Why people can't or won't accept that man-made pollution & general environmental degradation is a fact of life simply baffles me. It's not an argument about what or wasn't the hottest year any more - the evidence is all around you - even on this sceptered (or rather more septic these days) isle. Is it really so difficult for monomania car-is-my-birthright obsessives to understand? The planet, regardless of fatuous & time-wasting discussion about global warming statistics is c-r-u-m-b-l-i-n-g before us for goodness sake. Don't you wonder where 3 million extra houses & 15 million extra people will live , work & play in this country in the next 50 years? Do you consider what the predicted extra 3 billion people wordwide, with all their consumer aspirations, means in ecological terms? Just because we're still rich won't insulate from the effects of that.
So please stop all this nonsense about 'persecuted' or 'victimised' motorists - no-one's being picked on - you're just citizens of this country with no more or less rights & responsibilities than anyone else. The goverment is trying to develop more sustainable methods & means so that everyone has a (slim) chance of imagining their great-grandchildren enjoying some sort of bearable existence. If in that process, the notion of energy-squandering unlimited personal & exclusive transport takes a few knocks, then so be it.
|
So please stop all this nonsense about 'persecuted' or 'victimised' motorists - no-one's being picked on - you're just citizens of this country with no more or less rights & responsibilities than anyone else.
I disagree strongly. Motorists are being picked on disproportionately because the government know they are an easy target, and some eco-nuts hate cars.
|
There is simply no evidence for that view, Leif. The true costs of motoring are lower now than ever, even with recent cost rises. Why do you think so many more cars are being driven? Only 25 years ago, many lower income families possessed no car at all. Face the truth: queues in cities/Mways are caused by the sheer number of vehicles competing for limited road space. You could of course invoke the US model, destroying the built environment to enable more road building, but that is not an option here.
|
Personally, I think its right to target cars. The whole thing about 'needing' a car in most cases is really 'wanting' a car. I have two cars and I'm happy to accept that I should pay for the impact they have on our environment. While the car is more convienient, to be honest I could cope without a car.
At some point we may have no choice but to live without cars. I also don't get why so many people are in denial about global warming.
|
|
|
I am actually of the belief that if a big gas guzzling car is really such a threat to the environment, make ownership of them illegal. The message taxation sends is that it's OK to drive one of these cars if you can afford to pay for it. By outlawing them, it's a universal message that causing excessive pollution is unacceptable.
Don't get me started on the Congestion Charge. The introduction and management of this Charge, and the way it's been portrayed in terms of its effectiveness are among the most underhand and conniving rackets in recent memory, in my personal opinion. Now it's being manipulated into an emissions tax makes my blood boil. Not only is that not what it was introduced for, as others have pointed out, but it is completely ineffective in this respect too.
However admirable the thinking behind it, and much as I despise almost everything about Ken Livingstone I do believe he's one of the few true conviction politicians, the Charge disproportionately hits the poorer in society, and is completely inconsequential to the wealthy. To the stockbroker in his Cayenne Turbo, and the City lawyer in his 911, £25 a day is peanuts. To the nurse going to work in her 1.3 Fiesta, £8 is a killer. It simply cannot work to curb emissions because by definition it hits lesser polluters hardest.
I also don't believe this problem can be solved on an individual level. I drive two economical (40+ mpg) cars, I recycle, I don't use the car for short journeys, I don't leave lights or heating on unnecessarily at home, and I've taken one overseas holiday in the last five years. If this isn't enough, frankly it's going to require lifestyle changes that are not within my capacity currently to make. I have to go to work, I have to pay my bills, and I cannot choose not to do these things without legal backing.
Yes, we need to conserve resources. Yes, we need to develop alternative energy sources. Yes, we need to lose the "disposable" mentality that's crept in in the past 20 years. But yes, we need to live as well!
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
I think everyone would agreee that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer. So why don't the government ban it?
It seems that modern governments attempt to modify behaviour via taxation. No one likes being told what to do. Everyone likes to have the freedom to make their own choices.
