Global warming & emissions
Point for discussion. To encourage being greener and help reduce emissions should the club make a significant charge for extra vehicles on site. For example, taking a MH and a car?
Comments
-
No. Not at all.
Those cars already contribute to Govt coffers and, if heavy polluters, are penalised.
Why should we encourage the club to take more money off members when some of those extra cars will be hybrids or EVs?
Your idea is purely a money making exercise and disappoints me as, anyone who participates in this hobby, and that includes the club, would be acting hypocritically to put green issues to the fore in relation to the vehicles we use just to go touring around this country, and beyond, purely for leisure reasons.
1 -
wot he said
2 -
If there are extra vehicles on site it is most likely that if the owner wanted to go off-site they would take one or the other, probably not both so the emissions remain as per one vehicle.
Whilst not particularly doing it for any altruistic reason, this year we are not going to France but staying in England. Our towing mileage and therefore emissions will be a lot less so I guess we have helped do our bit. Having said that, out of interest I checked on the NOx emission of my car, (2 ltr 180bhp 2015 Ford Mondeo) and found the emissions were approximately 25% of the legal maximum so no incentive to even consider any other fuel type for the time being.
0 -
Would be interesting to read/know the OP's viewpoint as to whether or not the club should make a significant charge for extra vehicles on site as the post appears to suggest (e.g. yes or no) and also the reason(s) why the club should do it.
I personally think it would be unreasonable to expect the club to make such a charge.
1 -
Isn't what the OP suggests a bit counter intuitive? If instead of using a small economic car on site the motorhome owner used his motorhome to go out for the day it would likely cause as much if not more emissions than using the small towed car? Whether the Club decide to charge for a second vehicle on a pitch is a totally different question.
David
2 -
The Op quoted "for example" so I presume it's a general issue about extra vehicles on site. The club already charges for some extra vehicles and charging won't stop emissions on sites, people pay already for these extras.
The club could maybe cut down in other ways on the rising costs of utilities and burning fossil fuels?
0 -
Quite so. Should Euro4 vehicles incur a greater charge than Euro6, and so on. Should towed second cars be allowed to stay foc while those driven to the site be charged? The computations are endless!
In my opinion it’s unreasonable and, if I may say so, quite a silly idea.
1 -
It already happens to some extent for caravans,if you park your extra car on a pitch it is £2.
What does the Op consider a significant charge?
0 -
The OP's idea is to encourage us to be greener and reduce emissions. I’m not sure awning use or not would help.
If it’s revenue raising you’re considering, you're on a winner there.😀
Currently, with or without awning denotes the type of pitch available.
0 -
The reason that there are with awning and without awning on the bookings is simple. So you know what type of pitch you are getting. If somebody feels that they need to erect an awning for additional accommodation or storage it would be damn all use to them arriving on site to find all awning pitches taken!
0 -
Hush your mouth!🤭 😛
0 -
Wot they said👍🏻
0 -
Hitting the motorist is always the easiest option. It’s not been done satisfactorily yet either, as it’s just siphoning off more revenue for projects other than combatting global warning.
Personally I’d prefer to see facilities go from all sites and a reduction in ampage. No hot water boilers chugging away in loo blocks, less water usage on showers, visitors having to be more careful with electric usage, get rid of half the lighting that stays on all night. That would be a Club commitment, rather than selectively targeting individuals. 🤔
1 -
Most cars with motorhomes tend to be very small so they are to be encouraged. There is a £2 charge for second cars though, although most sites do not seem to impose it as far as I can see.
What the club need to look at now is charging points for electric cars as this will be vital soon.
0 -
It may be a good idea to reduce/remove facilities at the odd site to test the water TTDA but perhaps not all sites yet. Whilst we all may agree that there is a global environment/planetary/ecological/climate crisis I cannot see many people actually wanting to have/do/expect less as that is how the world is (wrongly) sold to us nowadays, i.e. get more of what you want and not what you need and then when you are fed up with it, throw it away and get something else. Yes, I know change must come from the top, but whilst governments drag their feet and some major international players probably just don't care then where does it leave us? (For the record, I only have what I need).
0 -
I tow my car behind my Euro 6 motorhome which through its Adblue reduces over 90% of noxious emissions. My car engine is not running when I tow it. When I use my car at the destination it is a low emission petrol and as such is zero rated for VEL.
I share the view that climate change is mainly the result of fossil fuels. China and the US are the biggest pollution contributors. The twelve largest ocean going ships produce more pollutants than all the cars in the world so we do have some problems, but charging me for my car ain’t going to halt global warming I’m afraid.
2 -
You're a husky. You don't need heat.
0 -
A very good point, EasyT and I have to bow to the obvious in that I am guilty of succumbing to want rather than need …….. unless of course a holiday is a need rather than a want? (Assuming 'holiday' means 'change' rather than stopping at home).
0 -
I need holidays, always have
2 -
yes free on the car park if there is one of course, but £2 if on your pitch.
I've found you have to ask and push for it sometimes, some wardens don't like it on your pitch, while some don't mind at all.
1
All good points! It's just that some comments revolved around revenue. 
.
