What kind of father sacrifices his children in order, he thinks, to win an election

I’ve said many times that I object to two-tier systems where freedoms are determined by ability to pay. That is why I am focusing on that aspect. Freedom of movement is fundamental to a free society.

I’m not arguing from a selfish point of view- I don’t drive, and use public transport where possible. It’s the principle that I object to, and the fact that restricting the movement of those who can’t pay is being dressed up as the moral high ground.

Thank you for your posts, M0nica and for having the guts to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

How much money has ULEZ brought in so far?
Again exact figures of how much it has generated since it was first implemented are not clear – but a Freedom of Information request found it generated over £224 million in those 12 months – an average of £18.7 million a month. (Copied from Metro 2022)

It's certainly a money making scheme, how many £12.50 payments (vehicles that do not comply with ULEZ) is that. If pollution is so bad in London why not ban these vehicles full stop, seems to me if you can afford to pay your £12.50 you're quite welcome to come to London and pollute the air. Is that why Khan wants to expand more money, personally that's what I think

Doodledog

I do remember that conversation, yes. The difference was that again, there was to be a charge to leave the zone, if memory serves?

There is a huge difference between having what you need close by and being contained within a limited area if you can't afford the charges to leave it. I don't remember the detail now, tbh; but I do remember that my objection was to the two-tier nature of it that depended on what people could afford. That is a hill I am prepared to die on, I'm afraid.

I don't think memory serves, Dd.

The 'charge' is a conspiracy theory embellishment as far as I can make out by searching around a number of explanations of the concept.

ULEZ of itself does not generate money. My car is ULEZ compliant because it has a low emission rate that means it can be driven without charge in areas where cars have to be low emission or pay.

It also means that I pay a lower car tax rate. Doodledog The new rues should not affect many people who are on low incomes, most non-compliant vehicles are big diesel 4 x 4s.

People on all incomes need to replace their cars, and few people run any specific car for more than 5-8 years.

What I can never understand is why the dinosaurs and Luddites of today keep hiding behind the 'the poor' instead of standing on their own feet. When anyone suggests measures to reduce global warming, improve living conditions, make people healthier, someone gets up and bleats about the poor. If I was poor I would be grossly offended by the way the well off wave the group I would be part of round their heads like banners.

if something that would improve the world for everyone would cause problems for some, do not cancel the improvement, find solutions for those who will be disadvantaged.

The poor are not 'the masses' or 'lumpenproletariat', they are a group of individuals who for many different reasons are on low incomes, a few are in this group all their lives, for others it is a temporary state. These broad generalisations about them and the patronage implicit in the people who use them, should be offensive to all.

I’ve found the thread, and this is an extract from the OP.
In recent months there has been increasing interest and chat around the concept of 15 minute cities. My understanding of the scheme is that within your own city zone, all your requirements for shops, education, health, recreation etc. will be available. Travel outside your zone on foot, public transport, cycle etc. will be allowed. However you would not be able to use your car more than 100 times per year to leave your zone to go into or cross another zone. To keep control of the use of cars, recognition cameras would monitor vehicle and fines issued to people who use their car to cross zones more than the allotted number of times. There would be exemptions for certain vehicles.
That may or may not be an accurate description of what was intended, but it is the last part of the extract that I objected to. Fining people who cross zones is another way to exercise social control, with more freedom for those who can afford to pay. As with ULEZ, it imposes huge restrictions on those unable to walk or cycle, and who have poor public transport facilities.

By all means, give people the ability to access basics without having to travel, and provide public transport for when they need or want to, but ghettoising them and containing them in zones is dystopian IMO, and it is made worse by allowing those who wish to escape their (probably much nicer) areas the right to do so if they pay a ‘fine’ (aka a mobility tax) to do so.

Without knowing the source of the Op's information, Dd it's difficult to judge where it is on the Fact ---> Conspiracy Theory spectrum.

Without knowing the source of the Op's information, Dd it's difficult to judge where it is on the Fact ---> Conspiracy Theory spectrum.
Maybe it is, but you brought it up as a means of saying that my views are contradictory. I was responding to the OP with the exact same logic as I am to the ideas on this one. If it is shown that the OP of that thread was based on false information then of course I would adjust my views accordingly. I would still object to anything that allows freedom of movement only to those who can pay though. Always.