What should happen is that the lawyer pays more for his Cayenne so the money can go into making public transport cheap so that the nurse can get the bus or train to work.
Yes, I agree that we need to live. I don't want us to have start living in caves again. I want the modern lifestyle. But we have limited resources and we need to make the best use of them.
|
|
if you believe taxing cars is fine because of the CO2 they pump out, can I get a rebate as I am a land owner and it seems that I therefore have a negative CO2 footprint. I did the WWF carbon footprint and it says that I have an "Ecological Footprint of 5.85 hectares".
|
|
|
|
Whats all this "congestion charge hits the poor" rubbish. Driving into London has NEVER been an economical commute, due to high parking charges (or sometimes not even available)
To be effective at reducing congestion and even reducing pollution means pricing the charge to a level where very few people are willing to pay. This means the revenue would fall and it would cost money to run. In fact if ken was serious, private transport would be banned.
------
< Ulla>
|
Whats all this "congestion charge hits the poor" rubbish. Driving into London has NEVER been an economical commute due to high parking charges (or sometimes not even available)
And the congestion charge has made it even worse.
There is affordable parking in London away from the City and West End, and the schools, hospitals and police stations where many low paid key workers go often have parking provisions.
if Ken was serious, private transport would be banned.
I agree. At least it would be fair.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
|
|
|
|
There is simply no evidence for that view Leif. The true costs of motoring are lower now than ever even with recent cost rises. Why do you think so many more cars are being driven? Only 25 years ago many lower income families possessed no car at all. Face the truth: queues in cities/Mways are caused by the sheer number of vehicles competing for limited road space. You could of course invoke the US model destroying the built environment to enable more road building but that is not an option here.
You say much that I agree with. But living standards are going up, due to greater wealth. And 25 years ago the economy was on its knees with the Winter of discontent etc.
But the government are steadily increasing tax on petrol, following the so-called fuel escalator, introduced by the Tories. As far I know the extra tax raised is simply filling Brown's pockets and not being used to fight congestion and/or GW i.e. there is no hypothecation. So it is just an excuse to hit an easy target.
In fact there is the law of unintended consequences. Because fuel is so expensive, and aviation fuel is tax free, it is much cheaper to fly to Edinburgh from London, than drive or take the train. And it is cheaper to fly to Majorca for a holiday, than drive from Leicester to Devon, and holiday there. It also reduces the cost difference between importing goods such as food by air and shipping them across the UK on the roads.
And I do object to schemes such as the London Kengestion Charge. It does not make a difference, it feeds a bureacracy, and the profit is not used to invest in infrastructure.
The reason most of us drive is because we have to. We live in a fairly ruthless capitalist economy. Oh, many cannot afford house prices, so must live in a cheap area, and drive miles to work. Don't get me started on East European immigration ...
|
|
|
|
|
We all have our own views and my tuppence
Governments get voted in, say, every 5 years. To put unpopular measures in place that might benefit everyone but take 20-30 years is not going to win any votes in the short term, quite the contrary. Can you imagine if you live in California and the US Government had signed up to Kyoto? They were already having power cuts because supply could not keep up with demand and implementing Kyoto would have caused even more power cuts. Are you really going to vote for a Government that implements these measures and as a result you have no power?
Therefore they look for targets that will not inconvenience people too much, that they can raise extra revenue from and that they can crow on about saying that they have impecable green credentials. It seems that one of these targets is new houses. Well if you are building from scratch then this really is not too difficult to incorporate green designs. Another is the air industry, which I must confess that I am confused about. On the one hand HMG promotes the hell out of Heathrow and its expanison and then on the other hand sas we shouldn't fly. Therefore they tax us more while trying to get more people to fly - ooooh, what a result - increased tax revenue!
And then there are cars. This has been covered so many times that nothing really needs to be added. It is like the new build houses. Getting manufacturers to incorporate green measures in new vehicles is not too difficult. The problem would be to retro-fit it to all cars and houses.
