. In the past this sporty car would have been called calijock.

II: Famous Green Car Stickers.

‘Carbuncle’ contained quite a number of examples of green car stickers. Since then no new ones have been noticed. We also asked readers to send in their favourite car stickers. The response was flabbergasting. None.

A: Vernon Coleman.

Vernon coleman has launched a campaign to ban Animal experiments and has produced a car sticker to publicize the campaign. This sticker has not yet been spotted.

B: Q8.

One of the car stickers mentioned in ‘carbuncle’ was ‘Q8 - Unleaded Petrol won’t Drive you Crazy’. It should have been mentioned that this seems to suggest that without lead in it petrol is entirely safe. This neglects the fact that the alternative to lead in petrol, benzene, causes cancer and that nitrogen dioxide from petrol, whether leaded or unleaded, crippling thousands of people with asthma and killing a substantial proportion of the two thousand people who die each year from the disease.

III: The only way to Protect the Environment is to Employ Motorists. Motorists Make The Best Environmentalists.

It was pointed out in ‘carbuncle’ that virtually every job advert in the environmental sector requests that applicants must be a car-owner and invariably includes an extremely lucrative offer of a massive car allowance. Demanding that environmentalists must drive Earth-wrecking machines is like demanding that bank managers must be experienced armed robbers or that child welfare workers should be practizing paedophiles.

As far as wrekin council is concerned the only people who can save the environment are motorists. It advertised for a woodland management officer. Salary to £16,962 plus a subsidized Lease car or essential car user allowance. The council insisted that, "You will hold a current driving licence."

IV: Saving the Car by Promoting Cycling.

"Howard Davies, the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry has joined the London Cyclist Campaign. This follows a call by the CBI in an interim report from their London Transport Task Force, for a shift away from car traffic to benefit business in the capital. The report calls for active encouragement of cycling and improvement of the conditions for cyclists on the roads.."

V: Can’t See Beyond the Windscreen Wipers.

It was pointed out in ‘carbuncle’ that it had taken the royal automobile club nearly 90 years before it recognized there was a problem with car exhaust pollution, "When the RAC's Public Policy Committee met recently, the members were ready to take a revolutionary step. For the first time in the RAC's 93 year history, it announced environmental support by advocating the use of catalytic converters. A year ago it would have been unthinkable."

The automobile association also seems so besotted with cars they can’t see beyond the windscreen wipers, "The AA's 'Balance Sheet of Motoring' .. attempts to dismiss the environment as a cost of motoring. The AA doesn't even recognize any social or environmental costs."

Over the last few years multi-national road/car/oil corporations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars publicizing their attempts to green the car. It’s all a lot of tosh, of course, but many motorists now believe the car is green - well they would wouldn’t they?

I THOUGHT CARS HAD BEEN GREENED?

i) Green Petrol.

I: Unleaded Petrol.

After decades of poisoning the atmosphere with lead, thereby retarding children’s intellectual development simply so that motorists could put their foot down on the accelerator, multi-national oil corporations introduced lead free petrol and proclaimed it to be environmentally friendly. This is not the case. Firstly, all petrol contains lead even if none is added to it. Secondly, the chemical used instead of lead to boost petrol’s octane rating is just as damaging to human health, "In November 1989, the BBC TV programme 'Public Eye' claimed that benzene exposure produced up to 5000 cancer related deaths each year in the UK."; "Benzene is .. a known carcinogen causing leukemia, chromosome aberrations and the suppression of blood cell formation in humans."; The World Health Organization believes that, "no safe limit to benzene can be recommended."; "Cancer-causing benzene ... has reached alarming levels. Dr Wolffe, a toxicologist at University College, London, blames benzene for many of the 'pockets' of leukaemia found around Britain in recent years."; "Cancer-causing benzene ... has reached alarming levels. Dr Wolffe, a toxicologist at University College, London, blames benzene for many of the 'pockets' of leukaemia found around Britain in recent years."; "People who use unleaded fuel without converters think they are driving green cars," says Dr Simon Wolffe, a leading poisons expert at University College, London. "In fact, they are chucking out even greater quantities of dangerous pollutants than an old banger. The (House of Commons) Transport committee report says, "The use of petrols with high levels of aromatic components is likely to lead to a rise in cancer cases. In particular, benzene is one of the key pollutants believed to be implicated in the development of leukaemia, especially in children. Between 1986 and 1991, prescriptions for asthma drugs more than doubled." Cars are the major source of benzene, "The major sources of benzene in air are emissions from motor vehicles and evaporation losses during the handling, distribution and storage of gasoline."

