Can I be an environmentalist and also enjoy vehicle dependant travel?

[Martyn]

As an individual and an owner of a company involved in vehicle dependant travel (Adventure Trailers) I feel very torn by the fact I’m environmentally conscious while at the same time I’m contributing to the pollution caused by my vehicle.

I am part of the problem and I need to become part of the solution.

It shocks me to say that on the road my Grand Cherokee gets 18 mpg and 16 mpg when towing. It’s just a huge use of natural resources and a large contributor to pollution levels. Realizing that the technology for alternative fuel is a few years down the road I have laid out a three step plan for myself;
1) Conserve fuel
2) Look for a clean burning diesel vehicle
3) Keep an eye on emerging technology

Now when I drive I use the on board computer to help me drive more economically to get better gas mileage. It’s a great reminder to take my foot off the pedal when I’m only getting 6 mpg

Talking fuel consumption two years ago at SEMA I saw a Jeep Wrangler with a Turbo Charged IVECO four cylinder engine teamed up to a 6 speed gear box. It got 45 mpg on road and 28 mpg off road. People are also putting 4 cylinder Cummins diesels in Wranglers and getting 28 mpg http://www.dieselpowermag.com/featur...angler_diesel/ this combo even passed California smog! So here is a way to at least increase my mpg.

But diesel is smelly and causes pollution due to particulate matter!
With the advent of low sulfur fuel diesels are about to become cleaner burning engines. The low sulfur allows for the introduction of particulate matter filters and Urea injection systems.

A short extract from http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005...ishi_fuso.html says;
“Using ultra-high pressure fuel injection reduces the particulate matter level substantially, however, there is a concomitant large increase in NOx emissions, due to the higher temperature and more complete combustion attendant to the reduction of PM. The urea SCR catalyst then, in turn, reduces the NOx emissions to the target level.

Urea SCR systems basically consists of a storage tank for the urea solution, a urea injection system, and a catalyst. The system injects urea into the hot exhaust gas where the urea decomposes into ammonia (NH3). NOx reacts with NH3 on the surface of the catalyst to produce nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O).

4NO + 4NH3 + O2 = 4N2 + 6H2O
Nitrous Oxides + Ammonia + oxygen = nitrogen + water"

Looking to the future there is a lot of good technology being developed right now check out http://www.tlcicon.com/ and click on "R&D what’s" next and you can read about a electric powered ICON Toyota Landcruiser.

Science Friday just did a wonderful program on green cars that you can download as an mp3 at http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2...r2_040607.html

I would encourage you all to become early users of this new technology, and to keep on top of new developments. My hope is that Vehicle Dependant Travel can grow in the future rather than become bogged down in fuel that costs $4.00 + per gallon, dependency on overseas oil, and increased pollution.

For me this is just the start of a long conversation that needs to be held by members of the community. I’d be interested in hearing your point of view, and see where we can go from here.

[DesertRose]

This is a wonderful post, Martyn - thank you for taking so much time to put such good information - and food for thought - down on the forum.

The timing of your post is excellent, as others are struggling with the same thing and it comes out in painful ways, such as the argument over Mobil 1 being a sponsor of the recent Arctic Expedition.

Becoming environmentally conscious has been a journey for us (me and Jonathan). It's a journey of education and choices that will never end. We are constantly trying to learn more about the related topics of wildlife and habitat conservation, food growing and consumption, and energy use and development. We only recently have learned more about the connections between these things - for example, choosing to be a vegetarian based on environmental and ethical reasons does not necessarily = an "environmental" footprint on the planet. Replacing non-animal protein with plants means things like soy become more popular, and there are vast amounts of virgin forest being cleared to grow this now very lucrative crop to feed the first-world demand for what used to be a third-world food. Lost habitat - especially important forests - lost species. And transport of said crops from Brazil, for example, burn huge amounts of fossil fuels . . . While our diet of locally grown beef and/or our own hunted meat has little transport costs if any (we can hunt from our house), and if we buy from environmental ranchers, the habitat is in great shape. There are many other examples of the relativity of our consumption choices and their impact on the planet.

So to automobiles . . . There's no denying that we in the First World as individuals have far far more impact on the planet than whole villages in the Third World. So how to minimize our impact?

Your ideas to look to - and support - alternative fuels is excellent.

I was disappointed that the Dust or Glory Baja 500 expedition hasn't updated their page to tell us how the GoldenFuels system worked. I am right in the middle of investigating diesel conversions . . . and ran up against your point, that particulates and byproducts are a real problem. Burning waste oil would be fantastic. (www.goldenfuels.com)

There are also lots of interesting ways to create bio-diesel from plants that are not foodsources (I have a real problem with converting food into fuel, thus driving up prices of things like corn when millions of people in the world depend on it for daily life). Jatropha, a desert plant, is being grown in wastelands in the Third World; harvesting creates jobs and the fuel is a real viable alternative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha

What I'm doing right now is trying to find the perfect "Eco-Overland" vehicle: economical and ecological. Newer vehicles - nearly all in any SUV or cross-over platform - have fallen prey to the American "Biggie Size Me" phenomenon. Americans are getting fatter, and so are their autos. Even the Honda CRV is pretty darn heavy and gets only 22 or so MPG in average highway/city driving. I'm so disappointed! The RAV4s are no better. [More soon in a thread I'm going to start on my search for the perfect Eco-Overlander.]

