"Right-wing extremist" is the becoming the go-to comment to dismiss a viewpoint one doesn't like - play the ball not the man - what does he say that you disagree with ?


I enjoyed this one.
https://twitter.com/Pris...1509586952949014529?s=20

On the subject of climate change and more particularly the fact the contribution by Great Britain is minuscule, and as per a statement highlighting that if the UK sank and was wiped from the face of the earth it would not make a blinding but of difference, I see that our highest court has decided that the explansion of ULEZ is legal and should be allowed to go ahead.

I also remember our politicians and upper echelons stating, not so long ago, that diesel fuel was the future, clean absolutely necessary. I suppose the agenda was different then !

True
But who voted for the courts ?

Newbie #315:

The encouragement of diesel cars was motivated by the desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and predicated upon their fuel efficiency being greater than that of petrol engines. The unintended consequence was an increase in the air pollution attributable to road traffic, chiefly because diesels emit more fine carbon particles than petrol engines. At that time, UK air quality measurements did not even cover the very small particles. Advances in measurement technology have contributed to greater scientific understanding of the damaging effects of inhaled small carbon particles on human health.

Over the last 20 years, technological innovation has greatly improved the fuel efficiency of petrol ICEs, so that from my 2017 petrol Skoda I get similar mpg to that I used to get from my 2004 diesel Skoda. The latest diesels are much cleaner but there is now little / no saving in carbon emissions. I bought my diesel to reduce carbon emissions, and traded it for a newer petrol because even 5 years ago it was clear that increasingly tight restrictions would have to be imposed even in outer London.

ULEZ is designed to tackle persistent poor air quality in London (including outer London) by discouraging the use of the oldest and most polluting road vehicles; ULEZ is designed to tackle climate change.

If you think ULEZ is disproportionate, I wonder how much value you attach to the health and well-being of those people who live on or near the most polluted roads.

I fully accept that air quality will be improved by reducing vehicle emissions. But here is the thing...

If emissions are that bad, then just ban the most polluting vehicles. End of. That actually resolves the issue. Because paying £12 does not make any vehicle emissions suddenly harmless.

Start at the highest end with vehicles doing, say, 400g+ CO2 per km. That gets the fat BMW's the Chelsea Tractors, the Porsches off the road. And these vehicles are the most polluting.

Then shift to 300g/km....and so on. Work the way down the scale over a few years, hitting the poorest with the Fiestas and Pandas last. And giving them most time to upgrade vehicle, largely by natural wastage.

This affects the wealthy first, and most of all. The councillors. The Bosses. The Policymakers. The MPs. And these people cannot simply buy their way round the problem and continue to pollute, while Jack in his white van has significant dent made in this livelihood.

Instead it's hitting the poorest first with the oldest vehicles and the lowest Cat ratings but not necessarily the highest emissions (For example a ten year old Cat 3 980cc Fiesta is likely to have a lower CO2/km than a brand new 3 litre Cat 6 Porche)

Its no accident it is being done like this. Its deliberately creating a society where personal transport becomes the privilege of the rich, to whom £12.50 a day is nothing. And what's more, is that it's Labour doing this.... Quite bizarre really.

So for me the issue isn't low emissions, it's the methodology of targeting the poorest first that stinks.