This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
FoI request shows the Tories wasted £370k of tax payers' money on fighting court battles (which it lost) concerning illegal levels of air pollution directly due to their inadequate and harmful policies. This is one of the main aims of much of the Tory Brexit nut case cabal on leaving the EU. Being able to poison us all in exchange for kickbacks and board positions from their friends in industry. They care not a jot about public health and the environment, simply about lining their own pockets. The EU for them is a hindrance in doing as they wish for their own ends, as cases like this prove. Brexit needs handling by grown ups on behalf of the people and issues like cutting air pollution protecting and the environment, the biggest and most important issues we face globally, need to have their causes furthered and enshrined in UK law. This government would tear much of the legislation up and give control and power over our environment to Gove and their chums. This isn't taking back control or giving us more say. It's the opposite. That is basically how the EU's clean air policy works. Set targets that are impossible to achieve, then demand money off of countries for breaking impossible air quality level. They also allowed the euro emission rigged cars to contribute to this and still do as they only have a pass a lab test, not a real world test. Meanwhile you have India, China and the US etc making small national, or local, targets irrelevant on a world scale while they do as they please.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| nickgusset |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
That is basically how the EU's clean air policy works. Set targets that are impossible to achieve, then demand money off of countries for breaking impossible air quality level. They also allowed the euro emission rigged cars to contribute to this and still do as they only have a pass a lab test, not a real world test. Meanwhile you have India, China and the US etc making small national, or local, targets irrelevant on a world scale while they do as they please. China are investing more than anyone else in the world on renewables and cleaner air.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
That is basically how the EU's clean air policy works. Set targets that are impossible to achieve, then demand money off of countries for breaking impossible air quality level. They also allowed the euro emission rigged cars to contribute to this and still do as they only have a pass a lab test, not a real world test. Meanwhile you have India, China and the US etc making small national, or local, targets irrelevant on a world scale while they do as they please.
Also the targets are not unachievable, and in this instance the law being broken was to move towards the target in the quickest time possible. Our policies did very little. We can't use what others do as an excuse and we can't sit back and do nothing. Also what the US does has little to do with air quality in London for instance. That is a public health crisis that requires action from local and national government to radically change policies on everything from car emissions to construction to public transport policy. We need a proper cleaner air act and a proper diesel scrappage scheme. Investing in green technology is a no-brainer but no popular in Tory circles as it's contrary to their own personal interests.
|
|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
China are investing more than anyone else in the world on renewables and cleaner air. In recognition of what the world will require in the future and cementing their place as world leaders in renewable/green tech and also being the sensible and leading world power. China clearly sees that sustainability and the environment are important and that it cannot rely on fossil fuels for much longer and that demand is and will shift and they can be at the forefront of that change.
|
|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
China are investing more than anyone else in the world on renewables and cleaner air. While still being the single biggest polluter, they have less than double the EU population and more than 3 times the CO2. And they still allow plenty of things to happen that we have long since banned in terms of pollution, and they'll report things as they want them to be reported, rather than the facts.
Optimistic as ever |
|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Also the targets are not unachievable, and in this instance the law being broken was to move towards the target in the quickest time possible. Our policies did very little. We can't use what others do as an excuse and we can't sit back and do nothing. Also what the US does has little to do with air quality in London for instance. That is a public health crisis that requires action from local and national government to radically change policies on everything from car emissions to construction to public transport policy. We need a proper cleaner air act and a proper diesel scrappage scheme. Investing in green technology is a no-brainer but no popular in Tory circles as it's contrary to their own personal interests. London broke it's target in just 5 days! Please do tell me how to achieve the target with a mere 360 more days required? As for the US not affecting us, the air doesn't just sit over it's own country. The gulf stream brings their east coast air to the west of Europe. My point was, like the congestion charge, they do not cut emissions or clean the air. They simply take money from the public and the government or EU pisses it away along with the rest of our taxes, duties, levies etc etc.
