Dr. Assaf Rosenthal
Direct link to this page: https://www.hayadan.org.il/rosental90605.html
Among the other targets that the "environmentalists" marked as an enemy, a new target was recently added - drivers, owners of multi-engine vehicles, and the vehicle in which they drive for convenience and to straighten out if the common nomenclature calls them 4*4.
In the USA, where you can find extremists of all kinds, including the "Sibibite terrorists", these make a lot of trouble for any driver who is seen driving a 4x4 vehicle in the city, but the record was achieved in England when a group of those "environmentalists" invaded the Land Rover factory and shut down production for many hours.
I testify to myself that I seek an environment without quotation marks, in my spirit, in my activities and in my training, for many years I have been driving a 4x4, in the past for my role as an inspector in the field, and later for the purpose of transporting tourists on the desert roads so that there will be those who say that there is a conflict of interest.... .and not her. According to the "environmentalists" the 4x4 are called "climate-destroying fuel guzzlers", this is because of the claim that car engines consume more fuel and produce more pollutants than a private car. We have the problem of drivers who do not respect the terrain and "spread" their wheel marks over every hill, field and pit area,
But a problem like ours is minimal in organized countries and the main argument is that a 4x4 vehicle in the city used for shopping at the neighborhood grocery store or for taking the children to school is unnecessary, it is used more to glorify the image of the driver than for anything else, since the same tasks can be fulfilled by a small economical vehicle. Another claim is that because of its height, the vehicle causes "more serious injuries to pedestrians"...really?
Let's examine the pollution claim... First of all, all car dealers should know that the engines of many private cars are larger than many 4x4 engines, what's more, most 4x4s are powered by diesel engines which, according to the studies, emit more particles but much less gaseous pollutants. Van cars are becoming more and more common, most of which pollute more than any 4x4.
If we broaden the scope a little, what do the "environmentalists" think about disposable diapers? About plastic bags that are distributed free in supermarkets, about exotic fruit seeds that are sent everywhere and so on.
I would like to see a boycott of Japanese products following Japan's decision to continue killing whales, or a boycott of US products due to its failure to join the Kyoto Convention, or alternately with us a boycott of an electric company that is one of the biggest polluters in Israel, which buys the silence of the green bodies with "Demi La Yehart" which are exempt from the tax anyway, and perhaps a war on the bodies that pollute the Gulf of Eilat, such as the potash and phosphate terminals, instead of petty care for the fish cages. Apparently there are those who fight against those who are convenient to attack instead of fighting against the causes of real pollution on a threatening scale.
According to a survey conducted by the Daily Telegraph, household appliances in a home that are powered by electricity: a washing machine, a dishwasher, and a cooking oven that are used daily cause the emission of twice the amount of carbon dioxide than a Range Rover would emit in a XNUMX km drive.
A family vacation at Disney-Land in Florida will result in the emission of pollutants in the greater proportion of two thousand meters than the same daily trip. One hour of operation of a lawn mowing machine will cause the emission of four times more pollutants than the same trip in a 4x4. A London bus emits four times more pollutants than a 4*4 vehicle.
It is true that it has more seats, but most of the time it does not travel at full occupancy... and most of the time its engine runs non-stop for days in a row.
As for the risk of injury in accidents, the vehicle is an inanimate object. If there is danger, it is from the driver, and on the other hand, if a lady taking her children to school feels safer in a 4x4, which is good.
It should be said that the growing opposition to 4*4 also stems from considerations of casual jealousy since the vehicle symbolizes social status.
On the other hand, there is actually the claim that: production, purchase and use of 4x4 increases the negative phenomenon of unnecessary consumption, but so does any other large car. Here, as in the USA, Europe, Asia, and especially in remote areas, the role of the 4x4 is important to a large extent that cannot be measured, sometimes in obtaining vital data from distant areas and sometimes in saving lives from inaccessible areas, transporting tourists on roads that are impassable to other vehicles provides employment and income to remote and weak populations and enables Use, a sustainable visit to Nopi Bereshit.
It is worth remembering that the Land Rover was developed to replace tractors in the fields of England and as such is used to this day in many parts of the world without 4x4, we do not know and visit amazingly beautiful places and after knowing them we could not preserve and take care of vast areas.
Maybe not exactly a sustainable use, but definitely important and essential is the use that the IDF makes of 4x4 in maintaining our borders and our security. So maybe there is a place to limit the entry of polluting vehicles into city centers, but then again there are many cars that are not 4*4 that cause more pollution, therefore any "battle" against cars needs to be directed in the right direction without exclusion against "inanimate objects" that play an important and vital role when in the hands of skilled drivers I have an environmental conscience.
A compilation of Dr. Assaf Rosenthal's articles on the Hidan site
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~182542623~~~218&SiteName=hayadan
