The problem currently requires a technological solution to repair the damage done, as well as finding a method of preventing further damage. So whilst I am hearing about the engineering developments that can fix our planet with great interest and a growing sense of hope, I am taking steps to reduce the impact of my activities and ultimately to implement methods to completely eliminate any negative impact on the environment.

So here’s what I am doing plus a few other ideas;
Mileage; I have reduced my driven mileage drastically, this has caused a lifestyle change and a reduction in income, but it’s worth it. I don’t do the ‘rush hour’ any more and quite frankly I am much happier as a result and spend the 2 hours a day I save with my family, and tinkering with my cars occasionally.
Recycling old cars; Although I work on developing new cars, I don’t buy them. I favour very old cars, saving them from the scrap heap and reusing second hand parts to keep them in good order. As an engineer I hate waste, inefficiency really upsets me and seeing a perfectly usable vehicle needlessly crushed makes me very annoyed. We have more than enough cars for everyone’s needs already, and whilst I support the car industry I feel the huge volumes produced are very wasteful. Some old cars can be very efficient if treated right, remember that CO2 emission is directly proportional to fuel consumption, so a 30 year old car doing 40mpg such as an MGB has the same CO2 output as a modern 40mpg car such as an MR2.
Fuels; Bioethanol has had a very bad press, the argument that using food to make fuel is more wasteful than using food as food, which makes sense. However, this only refers to what we call ‘phase 1’ bio fuels, made from sugar beet etc, but there are ‘phase 2’ fuels coming on stream now which are made from waste, not food. Typically it is made from the stalks from wheat or other vegetable matter not normally eaten, the hard structure is broken down in a rather clever process to from hydrocarbons, but this is more expensive than the simple still system used on phase 1 fuels so it is less popular, but technology will improve with time and investment.
We need to convince producers that there is a desire for phase 2 bio fuels, and I support using bio fuels as supplied now to start things off.

Ultimately I favour hydrogen, something I personally want to implement is a home wind turbine electrolysing rain water running a car converted using CNG injection equipment and a high pressure tank. I realise this has a very limited capacity and also fuel storage on the vehicle is a limiting factor, but I typically drive less than 30 miles on a trip so if it can store that much then it suits me. It is perfectly feasible using current technology to convert older cars to hydrogen with zero tailpipe pollution, we already have the cars, the CNG kits and the wind turbines, we just need commercially viable electrolysers, tanks and compressors, all of which exist in low volume and prototype form currently. Surely this is a technology begging for government funding?

Own more cars. The idea that one design of car will suit all uses is ridiculous, I have a 4x4 for towing and off road use and I have a small family car for small family stuff. It would be sensible to have a car suited to each of the main uses a person has, so a small commuter car (or better still a motorbike) for going to work, a small hatch for shopping, an estate for the family holiday to Skegness etc. Now, many people live in those horrible city things and have no parking, but they have access to much better bus and train links than the rest of us so maybe they only need a car for long journeys, but the rest of us can benefit from the greater efficiency of using the right tool for the job, if only road tax was reduced!

Now on to other matters, I like my Landrover, and the anti 4x4 lobby is really getting on my wick. Many comparisons have been quoted which are totally unrepresentative, and where a 4x4 is argued to have worse fuel consumption it is rarely worse by more than about 10% if compared to a truly equivalent 4x2 vehicle, and as stated above although reduction in output is good it is not the real solution.
Anyway, my old Discovery takes up less road space than a Mondeo and only consumes about 45 litres each month, I bet many Prious owners use more than that.

My old Jaguar race car uses about 20 litres of fuel per race and the same for practice/qualifying, and I rarely manage more than 5 races per year which works out at 200 litres in total per year. Compare this to a rep with a respectable 50mpg car, doing 20 thousand miles per year, that’s over 1800 litres, or nearly six tons of CO2, per year.

I am vigorously opposed to the ‘Scrappage’ system, where the government gives money to remove older cars when buying new ones, this is purely to promote buying new cars and if the customer has a perfectly usable older car then this is at best unnecessary and at worst extremely wasteful and damaging to the environment. It also poses a great risk to classic car owners and those who buy cheap cars to provide parts to keep their own car in good condition, as the value of cheap cars will be distorted and vast resources of spare parts and usable older cars are needlessly destroyed. If someone is in the position to buy a new car then it is unlikely that they currently drive a car with a value below the government incentive value, so they are more likely to buy a cheap car for the purpose of trading in, thus increasing low end car values out of the reach of many struggling to make ends meet. It is immoral and ineffective in the longer term. Unserviceable cars are already removed from the road with the MOT process so the scrappage idea will only serve to increase new car sales, which as stated above is a bad thing.