Multinational oil corporations knew about the health threat posed by benzene even before they decided to use it as a substitute for lead. The petrol/benzene mixture, known as benzole, was commonly used during the 1950s but was withdrawn after concerns about public health. Britain is alone in permitting its use as a lead substitute; in europe and the united states, methyl tertiary butyl ether or MTBE is used. In other words, multi-national oil corporations replaced a highly toxic additive with a known carcinogen.

Before the dangers of benzene became publicly known one multi-national oil corporation was pleased to announce, "Esso were the first to develop unleaded petrol, first to sell it nationally ...". For an unknown reason this boast was slightly changed in the next ‘advert’, "Esso was the first company to introduce unleaded petrol in the UK." The same advert also implied that esso was responsible for developing super unleaded (which contains even greater quantities of benzene), "Then, to meet the demand for better performance from unleaded petrol, Esso produced Super Unleaded - with 98 octane rating giving smooth power when it is needed while causing less damage to the environment." The house of commons transport committee went so far as to say that this fuel was so dangerous it ought to be banned.

II: Diesel.

Multi-national car corporations have promoted diesel is an energy efficient fuel and thus more environmentally friendly than petrol. The car owning green movement has jumped at this chance to defend diesel engines,

* "Diesel engines .."are by nature lean burn and burn fuel more efficiently, which means that they can produce on average less than 10% of the carbon monoxide and 25% of the hydrocarbons emitted by petrol engines equipped with a 90% efficient three-way catalyst."

** "Changing from petrol to diesel engines would reduce fuel consumption by 20-30% estimates the Energy Technology Support Unit."

*** "Before this year's budget, both the National Society for Clean Air and Friends of the Earth called for lower taxes on diesel because of supposedly higher fuel efficiency.".

Fortunately, however, there have been a number of critics of diesel engines. As far as global warming is concerned, " The World Health Organization says diesel exhaust is a "probable carcinogen"."

One critic challenged the idea that diesel is more fuel efficienct than petrol, "However, diesel is denser than petrol and gives off 12% more CO2 per litre or gallon. To compare real fuel efficiencies, one should not use miles-per-gallon, but miles per kilogramme of fuel or per kg of carbon in the oxides of CO and CO2 emitted. Then the best petrol-engine cars score as high as the best diesel cars. The tax per litre on diesel should be at least 12% higher than on petrol. But by making it lower, as it is at present, the government is giving preference to diesel smoke emissions - ten times worse than from petrol emissions - unhealthy, probably carcinogenic and the major cause of urban dirt. For a full environmental comparison, one has to consider other emissions, particularly the noxious nitogen emissions (NOx). Diesel cars emit more NOx per km than similar sized petrol cars fitted with catalytic converters, and even more of the worse component, NO2. The Treasury's current encouragement of diesel fuel is quite unjustified."; "The more efficient combustion of fuel achieved in a diesel engine does result in fewer hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions. The lower ignition temperatures involved also generate fewer nitrogen oxides. Diesel fuel, however, contains more carbon than petrol, typically around 12% more, thus a diesel engine must be at least this much more efficient to equal the CO2 emission rates for a petrol car."

As far as human health is concerned there are a number of criticisms about diesel engines. Firstly, " The World Health Organization says diesel exhaust is a "probable carcinogen"." Secondly, recent research by joel schwartz of the harvard school of public health has suggested that microscopic particles emitted in diesel exhaust fumes (called pm10s) could be responsible for a variety of fatal illnesses .. "could cause up to 10,000 deaths a year in Britain from heart attacks and strokes .." It is believed the chief culprit is the diesel engine which allegedly causes 38% of pm10s. Thirdly, "Many environmentally aware people have in recent years espoused diesel engines in their cars. But a recent report from the Ashden Trust indicated that the rise in asthma in the UK was directly attributable to high levels of emissions from such car engines.."

III: Detergent Petrol.

The latest in the line of green, so called ‘environmentally friendly’, petrols is detergent petrol .. "if you use Esso second generation detergent petrols and keep your car well maintained you will be doing your best to reduce air pollution ..." It is a little difficult to understand how a petrol which removes pollutants in a car engine and then dumps them into the atmosphere can be less environmentally polluting than a non-detergent petrol. The mundi club would love to see the tests carried out which enabled esso to make such a claim - if tests were carried out. The one point which the mundi club always stress as regards multi-national corporations is that they are inveterate, corporate liars and that nothing they say should ever be taken as the truth and that to do so is to put one’s life at risk.

ii) Reusing Car Fluids; The Oil Recycling Con.

