Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

This Weather.....


gonzo

Recommended Posts

  • Site Supporter
On 26/08/2023 at 22:41, frank_spencer said:

Whilst in the hotel the only English language channel was BBC World News and they were talking to a politician in Cali about the storm and subsequent floods. She was saying what previously would described as 100yr events are happening more frequently in more places. The climate is fucked and it's going to take much more than Joe Public switching to electric cars and reusable straws to fix it.

Governments and Mega corporations need to take actual steps to reduce their emissions.

Read this and mulled it over for a few days.

It doesn't worn, without public support. 

Large companies make goods and offer services to people.

Governments have to manage nations' wellbeing in all sorts of ways.

Ultimately, Governments will legislate but if the public doesn't like it, they will be out.

Just look at the recent election for Boris Johnson's seat, and today's protests in London. 

We also have huge changes to our energy production. 

Once again they're met with anger and opposition from the public. 

Ulez probably wouldn't be a problem if it was a quid or 2 per day, but it's badly designed, as was the GM one, and they're facing huge pressure now.

Ultimately, people at large can do far more, but won't and are happy to "leave it to the authorities" but complain when those same authorities introduce measures.

I presume your holiday to France involved a flight or ferry- how would you feel if we were all limited to say one flight per year or two, or had restricted miles?

What about reducing house building and projects that use cement/concrete?

Just extreme examples to illustrate a point, but hopefully you can see the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Read this and mulled it over for a few days.

It doesn't worn, without public support. 

Large companies make goods and offer services to people.

Governments have to manage nations' wellbeing in all sorts of ways.

Ultimately, Governments will legislate but if the public doesn't like it, they will be out.

Just look at the recent election for Boris Johnson's seat, and today's protests in London. 

We also have huge changes to our energy production. 

Once again they're met with anger and opposition from the public. 

Ulez probably wouldn't be a problem if it was a quid or 2 per day, but it's badly designed, as was the GM one, and they're facing huge pressure now.

Ultimately, people at large can do far more, but won't and are happy to "leave it to the authorities" but complain when those same authorities introduce measures.

I presume your holiday to France involved a flight or ferry- how would you feel if we were all limited to say one flight per year or two, or had restricted miles?

What about reducing house building and projects that use cement/concrete?

Just extreme examples to illustrate a point, but hopefully you can see the point. 

All of the councils who tried to challenge ULEZ in the High Courts are Tory run 

The neighbouring authorities who won't allow signage on their land are Tory run

It's not about whether it's £2 or £12.50, it's a political argument

If you've got a car that pre dates 2005 it's either on its last legs or it's not driven much 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ULEZ wouldn't work on a couple of quid a day.

The problem with ULEZ is its been made a political problem when it effects so few people. Its ok talking about the poorest in London, but overwhelming they are the least poluting anyway due to their use of the excellent public transport system and not running cars.

Its 700,000 cars, which means 92% of cars are fine , and also take into account that number is using people who don't live in the area but drive in - so for example by Dad got a letter because he drives down to see us twice a year and his car isn't ULEZ compliant. Its hardly going to impact on him or people like him.

This is from the year one report from inner london ULEZ;

The air in the zone is substantially cleaner. The ULEZ expansion has led to four million people breathing cleaner air, including 1,362 more schools. Harmful nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations are estimated to be 21 per cent lower than they would have been in inner London without the ULEZ and 46 per cent lower than they would have been in central London. This is above what was predicted for the scheme. Substantial reductions in NO2 concentrations were seen at roadside locations, with a 56 per cent reduction in central London, 47 per cent in inner London, and 37 per cent in outer London since 2017. Background monitoring sites away from the main road network also had significant reductions in NO2 of 47 per cent in central and 45 per cent in inner London, since 2017. Unlike central and inner London sites, average concentrations at outer London background sites have remained constant since 2021.

And people selling cars since ULEZ came in and before could only shift ULEZ compliant cars, its been coming for years and most folks adjusted. I know I did when I got my second hand car two years ago.

We shouldn't be backtracking on this sort of stuff if we want cleaner air and the stats on it in London are scary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Read this and mulled it over for a few days.

It doesn't worn, without public support. 

Large companies make goods and offer services to people.

Governments have to manage nations' wellbeing in all sorts of ways.

Ultimately, Governments will legislate but if the public doesn't like it, they will be out.

Just look at the recent election for Boris Johnson's seat, and today's protests in London. 

We also have huge changes to our energy production. 

Once again they're met with anger and opposition from the public. 

Ulez probably wouldn't be a problem if it was a quid or 2 per day, but it's badly designed, as was the GM one, and they're facing huge pressure now.

Ultimately, people at large can do far more, but won't and are happy to "leave it to the authorities" but complain when those same authorities introduce measures.

I presume your holiday to France involved a flight or ferry- how would you feel if we were all limited to say one flight per year or two, or had restricted miles?

What about reducing house building and projects that use cement/concrete?

Just extreme examples to illustrate a point, but hopefully you can see the point. 