Someone posted about (RedDog?) about only driving 12,000 miles per year and commuting by bike - excellent! We don't need to worry about that because we work at home (but when in the city, I used to commute by bike, too).

What else . . . well, as much as I don't like the "trading sin" aspect of it, there is always carbon trading. My organization is investigating finding ways to offer donors in the First World a chance to pay for biodiversity preservation in East Africa - where, in the Rift Valley, there is the greatest hotspot on Earth for vertebrate (critters with backbones) diversity - and get a certified (organizations are doing this) "credit" to offset their annual use of carbon-based fuels, etcetera.

Not a perfect solution for sure - but there are some things we can't change - like turning back the clock to horses and buggies - and so why not try something different, innovative? I don't like the idea of the H2 guy being able to buy a conscience-salve . . . but on the other hand, our Maasai partners are saying "Great! Give us the money! We want to preserve our homeland, our way of life, and we DON'T want to become like you, and so let us use that money for something good!"

All this is just something to chew on.

Here are some interesting links:

http://www.climate-standards.org/

http://www.resource-solutions.org/index.htm

http://www.terrapass.com/index.html

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk

[DesertRose]

Another thought, Martyn -

A big "YES" to your question of whether or not you can be an environmentalist and enjoy overlanding.

Why? Because exploring the world in the intimate manner of overlanding (rather than tour buses or cruise ships) brings people together from totally disparate walks of life, ideologies, experiences, and knowledge-bases.

Bringing people together creates exciting synergy to solve problems.

Solving problems is a good thing.

It works!

[Jonathan Hanson]

A brief response to one of Martyn's points regarding fuel economy: There is an issue of what, for lack of a better term, I'll call Morality of Purpose. I see a big difference between someone who explores back roads regularly and needs a suitable vehicle, one that might only get 17 or 18 miles per gallon, and the CPA who commutes across town in his never-seen-dirt H2 getting 12 mpg, just because he thinks it looks cool.

Okay, we could all give up back road exploration in the name of oil conservation, and trade in our Tacomas for Yarises. But that would divorce us from easy contact with the natural world - the very activity that makes us want to preserve open spaces in the first place.

[Martyn]

A few thoughts drawn for the posts so far.

Conservation and pollution are huge topics that interweave into every aspects of our lives. On this forum I only feel confident talking about the vehicle aspects of problem.

I may have a simplistic view of this but my feeling is that pollution and consumption are the responsibility of all who drive vehicles. There is no exemption for “Special” vehicles that allow us to explore more difficult or isolated terrain. We as travelers need to adopt the new technology and adapt it to our vehicles so that we can spearhead the way forward to low emission or no emission vehicles capable of going where we want to go.

If that were the case there would be no debate over the city dweller with the SUV and the explorer with the 4X4. Both would have minimal impact on the environment.

Martyn

[dieselcruiserhead]

Martyn,
thanks for the post as well, this is something I constantly think about as well... I am born and raised environmentalist, researched and did advocacy for GW for two years in college.. I even worked for the guy who is now the head of greenpeace USA at some point.. I fixed hiking trails in the Adirondacks for 4 summers and did a lot of real hands on environmental work.. The amount of impact that even a few hundred hikers can have, erosion wise, is surprising let alone that of vehicles.. I also run the Utah Biodiesel coop/advocacy group here.. One of the biggest reasons I am into biodiesel specifically is because of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions, supposedly a ~80% reduction versus diesel, which is already lower than gas emissions because of the increased efficiency of diesels...

All that said, there are no real easy answers unfortunately.. Of course its a balance.. If we were completely dedicated, of course the option is don't do it... But like anything it is a compromise.. And it is tough but I think we are all realists, and bottom line is it is fun...

Bottom line though is there is no easy solution, also everything has its issues.. Regionally, the emissions of diesel are an issue.. Sulfur is SO2 which is #1 cause of acid rain.. All diesel is ULSD now which is slightly better. Biodiesel is completely sulfur free. Most diesel fuel emissions are city smog issues.. On global warming in general for the most part diesel is better... For me GW is the big issue... I have been following it for some time, can say with pretty much 100% certainty, again, as someone who professionally researched it for 2 years, that GW is the next major environmental issue we are going to save.. The billions it will cause to fix the problem are going to cause trillions in damage..

Anyway, so for me that is the big issue.. So at least for me, that is what I focus on and again for me at least the diesel swaps and use of biodiesel are the best solution I have found so far...