A number of fluids are used in various parts of a car e.g. fuel tank, engine and gearbox, shock absorbers, brakes, and cooling system. In the past most of these fluids were simply dumped into the local sewers where they ended up poisoning acquatic life in streams, rivers and the oceans, "The oil industry claims more than 5 million gallons of used car oil (equivalent to one-fifth of the Braer's cargo) is dumped by British DIY enthusiasts into sewerage systems or on the soil each year."

In recent years attempts have been made to stop this form of pollution. Many 'green minded' motorists have taken used oil along to their local 'recycling' centre in the belief that this highly poisonous waste will then be recycled. Unfortunately, there is no magical process which detoxifies the oil and enables it to be recycled. Most of it is given to garages to be used as a cheap form of heating which, of course, causes atmospheric pollution, "The vast majority of waste oil that is recovered is used for fuel. Burning this oil releases heavy metals, chlorines and fluorines into the atmosphere. Currently only heaters of over 3 megawatts capacity are required by legislation to fit cleaners for air pollutants. Space heaters in 10,000 garages throughout the country burn at least 40,000 tonnes of waste oil a year with no restrictions at all."

iii) Catalytic Converters.

Multi-national car corporations most prominent claim to have greened their cars is the role of catalytic converters in reducing car exhaust emissions. There are two main flaws with this so called green technology.

I: Boosting Earth-damaging Pollution.

Catalytic converters increase Earth-damaging pollution.

Firstly, catalytic converters do not affect emissions of Carbon dioxide, the main anthropogenic greenhouse gas. Secondly, catalytic converters convert Carbon monoxide to Carbon dioxide, "Catalytic converters convert some of the more harmful emissions to CO2."; "The catalytic converter has contributed to impressive reductions in hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions in the United States, but it actually slightly increases the CO2 build-up which contributes to climate change."

It is often argued that one of the advantages of catalytic converters is that they reduce emissions of Carbon monoxide, a greenhouse gas, "All new petrol-engine vehicles .. must have catalytic converters to eliminate this gas (carbon monoxide). As older cars are scrapped, we anticipate not an increase over the next 20 years but a huge decrease." This is true but not strictly accurate. Catalytic converters convert CO to CO2 the main anthropogenic greenhouse gas. Boasting that cats remove CO greenhouses gases is therefore completely misleading when the Carbon is converted into another greenhouse gas.

Thirdly, catalytic converters have to be used with unleaded petrol. This causes an increase in fuel consumption and produces more CO2 emissions. ‘Cats’ .. "cause power loss and a consequent decrease in performance. The industry average for a catalyst conforming to European norms is a 3% power loss while the corresponding loss for a cat-equipped car conforming to 1983 US norms is 8%. Manufacturers have tackled this problem by increasing engine capacity in order to compensate for the loss in power or by equipping cars with performance-enhancing modifications, such as turbochargers or multi-valve engines. The penalty is an increase in fuel consumption and thus carbon dioxide emissions."

It is difficult to determine the overall impact of catalytic converters on global warming. Some light greens believe the effect is not significant.

II: Boosting Human-damaging Pollution.

It is possible that catalytic converters also increase human damaging pollution.

Cats only work under certain highly limited conditions, "Catalytic converters do not start to function until the engine reaches a working temperature of 300C and will not perform optimally until 1000C. As the majority of car journeys are of five miles or less engines rarely get much past the first temperature."

Secondly, contrary to the views expressed by multi-national corporations, and by somewhat naive greens, catalytic converters become less effective over time. It was pointed out above that ‘cats’ have to be used with unleaded petrol because lead clogs up ‘cats’ pores. The fact is, however, that all petrols contain lead and this begins to degrade ‘cats’, "Catalytic converter's effectiveness rapidly declines with use. Tests of catalytic converters in operating cars show that up to 25,000 miles of use, 45% of the cars meet the carbon monoxide emission standard; between 25,000 and 50,000 miles of use, 28% meet the standard; and with more than 50,000 miles of use, only 10% meet the standard." The reason that manufacturers claim that ‘cats’ remain efficient is because they know that motorists would object if they knew they would have to buy a new ‘cat’ every couple of years.

As ‘cats’ become less efficient they boost pollution, "a badly maintained catalytic-equipped car produces as much pollution as up to 40 cleaner vehicles." If catalytic converters are not replaced every few years they will exacerbate pollution.

Thirdly, the mining, manufacturing, distribution and disposal of catalytic converters creates an enormous amount of pollution, "More generally, the manufacture of converters apparently creates more pollution in toto than is saved during their use."