Train to France. Trains and Buses round Paris. First trip abroad since 2011, so would be well in credit with flights per year.

Our home is probably about as eco a council house as you can get. Minimal single use plastic, nigh on everything that can be bought reusable/refillable is.

Next car will be a hybrid, wanted full electric but none of the available ones met the size needed and price we could afford.

Every house could take the same steps as us but without massive industrial changes globally we're still pumping out too much co2.

Steps like the ULEZ and GM congestion zone are needed. If in the case of the GM one badly thought out. But are only small steps and much more action is needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
12 minutes ago, frank_spencer said:

Every house could take the same steps as us but without massive industrial changes globally we're still pumping out too much co2.

Steps like the ULEZ and GM congestion zone are needed. If in the case of the GM one badly thought out. But are only small steps and much more action is needed

ULEZ is about improving air quality in specific areas. It's not a Climate Change thing.

Edited by Cheese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
5 minutes ago, Cheese said:

ULEZ is about improving air quality in specific areas. It's not a Climate Change thing.

I thought Khan was a goner 6 years ago?

And yet there he is, mayoring the fuck out of London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

All I can say is that my snot is no longer black after being in central london which as a rule of nose picking thumb is OK.

It's not the Alps like, but I've not seen that odd orange glow after a few weeks hot weather like I've done previously.

What I find worst is the likes of Hertfordshire council (Tory run) saying they won't allow advance signs on their land 

Well done, so people driving into it may not know because of cheap political point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DirtySanchez said:

Not sure 

That useless idiot Shaun Bailey gave him a good run for his money last time 

Chuck ULEZ in and it could be a different story 

I'd have to double check but a lot of the outer London boroughs didn't vote for him anyway, different story central. Pretty much like at a general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Fuck Watford.

Yeah because thats the only part of Hertfordshire that are affected

 

8 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

I'd have to double check but a lot of the outer London boroughs didn't vote for him anyway, different story central. Pretty much like at a general election.

It was expected Khan would walk it 

He did win but it was closer than expected

Throw in cycle lanes and ULEZ and there's plenty of people who don't like him, when maybe last time there wasn't 

The Tory candidate has already said they'll scrap ULEZ expansion 

Edited by DirtySanchez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

I just mean fuck Watford, its horrible.

Actually fuck Hertfordshire. Hated living in that county, felt like I'd dropped off the face of the earth. Most of the residents looked like they had.

You really need to drop the snobbish, parochial attitude to anyone who doesn't live where you do 

Makes you look like a cunt 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

You really need to drop the snobbish, parochial attitude to anyone who doesn't live where you do 

Makes you look like a cunt 

Nah, fuck everywhere that isn't the metropolitan hub that is Bromley, twinned with New York ūüėā

Oh and I am a right cunt.

Edited by Not in Crawley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
3 hours ago, DirtySanchez said:

All of the councils who tried to challenge ULEZ in the High Courts are Tory run 

The neighbouring authorities who won't allow signage on their land are Tory run

It's not about whether it's £2 or £12.50, it's a political argument

If you've got a car that pre dates 2005 it's either on its last legs or it's not driven much 

It's becoming political now that the public are feeling the effects of it.

Ulez schemes or whatever plans are designed were not however directly political, but were spawned from the result of a court case which the government lost over air quality. 

It then passed the powers onto local authorities to put schemes into place.

All of which is fair enough, and in principlea well designed scheme could be effective. It is the design of them that is failing as they're prohibitively expensive and/or not spread across the board.

Fees themselves do not reduce pollution, and a grant of 2k scrappage won't go very far. 

The idea that a smaller fee won't work is not correct; they simply need reassessing to produce a more realistic fee. Now it has resulted in it becoming an issue for the next election; where all but one party will have some conflicting issues to address: to meet the requirements of law whilst protecting people's livelihoods.

The reform Party will pretend there is no climate crisis, but would still be fucked over by court cases, so they can champion what they like, but reality would still hit them.

Some novel ideas are needed that are fairer across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It's becoming political now that the public are feeling the effects of it.

Ulez schemes or whatever plans are designed were not however directly political, but were spawned from the result of a court case which the government lost over air quality. 

It then passed the powers onto local authorities to put schemes into place.

All of which is fair enough, and in principlea well designed scheme could be effective. It is the design of them that is failing as they're prohibitively expensive and/or not spread across the board.

Fees themselves do not reduce pollution, and a grant of 2k scrappage won't go very far. 

The idea that a smaller fee won't work is not correct; they simply need reassessing to produce a more realistic fee. Now it has resulted in it becoming an issue for the next election; where all but one party will have some conflicting issues to address: to meet the requirements of law whilst protecting people's livelihoods.

The reform Party will pretend there is no climate crisis, but would still be fucked over by court cases, so they can champion what they like, but reality would still hit them.

Some novel ideas are needed that are fairer across the board.

Over 90 percent of cars driving round London are ULEZ compliant 

The outer boroughs such as Croydon, Harrow etc are in very affluent areas 

It really doesn't affect them as they won't be driving a pre 2005 car

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.