EDIT: also much of my truck as it is being built in its current form is recycled.. I figure the amount of energy I have saved by reusing may be noticable with that as well..

[Ursidae69]

Can I be an environmentalist and also enjoy vehicle dependant travel?

Yes, you can.

Even though the two concepts seem disparate, they don’t have to be.

There are many environmentalists, especially the ones working in science, that are also into vehicle dependent travel, they just don’t admit and or even realize it. There are also many vehicle dependent travelers who are also environmentalists, again, they just don’t admit it or even realize it. I think a majority of the membership on this forum falls into one of these two. It’s up to us to take advantage of this opportunity and make real change happen.

[teotwaki]

In general I agree with the sentiments. I would like to point out that our current vehicles have had a significant amount of energy, plastics and metals invested into their production. Simply sending them to the scrapyard and buying a newer vehicle may be premature. There is probably some way to calculate a crossover point of the vehicle's useful life versus cost of fuel consumption and estimated contributions to pollution.

[DaveInDenver]

In general I agree with the sentiments. I would like to point out that our current vehicles have had a significant amount of energy, plastics and metals invested into their production. Simply sending them to the scrapyard and buying a newer vehicle may be premature. There is probably some way to calculate a crossover point of the vehicle's useful life versus cost of fuel consumption and estimated contributions to pollution.

This has always been my question to the people advocating no cars. First, the original energy and resources can't be undone (although certainly recycling does recover much of the material). The original extraction is done, might as well use the truck until most of the body is returned to the elements. Second, bikes, shoes, buses, trains, all forms of travel. Where you do suppose all that metal, rubber, synthetics and leather came from? They didn't just magically appear, they were mined or otherwise collected from somewhere.

I don't think it's possible to truly be an vehicle supported environmentalist, because in no way is it the lowest impact method. It is the most convenient, but walking or other human powered vehicle uses less resources. But instead of covering hundreds of miles in the weekend, you will covers tens of miles a day and the amount of stuff you can carry is limited. We can fool ourselves by saying we use less than the other guy or that diesel is less harmful, but it's still a pretty inefficient use of the resources. It is a more efficient use of our time and that's the point of doing it, but it's still relatively wasteful and self serving. It's a function of the society we have made, that we are driven to work, work, work, consume, consume, consume. That leaves limited time to travel and so it is what it is. We are victims of our own productivity. We all own computers, which are not absolutely necessary to survive. They make life better (or such is the presumption) and we trade the impact of making them has over the benefits we perceive from having one.

See about electronics and toxic chemicals:
http://www.computertakeback.com/the_...cchemicals.cfm

[Martyn]

This has always been my question to the people advocating no cars. First, the original energy and resources can't be undone (although certainly recycling does recover much of the material). The original extraction is done, might as well use the truck until most of the body is returned to the elements. Second, bikes, shoes, buses, trains, all forms of travel. Where you do suppose all that metal, rubber, synthetics and leather came from? They didn't just magically appear, they were mined or otherwise collected from somewhere.

I don't think it's possible to truly be an vehicle supported environmentalist, because in no way is it the lowest impact method. It is the most convenient, but walking or other human powered vehicle uses less resources. But instead of covering hundreds of miles in the weekend, you will covers tens of miles a day and the amount of stuff you can carry is limited. We can fool ourselves by saying we use less than the other guy or that diesel is less harmful, but it's still a pretty inefficient use of the resources. It is a more efficient use of our time and that's the point of doing it, but it's still relatively wasteful and self serving. It's a function of the society we have made, that we are driven to work, work, work, consume, consume, consume. That leaves limited time to travel and so it is what it is. We are victims of our own productivity. We all own computers, which are not absolutely necessary to survive. They make life better (or such is the presumption) and we trade the impact of making them has over the benefits we perceive from having one.

See about electronics and toxic chemicals:
http://www.computertakeback.com/the_...cchemicals.cfm

Interesting points, I don't think we can do this cold turkey, but we also can't stick our heads in the sand like Ostriches (enough animal metaphors).

However we can make plans for our selves that will lower our impact on the environment such as:
Learn to drive with fuel economy in mind
Perform regular services for a clean burning engine
Work out the feasibility of doing a diesel conversion on a vehicle
Planning a second vehicle? make it a fuel efficient, or hybrid type

Making the change of mind set from;
"Well I've spent a lot of money on the vehicle, it's already used up a lot of energy to produce it, so I'm stuck with it for the foreseeable future", which is where I am coming from.

And moving to;
"How can I make less impact on the environment, what options are available right now, and what options look like they will be available soon" is a much healthier approach in my mind.

Having been in the first mindset for some years it left me with a feeling of being trapped and unable to do anything about the situation. Moving to the second mindset has given me hope and options, plus the ability to move forward. I feel now that given the right circumstances I can do something and make a difference.