As it is I believe that we are talking about an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.001% (from say 0.037% to 0.038%) although I may be wrong about this. As has been said many times, I do not think that anyone is denying that the planet is warming up. My personal view on why the planet is warming up is to do with our relationship and distance from the sun but then I am not a government scintist and nor do I work for a QUANGO so what would I know?
|
Recent research has shown that variations in the Suns output is not responsible for global warming. I'll see if I can find a link for it.
I would love for someone to prove that gloabl warming isn't happening or isn't man made. Unfortunately, all the scientific research (and there is lots of it) all says that it's happening and that we are most likely to blame for it. The people doing the research are experts in their fields and I for one trust them.
And theres no need to be negative about it. We just need to adapt and change. Even putting aside the whole global warming issue we should be reducing our reliance on oil for many other reasons.
|
did you know that technically speaking we are still in an ice age as there are polar ice caps in place. this planet has not always had polar ice caps.
don't believe the spin. look what happened to Al Gore. Supposedly he was flawed in some of his findings/reasonings (and no, not basing this just on that C4 documentary) and he then goes and wins the Nobel prize.
|
|
|
|
Do you consider what the predicted extra 3 billion people wordwide with all their consumer aspirations means in ecological terms?
That's the issue, no pun intended. The best hope would be to implement a "one child" policy worldwide. Wer'e just too many.
|
That's the issue no pun intended. The best hope would be to implement a "one child" policy worldwide. Wer'e just too many.
Would we all take turns in looking after this child, or would there be a raffle to see who got it?
|
>>"one child" policy worldwide
Well people of my generation are constantly being told how we aren't going to outlive our parents, so I wouldn't worry too much. ;-)
One thing we cannot seem to escape these days is doom and gloom. We're going to die young, we're wrecking the environment, this is bad for us, that's worse, the other causes cancer, we're too fat, we're too thin, we should feel guilty about going on holiday, our leisure pursuits are not acceptable, we need to mind our carbon footprint... the list goes on.
And that's without the day to day stuff that ordinary life throws at us on an individual level.
At the risk of being selfish, I am now at the point where I look out for my personal affairs and the needs of my family first and foremost, and the planet, cancer, death and doom gets the little bit of my care that's left over. The more things are thrown at us, the more that same amount of care gets divided up.
I recall the time management module of some management training I did a few years back which said something along the lines of "Worrying about things outside your sphere of influence is nothing more than a waste of time and energy". Never has that been more relevant than today.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
|
|
|
1 child - what tosh. I supply enough to feed my 3 children so why can't I have 3. tell those that can't feed their children to stop having so many.
anyway, I take it that you don't subscribe to Mathusian theory. This is where food supply grows arithmetically and population grows geometrically eventually resulting in disease and famine (as well as war) when the difference is too great and thus reducing population levels to those that can be sustained by food supplies.
|
1 child - what tosh. I supply enough to feed my 3 children so why can't I have 3.
A very short-sighted viewpoint indeed. So they have 3, etc. - and in any case, food id not the issue at hand.
where food supply grows arithmetically
Well, it doesn't, does it - and in any case, food id not the issue at hand.
disease and famine (as well as war) when the difference is too great and thus reducing population levels
I'd say is a pretty good idea to avoid disease, famine, and war, wouldn't you?
|
Theres so much rubbish spouted by politicians and those with a vested interest about GW, that utimately I've lost all interest.
If it does exists (which I still have doubts) then charging me an extra £5 or so a week in fuel charges will not change that. I have to work, public transport is not an option and I need to feed my family (only 1 child!).
The figures spouted by 'experts' (i.e quite often some professor who hits upon a new theory) instantly received prime time news slots and national coverage but the result is the same - more tax.
If GW is such an apparent and near risk then why aren't we seeing a blanket ban on new cars that produce over a certain amount of CO2? Or is it simply the fact this is the enormous cash cow that I suspect and that the reality of GW is far and away from what we are being told.
And Livingstone is a moron.
|
>>And Livingstone is a moron
He's an extremely clever and astute politician. I don't agree with most of what he spouts, but stupid he isn't.
|
stupid he isn't.