Doodledog

I’ve found the thread, and this is an extract from the OP.
In recent months there has been increasing interest and chat around the concept of 15 minute cities. My understanding of the scheme is that within your own city zone, all your requirements for shops, education, health, recreation etc. will be available. Travel outside your zone on foot, public transport, cycle etc. will be allowed. However you would not be able to use your car more than 100 times per year to leave your zone to go into or cross another zone. To keep control of the use of cars, recognition cameras would monitor vehicle and fines issued to people who use their car to cross zones more than the allotted number of times. There would be exemptions for certain vehicles.
That may or may not be an accurate description of what was intended, but it is the last part of the extract that I objected to. Fining people who cross zones is another way to exercise social control, with more freedom for those who can afford to pay. As with ULEZ, it imposes huge restrictions on those unable to walk or cycle, and who have poor public transport facilities.

By all means, give people the ability to access basics without having to travel, and provide public transport for when they need or want to, but ghettoising them and containing them in zones is dystopian IMO, and it is made worse by allowing those who wish to escape their (probably much nicer) areas the right to do so if they pay a ‘fine’ (aka a mobility tax) to do so.

I have no idea where that quote came from. The point about LTN is that they reduce car use within the area and traffic through the area. They do so not through charges, but through a number of traffic reducing methods, including closing streets around primary schools at opening and closing times, traffic calming installations, and preventing cars which are just cutting through. None of these cost the poor anything. In fact the research I linked to indicated that where LTNs were introduced car use reduced and after time so did car ownership. Meaning not only was it good for air quality it reduced costs for the people living there.
As for the argument about ULEZ and the poor, most inner cities have decent public transport systems which are used by the poor and the young. The people bringing in cars are well able to afford the charge.

Doodledog

*Without knowing the source of the Op's information, Dd it's difficult to judge where it is on the Fact ---> Conspiracy Theory spectrum.*
Maybe it is, but you brought it up as a means of saying that my views are contradictory. I was responding to the OP with the exact same logic as I am to the ideas on this one. If it is shown that the OP of that thread was based on false information then of course I would adjust my views accordingly. I would still object to anything that allows freedom of movement only to those who can pay though. Always.

But, IIRC, there were posts on the thread which questioned the OP's interpretation.

There were also a number of hysterical ones about being trapped in one area and radical loss of freedom; which were the sort of thing I was thinking of when I alluded to objections to 15 minute cities on this thread.

I have great sympathy with your views, but I think that responding to an OP without investigating its veracity is a tad dangerous...

Maybe so, and I'm not getting drawn into discussing a TAAT that I can't remember fully, but the fact remains that people (me included) were responding to the situation as described in the OP. To use those responses as a way of arguing against posts on this one doesn't really stand up.

Glorianny I am not the one conflating the two things. I was responding to that conflation, is all.

I read this morning that a billionaire who had intended to invest in green technology in the U.K. has withdrawn because of all the “click bait” rhetoric emanating from Sunak.

This is a real issue - the willingness to invest in green technology is there, with the realisation that the extract of hydro-carbons is not the future.

Sunak does not seem. To be on the right side of the debate.

Many thanks for your post Dinahmo. I understand where you're coming from. However, Bazalgette worked on a problem that affected the population of London not the whole world.

As frequently seen in the news it seems it's nigh on impossible for countries to fully cooperate; hence the mess we're in right now.

I'm pessimisstic about the climate emergency because my research leads me to believe that whatever we do is too little, too late.

I think everyone should read:

'Net Zero: how we stop causing climate change', Dieter Helm

Helm is Professor of Economic Policy, Oxford University.

He states "the inconvenient truth is that our carbon intensive lifestules are causing the climiate crisis and that fixing or even just slowing it will affect all of us".

Dinahmo (hello again!) what a lark that an Australian is threatening to cut off funds! Australia is one of the dirtiest countries per head of population and a large supplier of global fossil fuels.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-57925798

Doodledog

I’ve found the thread, and this is an extract from the OP.
In recent months there has been increasing interest and chat around the concept of 15 minute cities. My understanding of the scheme is that within your own city zone, all your requirements for shops, education, health, recreation etc. will be available. Travel outside your zone on foot, public transport, cycle etc. will be allowed. However you would not be able to use your car more than 100 times per year to leave your zone to go into or cross another zone. To keep control of the use of cars, recognition cameras would monitor vehicle and fines issued to people who use their car to cross zones more than the allotted number of times. There would be exemptions for certain vehicles.
That may or may not be an accurate description of what was intended, but it is the last part of the extract that I objected to. Fining people who cross zones is another way to exercise social control, with more freedom for those who can afford to pay. As with ULEZ, it imposes huge restrictions on those unable to walk or cycle, and who have poor public transport facilities.

