Lotus Eco Elise (2009) green CAR review

I'm surprised at the relatively poor CO2 performance, but as others have pointed-out the Toyota mill is pretty far dfrom leading edge these days... I really like the idea that Lotus should be exploring these ideas, compare & contrast with soemof the behemoths of the Motor Business! On a practical note I think the "whole Life" aspect of thew project is very valuable: the Prius is a classic case all those batteries cost (in both senses) a lot to make, and a lot to dispose of. Coming clean, I have a Series 1 Elise (1999 vintage) which will hopefully still be running in another 10 years time. This has provided me with both reasonably economical transport during the Summers and a lot of enjoyment. My Panda provides perfectly practical communting transport in the Winter, and returns a minimum of 55MPG. Like most "greens" I am no hair-shirt looney, I simply want to minimise the damage I do, and I'd like others to do the same. So this Lotus isn't "The" answer, but it maybe points to a small part of the answer to the question "How do we continue to ENJOY motoring, while minimising its environmental impact?" The answer really is that intelligence is the answer: be smart and try harder. The US Auto makers show how effective the opposite is both for their business and the environment.

LOL, those icecore records just jumped from 460 to 560 thousand years. As stated before, there is no consensus on what the lag actually is or how to interpret it. the MIT article is pretty clear on this. there is nothing allowing "my feet to detach from the ground, ignore science and known evidence" the science and evidence you quote is often inconsistent, disputed or still under debate in the scientific world, to choose to ignore the debate is to detach yourself from reality. You can dress it up with loads of pretty numbers, but when you do, make sure that the numbers are undisputed. You continue to ignore the simple fact that scientists can't agree eon the simplest of details. I strongly doubt that you on your own can sort out where hundreds of scientist so far are unable to agree. I have not once mentioned car exhaust fumes, as a cause, be it sole or main. But add the fumes to all the other CO2 produced directly and indirectly by human habitation and it becomes slightly more significant than you would like to believe. and even than, you can't say with any absolute certainty whatsoever that no matter how small the human contribution is, it is insignificant, afterall, we know that even the minutest increase of certain substances within a system can have devastating effects. Just look at your body, it holds all sorts of chemicals and minerals, all of which are perfectly natural, but in many cases an increase by less than a tenth of a percent will cause your body to simply shut down, or behave in completely different manners. (Observational) science is all very nice and dandy, as long as you allow yourself to see everything, and not just that which supports your view. Currently all we have is "maybes, possibles and could be's" To assume otherwise is to live in a state of dream, of fantasy and delusion. I know we like to think in absolutes, most humanbeings find that much easier to deal with, and much more comforting, that is clearly what drives you and its also what drives the greens. But the reality is that most facts are not facts but interpretations, realty is that the science on this and many subjects is constantly being turned on its head by new "facts" We simply and honestly don't know and you can jump high and low trying to convince yourself and everyone else otherwise, but conviction doesn't dictate reality. Darn, here I go again breaking my promise to myself.

HMM, k, something must have dropped of while typinhg: "I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A HOAX, A HOAX REQUIRES INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACT, WHICH IS A CRIME PERPETRATED BY BOTH CAMPS IN EQUAL MEASURE, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE DON"T KNOW ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN, AND HENCE WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE RISK IMPLIED IF WE IGNORE EITHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT, INCLUDING ALL THE ESTIMATES, GUESSES AND EXTRAPOLATIONS" Should have read: "I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A HOAX, A HOAX REQUIRES INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACT, WHICH IS A CRIME PERPETRATED BY BOTH CAMPS IN EQUAL MEASURE, HENCE BOTH ARE CONNING US UPTO A CERTAIN EXTEND, NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO GAIN FROM IT, BUT BECAUSE NEITHER CAN SUCCESSFULLY AND HONESTLY BUILD A SOLID CASE AT THIS POINT, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN, AND HENCE WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE RISK IMPLIED IF WE IGNORE EITHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT, INCLUDING ALL THE ESTIMATES, GUESSES AND EXTRAPOLATIONS" And again, dismissing those that disagree as being misguided by their own emotions or stupid, or idiots or morons is really cheap, offensive and not very helpfull in having an honest debate about any subject. You make some very valid points (not enough to build a solid case) but those get lost because you feel th eneed to lash out and offend along the way, I won't express the judgement about your character that implies for me, I'm sure you can do that for yourself, your intelligent enough... over and out, in this time, for real... have a good life JB, don't get too bitter.