Optimistic as ever |
|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
London broke it's target in just 5 days! Please do tell me how to achieve the target with a mere 360 more days required? As for the US not affecting us, the air doesn't just sit over it's own country. The gulf stream brings their east coast air to the west of Europe. My point was, like the congestion charge, they do not cut emissions or clean the air. They simply take money from the public and the government or EU pisses it away along with the rest of our taxes, duties, levies etc etc.
We have to be ambitious over this as it's extremely important. US and China clearly important but the air quality in London is hugely dominated by factors within London. Congestion charge has changed behaviour. The reality is that this government has limited interest in this vitally important problem, and has proven this by wasting money fighting legal battles that are forcing it to recognise it's not even trying. Leaving the EU should be an opportunity to do much more in terms of reducing emissions, our impact on the environment and state investment in green tech. There's little point in leaving the EU if you ignore all the opportunities and actually make things worse. The only opportunities this government is taking are those to make us look stupid, make businesses leave and make ordinary people worse off, while wrecking public services.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
London broke it's target in just 5 days! Please do tell me how to achieve the target with a mere 360 more days required? As for the US not affecting us, the air doesn't just sit over it's own country. The gulf stream brings their east coast air to the west of Europe. My point was, like the congestion charge, they do not cut emissions or clean the air. They simply take money from the public and the government or EU pisses it away along with the rest of our taxes, duties, levies etc etc. Also targets are to do with how often air pollution exceeds dangerous limits over an hour. It's not a cumulative measure. The requirement is for air quality not to be dangerous often, not simply for emissions over the year not to exceed a given number. This is totally achievable, and is more of an sad indictment of the dangerous level of pollution in London than a ridiculous and unfair target. So having another 360 days isn't particularly relevant. It's making sure that the quality of air is consistently high enough so as not to be dangerous. The level of pollution we're talking about should never really be breached, but these targets generously allow a number of breaches a year.
|
|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
We have to be ambitious over this as it's extremely important. US and China clearly important but the air quality in London is hugely dominated by factors within London. Congestion charge has changed behaviour. The reality is that this government has limited interest in this vitally important problem, and has proven this by wasting money fighting legal battles that are forcing it to recognise it's not even trying. Leaving the EU should be an opportunity to do much more in terms of reducing emissions, our impact on the environment and state investment in green tech. There's little point in leaving the EU if you ignore all the opportunities and actually make things worse. The only opportunities this government is taking are those to make us look stupid, make businesses leave and make ordinary people worse off, while wrecking public services. I wasn't referring to a specific case (and you didn't refer the details of one), I was saying that inventing a cost or charge fro something doesn't reduce the emissions or congestion, or whatever else, it simply raises revenue. The congestion charge has not changed behaviour, congestion is worse and if you need to take a vehicle into London you still do, it just costs you an ever increasing amount of money to do so. That an engine meets a certain requirement for the CC, or T charge, doesn't mean to say it actually emits less emissions than an engine that doesn't in real driving conditions. There's every point in leaving the EU, nothing we do when we leave will make things worse, and not handing over lots of cash for something out of our control will be one of them. Clean the air if that's the point, don't simply introduce a charge for not achieving it.
Optimistic as ever |
|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Also targets are to do with how often air pollution exceeds dangerous limits over an hour. It's not a cumulative measure. The requirement is for air quality not to be dangerous often, not simply for emissions over the year not to exceed a given number. This is totally achievable, and is more of an sad indictment of the dangerous level of pollution in London than a ridiculous and unfair target. So having another 360 days isn't particularly relevant. It's making sure that the quality of air is consistently high enough so as not to be dangerous. The level of pollution we're talking about should never really be breached, but these targets generously allow a number of breaches a year. If the yearly target is broken in 5 days it is not achievable. Regardless of how they frame it or measure it. When there isn't a single piece of public transport, council vehicle or public sector activity contributing towards the pollution then they can ask the rest of us to do the same. All the while buses, trains, dustcarts and the like are out there belching out emissions asking joe public to change everything at their expense is a joke.