Far from it. He's an enemy of the automobile with very extensive local power, and as such very effective.
Come and live in London if you think otherwise.
|
|
People do have such short (or selective) memories - London life pre-Ken & post GLC dissolution was a hotch-potch of disparate local 'warlords' in their respective Town Halls working in a push-me-pull-you form of London-wide government - result was a near breakdown in the social & economic fabric. Anyone remember the London Residuary Body? - about as good a modern analogy to 'Nero fiddling while Rome burns' as we'll ever see. About the only thing Ken got wrong was the daft PFI London tube thing - he was a fashion victim on that one.
|
|
|
|
The extra £5 a week is not intended to stop from using your car. It is intended to modify your behaviour - i.e. encourage you to drive a more efficient car.
The results of new research hits the headlines for good reason - it's important news about the future of the planet.
The reason they will not ban cars over a certain amount of CO2 is the same as why they wont ban smoking or drinking. It would be political suicide.
Livingstone a moron? - While I too disagree with many of his policies he is in fact a very smart guy.
The best thing I've ever heard Ken say was on a radio phone in about black cabs having to have particulate filters fitted. One cabbie phoned in and was giving Ken a hard time about how the expense was going to make him go bankrupt. Ken asked the cabbie how much he earned per year, the cabbie went silent at that point....
|
|
|
|
>> 1 child - what tosh. I supply enough to feed my 3 children so whyan't I have 3. A very short-sighted viewpoint indeed. So they have 3 etc. - and in any case food id not the issue at hand.
Why is it short sighted? Not having a go at you , but it might be better backing up what you say with some reasoning.
>> where food supply grows arithmeticallyWell it doesn't does it - and in any case food id not the issue at hand.
Food very much is relevant. This all stems from a thread asking what the place would be like with 3 billion extra people and their consumer aspirations. Well if you cannot feed these people then they are going to have slightly more to worry about than conumerism and other petty materialism. i think that they will be more interested in feeding themselves rather than which gadget they are next going to buy. If the governments of the world are by their actions and policies, going to cause farmers from taking more land out of food production and put into renewable energy sources, which is happening now, I really can't see how a population increase of 3 billion can be sustained. That is unless we have another Green Revolution. The "original" one in the mid 20th Century certainly helped increase supplies of food for an ever burgeoning population
>> disease and famine (as well as war) when the difference is too great and thus >> reducing population levels I'd say is a pretty good idea to avoid disease famine and war wouldn't you?
Whether it is a good idea to avoid or not is irrelevant. I firmly believe in Malthus, and would say that it is inevitable. Unfortunately we see this being played out all the time, and I come back to the ever increasing pressures on farming land being changed over to fuel production
|
Whether it is a good idea to avoid or not is irrelevant. I firmly believe in Malthus and would say that it is inevitable. Unfortunately we see this being played out all the time and I come back to the ever increasing pressures on farming land being changed over to fuel production
The future world may well be a very insecure place with increased competition for scarse resources. Already raw material prices are skyrocketing. Just look how Russia has used oil and gas as a political weapon to get its neighbours in line.
All this congestion charging stuff is nonsense if the politicians do not do something to ensure security of supply for fuel and food.
|
I'm a bit of a doom merchant about the future. Its nothing to do with the warming of the atmosphere, but control of sources of energy. I know that I drive a thirsty Outback, but in real terms the costs of heating and lighting my house and office are far greater and I spend time trying to save money where I can on those aspects, and save energy consumption as well.
I do not agree with Red Ken, mainly because he is trying to acheive something that we don't really want by masking it in a different wrapper. I rarely go to London, but it would be a far nicer place if there were less cars (as most other places would be) and see no reason why the government simply bans the sale of new cars with a CO2 emmission rating above a figure of say 200g/km and a similarly appropriate figure for trucks etc. We are destroying our environment using cars, not in terms of global warming but in terms of general pollution and the amount of congestion.
In trying to do by bit, by cycling occasionally when I would normally take the car I notice that the fumes hurt my throat (especially from diesels) and most drivers do not know what to do when they are confronted by a cyclist.