In conclusion, robert davis is quite correct, "It might be thought pessimistic to suggest that the removal of lead from petrol and the introduction of catalytic converters are only a smokescreen. However, the benefits of such measures are utterly trivial compared to the pollution problems posed by motor traffic."

iv) ‘Recycling’ CFCs.

Whilst air conditioning units are a rarity in cars built for great brutland they are commonplace in cars built for the japanese and american markets. It is therefore not commonly appreciated in great brutland that cars are the world’s biggest source of cfcs and the biggest contributor to the destruction of the Earth’s ozone layer. Ever eager to be seen as environmentally friendly, especially after a particularly damaging attack on the Earth’s life support system, car manufacturers are now trying either to recycle cfcs or to phase them out altogether. Unsurprisingly, however, things are not working out as might have been hoped - but then, as far as the car manufacturers are concerned, as long as they get their publicity from appearing to be green what does it matter if the hype doesn’t match the reality, "Although Japanese carmakers are switching to a CFC-substitute refrigerant in their cars' air conditioners, the 45 million cars on Japan's roads still contain CFCs. These will require occasional recharging for some time yet, and with controls on ozone-depleters, the price of CFCs is spiralling. Japanese entrepreneurs have reacted in two ways; a lively recycling industry has been set up and outright crime has set in. The CFCs recovered in scrap merchants' yards is showing a regular tendency to disappear."

v) Green ‘Recyclable’ Cars.

Some multi-national car corporations are promoting the idea that they have created green cars because they are made of materials which can be recycled, "Slump hit Ford today nervously take the wraps off their "world car" the new Mondeo. They claim the replacement for the Sierra is greener and safer than its rivals. And the motor giant is banking on it having global appeal. More than 85% of the Mondeo’s parts can be recycled."; Audi claimed in recent television advertisement that the audi 80 is largely recyclable.

It has been pointed out that .. "some 1.4 million cars are scrapped annually in the UK. This work of reclamation and recycling has been traditionally carried out by local scrapyards. The use made of vehicles in this ad hoc system has always been somewhat arbitrary. Some parts of old vehicles are recycled directly through the market in second hand spares. Other high value components - such as batteries - are stripped out to be recycled separately. Whatever is left is generally crushed to reduce its volume and then transported to a shredder mill. Here the carcass of the vehicle is mechanically chopped into small pieces about 80mm in size. Ferrous metals are extracted fairly straightforwardly due to their magnetic properties; nearly 100% of the original steel and cast iron is recovered. Other screening methods save up to 90% of aluminium and other non-ferrous metals. However, little of the non-metallic residue is currently salvaged for reuse. Whilst a small amount of this is incinerated the vast majority finds its way into land fill sites where it is buried. Whilst this represents only 25% of the residue by weight, in terms of volume it represents over half the material from each original car."

In general, cars are becoming less and less recyclable for two reasons. Firstly, because manufacturers are increasingly replacing metals, which are more easily recyclable, with plastics which are much more difficult to recycle .. "whereas only 2% of the average 1965 model was made up of plastic polymers they account for nearly 12% of a current model's weight. Not only does this mean that increasing amounts of this waste will have to be accommodated in landfill sites - at an increase in cost per vehicle, it also presents shredding mills with the problem of higher levels of impurities in the metal they reclaim - which reduces its value. The costs of processing are also increased as the proportion of valueless waste increases."

Secondly, car manufacturers are producing increasing numbers of car accessories many of which are made largely of plastics. As a consequence, "A top of the range family saloon may have as many as 20,000 different components in a variety of metals and polymers." This makes it almost impossible to recycle these materials.

The claims made by both ford and audi are highly imaginative since their claims cannot about recycling cannot possibly refer to either car model in their entirety because both are packed with accessories which contain large amounts of plastics which are extremely difficult to recycle.

vi) Green Concept Cars.

Some multi-national car corporations claim they are getting closer to the creation of a futuristic green car. The ‘profile’ is a good example of such a new concept car, "A new 150mph high performance car from Ford runs on natural gas as well as unleaded fuel. The Profile’s 240 horsepower all-aluminium, 24 valve, 2.5 litre V6 engine is fuel injected and supercharged, has achieved an average top speed of 150mph during testing. The Profile’s sunroof incorporates a solar panel which provides up to 30 watts of continuous power on a sunny day." Although it’s a new concept in cars its hardly a new concept in motoring - if anything its worse than what exists already. The fuel efficiencies gained as a result of switching from petrol to natural gas are completely lost because of the huge increase in the car’s power. This should not be surprising. Car manufacturers are especially enthusiastic about fuel efficiencies because this enables them to boost a car’s power, "Dutch researchers .. found that carmakers used the "excuse" of greater fuel efficiency to increase the power of their engines." Thus, desperate attempts by car-owning greens to defend the car by arguing that, "Over the last 15 years, the average car has become significantly more fuel efficient."are vacuous. Car engines have become more fuel efficient but they have also become more powerful so, despite the amazing technological progress, the overall effect on vehicle exhaust emissions is little different.

vii) Supergreen Cars.