Optimistic as ever |
|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
I wasn't referring to a specific case (and you didn't refer the details of one), I was saying that inventing a cost or charge fro something doesn't reduce the emissions or congestion, or whatever else, it simply raises revenue. The congestion charge has not changed behaviour, congestion is worse and if you need to take a vehicle into London you still do, it just costs you an ever increasing amount of money to do so. That an engine meets a certain requirement for the CC, or T charge, doesn't mean to say it actually emits less emissions than an engine that doesn't in real driving conditions. There's every point in leaving the EU, nothing we do when we leave will make things worse, and not handing over lots of cash for something out of our control will be one of them. Clean the air if that's the point, don't simply introduce a charge for not achieving it. That's totally incorrect. Evidence is clear that such schemes all over the world cause changes in behaviour. You're suggesting the congestion charge has had zero impact on volume of vehicles in the congestion zone (in fact you've said numbers have gone up). Multiple sources report the impact, here is just one: To suggest otherwise ignores fact. Data shows that the only class of vehicle showing increased activity in CC zone and wider central London and delivery vehicles due to rise in e-commerce, something that can be easily tackled by using delivery hubs around London rather than simply doing single drops offs. Removing laws and targets set by the EU that require reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in air quality will definitely make things worse and pretending otherwise is wilful ignorance. To turn a blind eye to the opportunities will make Brexit a failure. More needs to be done, not less as this government would like. Here is this government's priority: [Link] Wasting our money in a bid to avoid tacking the crisis in air quality and pollution.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
If the yearly target is broken in 5 days it is not achievable. Regardless of how they frame it or measure it. When there isn't a single piece of public transport, council vehicle or public sector activity contributing towards the pollution then they can ask the rest of us to do the same. All the while buses, trains, dustcarts and the like are out there belching out emissions asking joe public to change everything at their expense is a joke. So all the vehicles which were built from 2006 and are polluting the atmosphere are unaffected. Also the MOT test should be strengthened to eliminate the polluting vehicles regardless of when they were made.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
If the yearly target is broken in 5 days it is not achievable. Regardless of how they frame it or measure it. When there isn't a single piece of public transport, council vehicle or public sector activity contributing towards the pollution then they can ask the rest of us to do the same. All the while buses, trains, dustcarts and the like are out there belching out emissions asking joe public to change everything at their expense is a joke.
What rubbish. The whole point is that the government is meant to set laws and create the incentives for everyone and set an example. We all need to do more, but the government more than any single person as they have the power to do so. Who's been suggesting the public should do this all by themselves? My point has been in my posts that this will soon become the responsibility of our government and their stance will be to make things worse when they should be tackling the problem.
|
|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
The EU insists on daytime lights on new cars. How green is that?
Will that happen? Not with this government. Wasted opportunity.
|
|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Prize of a date with Hedgie, Hrolf and Stirling at Billy Bragg's concert at Royal Festival Hall in January for whomever writes the 10,000th post.
A gentle reminder/warning
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| hedgehog50 |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I imagine it's for safety and cars run off their batteries. Post Brexit there is an opportunity to make our laws ensure all aspects of travel are more environmentally friendly and world leading. Will that happen? Not with this government. Wasted opportunity. How much does it add to global warming?
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
So all the vehicles which were built from 2006 and are polluting the atmosphere are unaffected. Also the MOT test should be strengthened to eliminate the polluting vehicles regardless of when they were made. I believe the criteria for T-charge is based on a car's "Euro" rating. So has to be at least Euro-4, rising to Euro-6 in a few years to avoid the charge. The Euro ratings are also designed to become more stringent over time. This demonstrates the issue. We could be more bold by having much better UK car ratings and stopping high polluting vehicles from going into urban areas once we leave the EU. The government could though forget about it and allow dangerous vehicles where they like. There are huge numbers of schools in London in areas with illegally high and dangerous levels of pollution. These also happen to be schools with higher percentages of free school meals and the report was only recently published, having been suppressed by Boris: Serious problem, which requires serious solutions. Outside the EU I think we stand at serious risk of it getting worse, but there is real opportunity to make it better.
|
|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
How much does it add to global warming? What having the lights on? Whatever petrol it uses to charge the battery that little extra bit. Probably not a lot, but will be different once cars are all electric I imagine. More like a household light.
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.