There was a power cut in our area last week for about 25 minutes. So many people I know had no idea what to do. We were able to calm our children, light a couple of candles and actually start to think about what activity we should do with them for the rest of the evening (it was 7:30pm), when the lights came back on. I wonder what we would do if that was a permanant situation?
|
got to agree with you about the diesel fumes, particulary nasty...
|
|
|
Of course you are right by saying London would be much nicer without the cars. It is a lovely place when the summer holidays are on - far fewer cars both driving and parked up. The one thing that I have never really understood is why people are happy to sit in miles of traffic jams every morning of their working lives (and presumably in the evening as well). I sometimes drive the opposite direction down the A316 (for example) and a high percentage of vehicles are single occupancy.
rather than focusing on high CO2 produers, Ken should be tackling these single occupancy cars. If I was him I would probably expand the CC Zone to the M25 or why not adopt what Athens does. You can only use your car every other day depending if youhave an odd or even number plate. Sure the rich who can afford 2 cars will not be affected so much, but I am afraid life is unfair.
Espada, as for diesel fumes, I agree and don't like it when I belch out clouds every now and then, but I am afraid that my 3 litre diesel only pumps out 184g/km of CO2. Not sure what's going to kill you first my CO2 or my PM10s
When the candles come out, the best thing to do is play wink murder.
|
I do find the idea that people are either "anti-car" or "pro-car" very simplistic. Ken's policies in London are about restraining the growth in private car use especially for commuting right into central London where there is genuinely a public transport alternative (and which is used by over 80% of journeys). The CC only applies to central areas where very few people would want to drive right in anyhow. It does not stop people in Richmond or Camden or Croydon from going to Tescos in their car. I wish some of the Anti Ken brigade would understand that London is a big place and the CC only applies to a small part of the built up area.
I for one fully support his efforts to reduce private car use and to rebalance road space to pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. It's about time those three categories of sustainable travel were given some support.
|
I do find the idea that people are either "anti-car" or "pro-car" very simplistic. I for one fully support his efforts to reduce private car use
I would too, if they weren't so anti-car.
Providing decent efficient affordable public transport is one thing. If the French can do it in Paris, which when I first went there had a very inferior transport system to London's, why can't we? It will cost more obviously. But that's our fault for having such a big fat capital. There's no escape really.
We all know that getting London Transport on its feet will take national money, that Ken and the Blair government didn't see eye to eye, and that no government in living memory has been willing to grasp this particular nettle.
Even so: systematically screwing up the roads and traffic lights to make motoring, most of it in the capital practical and commercial rather than leisure, more difficult, in the expectation that this will make people enjoy waiting on smelly tube platforms for ages and paying five dollars (see? I'm a citizen of the world!) to go a couple of hundred yards, is a form of criminality.
|
Red Ken might well be an intelligent man, but he's also an underhand sneaky one as well, which is a trait i really do not like.
If he wanted to introduce a green tax for Central London, he should have said so in the first place when he wanted to be elected. He didn't, because of course he wouldn't have been voted in then would he... so he covered up his real intent and called it something else.
If he truly wanted car drivers to use public transport, where pollution or congestion is a problem (and in C.London it is) ... then there are some simple ways of doing it:
1, Have multi storey car parks at tube/bus stations
2, Have guards on buses and tube trains, so that Mr Oik has less chance of intimidating
Mr Average
3, Get rid of CPZs near bus stations/ tube stations. It can hardly be a surprise that
people who want to use public transport might want to park near the stations.
4, make sure public transport is clean.
5, make the North Circular and South Circular into a mini M25, so people will go around
the centre, not through it.
6, subsidise the costs above from the green tax ( and inc a river boat service)
At the moment most people use public transport when it's essential. If they did the above a great chunk of the public might use it through choice. I find it ironic that the well off can do as they wish (and keep using their cars) and yet the poor have to ENDURE our public trasnport systems. For a Far Left politician i'm amazed he's missed this, unless he's got more up his sleeve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