Not content with allowing multi-national car corporations to get away with publicizing the idea that they are friendly and caring companies desperately trying to create greens cars, some car owning greens have come up with their own ideas about how to produce green cars. Amory lovins, one of the world’s leading supergreens, is promoting a lightweight, fuel efficient supercar which uses a flywheel to conserve the energy lost when motorists use their brakes. "A complete supercar, able to run at 200-300mpg, lighter than a modern executive style motorcycle and as simple to service as a computer, is looming. According to Amory Lovins, "We could be about to embark on one of the greatest adventures of industrial history. Ready or not here it comes. What could be on offer is not something which sacrifices other attributes for efficiency, but something far more safe, peppy, pollution free, reliable, durable, quiet, comfortable and beautiful than existing cars, yet priced about the same or less.""

Step one for building a supercar: start from scratch and make one so light, so aerodynamically efficient that it hardly needs power. In urban driving on level roads, about one-third of a car’s energy goes on heating brakes, a third to heating the air that is pushed aside and a third to heating the tyres and road. On the open road, air resistance accounts for up to 60-70% of energy used.

Step two .. using ultralight synthetic carbon-fibre bodied passenger cars. Carbon fibre is stiffer and stronger than steel but a quarter as dense. It's mouldable, can be coloured in production, provides an infinity of complicated shapes that are not possible in metal and can take tolerances of micrometres which means parts can just snap together.

Step three, power: the future, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute and progressive car makers, is in electric 'hybrids' which use a small petrol, diesel or gas turbine engine to drive an electric generator and not, directly, the wheels."

Lovins believes that just as the microcomputer industry was once dominated by ibm and was then over-taken by bargain basement businesses so the same will happen to the world's giant car-makers, "If supercar entrepreneurs are half as smart as their computer counterparts and structure their operations radically, they could slash car dealer support services, sell directly to consumers, assemble cars immediately and locally, and save up to a quarter of current car costs. Car companies .. go to heroic lengths to adapt engine capacity rather than retool. Their strategy is to postpone change and hope their competitors don't act faster."

The idea that it is possible to produce pollution free cars is just utterly absurd. The next concept on the science fiction production line being run by these crackpot supergreens is gravity-free cars. Unfortunately, this supergreen cars encourage motorists to accelerate vigorously and to travel at high speeds because the higher the speed and the harder that motorists brake, the greater the energy they save because of the flywheel and thus the more energy they have available to accelerate away again at high speed.

viii) Green Roads.

It has recently been argued that roads will soon be green, "A road is getting the green treatment with a new environmentally friendly resurfacing process. The road is being pulverised, mixed with cement and then relaid .. The form claims the process saves up to 90% of the energy used by other methods of repairing badly damaged roads, and is often quicker. It also involves fewer big lorries to cart away rubble."

ix) Green Tyres.

Multi-national tyre corporations have made a couple of boasts about green tyres. Firstly, recycling tyres and, secondly, burning tyres to create green energy. Neither of these is as green as they might appear.

Firstly, recycling tyres would be a considerable help in making the car environmentally less unfriendly if it wasn’t for the fact that recycling is being used to manufacture high performance tyres, "More and more motorists now have the opportunity to buy low profile, performance tyres at affordable prices - thanks to recycled tyre manufacturer Colway. They have recognized the fact that drivers are demanding a high-speed tyre, but are reluctant to pay the prices asked for many original equipment makes." Any pollution reduction achieved by recycling tyres is lost when motorists put their foot down on the accelerator and start ‘burning rubber’ because they are using high performance tyres.

Secondly, burning tyres to create electricity and products which can be recycled seems sensible. A £50 million incinerator is being built by elm energy at wolverhampton .. "that will be capable of converting 12 million tyres a year into electricity."; "Britain’s first tyre incinerator, at Wolverhampton will burn up to 90,000 tonnes of rubber a year. A burning tyre generates almost as much heat as an equivalent weight of coal. The plant will generate 25MW. It will also produce by-products such as 15,000 tonnes of steel .. and more than 2000 tonnes of zinc oxide .." Unfortunately .. "because the Elm plant is less efficient than a large, modern, coal-fired power station, unit for unit, it will produce more CO2. In terms of global warming, it would make sense to dig up coal and bury the tyres."