By all means, give people the ability to access basics without having to travel, and provide public transport for when they need or want to, but ghettoising them and containing them in zones is dystopian IMO, and it is made worse by allowing those who wish to escape their (probably much nicer) areas the right to do so if they pay a ‘fine’ (aka a mobility tax) to do so.

I have not read past this post, so apologies if my point has already been made.

The passage quotes here conflates Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) and 15 minute cities. They are not the same thing,

A 15-minute city is one where residents live within a 15-minute walking or cycling distance of lots of things, like shops and schools. A low-traffic neighbourhood is a neighbourhood where the local authority has limited or restricted through-traffic.

Northernlass Perhaps the Australian will make Sunak rethink his policies.

But it's not just fumes from cars that are causing pollution. The last time I stayed n London there was a lot of regeneration work to the underground around Trafalgar Square and other nearby stations. It seemed that a large part of central London was swathed in scaffolding and plastic sheeting because of extra floors being added to a number of blocks of flats. I found it impossible to walk more than a few steps without gasping for breath and so we took taxis everywhere. And I'm someone who used to walk from say Sadlers Wells or Covent Garden to Liverpool Street to catch the train home.

This was a few years before covid so maybe that work has been finished.

I agree about the disagreements amongst countries over climate change but we should still act to clean up the air in the UK.

I have not read past this post, so apologies if my point has already been made.

The passage quotes here conflates Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) and 15 minute cities. They are not the same thing,

A 15-minute city is one where residents live within a 15-minute walking or cycling distance of lots of things, like shops and schools. A low-traffic neighbourhood is a neighbourhood where the local authority has limited or restricted through-traffic

I know. The 15 minute cities thread was brought up to suggest that the 'hysterical' responses to it are the same as the responses to LTNs. Not by me .

I wish we did still use fossil fuels here. We have shut down all our coal mines with a result that electricity costs are sky high. I wish people would get their facts straight.

Doodledog apologies. I was skimming, because the sheer treadmill like repetitiveness of these type of threads drives me bonkers.

nanna there is just as much electricity produced from renewables as coal in this country. Hopefully, it won’t be long before renewables are the absolutely biggest producer.

Glorianny

I must disagree with you that * "global warming is a natural occurence"*

Perhaps you'd like to read this:

theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-much-of-climate-change-is-natural-how-much-is-man-made-123604

Greciangirl

I’m all for fossil fuels.
I don’t think we will ever be totally reliant on green energy.
It’s just isn’t feasible for the vast majority of the population.

I can’t afford to replace my very reliable gas boiler or replace my diesel run car for an electric one.

Global warming will happen no matter what we do.
It might be delayed for a while longer, but it’s a natural occurrence. And as for ditching oil!
It’s never going to happen entirely.

That's Greciangirl

Grecian Girl What will happen to you, were the gas supply be cut off because we had enough renewable power to heat homes otherwise and demand for gas has fallens so far that the distribution system has been closed down? What use will a gas boiler be then?

You may not be able to afford an electric car, but you could swap your diesel car for a petrol car, which would be much more environmentally friendly.

As for climate change. there are two causes, man made and natural. The scientific evidence is there to show that the amount of green house gases put into the atmosphere since the industrial revvolution is the main cause for the current climatic decline.

Or let me put it another way. We can trace how human intervention can damage our climate, so we therefore also have the power and science to affect the climate to our advantage. So if climate change is natural, why should we just shrug our shoulders turn up our toes and die of starvation and heat stroke, when we have the power to use the science at our disposal to ameliorate it?

No one has ever suggested that we will be able to entirely eliminate the use of oil and gas, but we can reduce its usage to a level that the natural environemnt can deal with.

The problem with climate conspiracists is that they have to attribute arguments to their opponents that they are not making and then defeat them, because the real arguments are too difficult for them to address.

The LTNs around here aren't popular, because they push traffic onto other roads, causing more pollution, on those roads, and delaying journeys to get anywhere.

They were everywhere, at one point, but I notice our (Tory) council has started to remove some of the "blockades".