Khan Can

[Yugguy1970]

I'm no fan of government or of messing with nature.

What I would say is that if we ARE in a climate emergency then we need science.  We will never stop human consumption and unless there is a truly deadly pandemic that wipes out a good proportion of us our pollution and consumption will only ever rise.  So we'll have to science our way out.

Co2 eating moss, plastic eating bacteria, cold fusion, etc.  Yes they could well be Pandoras box but unless we have a Thanos style snap what else can we do?

[CPN]

4 hours ago, Yugguy1970 said:

... what else can we do?

Stop believing in myths would be a good start!

[Yugguy1970]

Sigh.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/microplastics/

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/microplastics-human-bodies-health-risks

A demonstrable effect of human activity on the planet that affects all of us and we don't know what the outcome will be.

The ozone layer is another, we did at least do something about that. 

You cannot argue that humanity has no footprint.

[CPN]

1 hour ago, Yugguy1970 said:

Sigh.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/microplastics/

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/microplastics-human-bodies-health-risks

A demonstrable effect of human activity on the planet that affects all of us and we don't know what the outcome will be.

The ozone layer is another, we did at least do something about that.

None of which have anything to do with climate... 

1 hour ago, Yugguy1970 said:

You cannot argue that humanity has no footprint.

I most certainly can (in climate terms). 

Sigh.... 

[Yugguy1970]

I think we might have to agree to disagree on that one aye.

[Haliotis]

17 hours ago, CPN said:

Couldn't have put it better myself!

This planet of ours has been doing what it has been doing for millions of years and it is outstandingly arrogant of the human race to think that we can have any bearing on that outcome.

We need to feel a little more humble when it comes to working with nature and not so self-important!

This is exactly the point that is being missed.  Long before human beings even existed, Nature made some very violent changes to the planet.  It has been a lifeless frozen ball, the dinosaurs were wiped out by collision with a giant meteor, which basically destroyed their food supply.  The atmosphere has been a poisonous mix of sulphur dioxide and methane, and at one time there was no water on the planet.

Fortunately for us, for a few million years the climate (and our environment) has been relatively calm.  But this does not mean that Nature has lost its power to make dramatic changes.  Just by looking back to the past, anyone can see that the human race is powerless in fighting back at Nature. And I personally believe that the “conceived threats” of climate change could  be more to do with Nature than the actions of Man.  Humans undoubtably need the planet, but the planet does not need them!

[CPN]

21 minutes ago, Yugguy1970 said:

I think we might have to agree to disagree on that one aye.

If you insist but you could also have a full read of this, if you have a mind to, as one example of science...

 

[CPN]

1 minute ago, Haliotis said:

This is exactly the point that is being missed.  Long before human beings even existed, Nature made some very violent changes to the planet.  It has been a lifeless frozen ball, the dinosaurs were wiped out by collision with a giant meteor, which basically destroyed their food supply.  The atmosphere has been a poisonous mix of sulphur dioxide and methane, and at one time there was no water on the planet.

Fortunately for us, for a few million years the climate (and our environment) has been relatively calm.  But this does not mean that Nature has lost its power to make dramatic changes.  Just by looking back to the past, anyone can see that the human race is powerless in fighting back at Nature. And I personally believe that the “conceived threats” of climate change could  be more to do with Nature than the actions of Man.  Humans undoubtably need the planet, but the planet does not need them!

Absolutely spot on!!

[DerekHa]

2 hours ago, Yugguy1970 said:

Sigh.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/microplastics/

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/microplastics-human-bodies-health-risks

A demonstrable effect of human activity on the planet that affects all of us and we don't know what the outcome will be.

The ozone layer is another, we did at least do something about that. 

You cannot argue that humanity has no footprint.

I for one agree with you Guy! So you're not alone, you only have to look at the weather this year and how devastating it's been across the whole globe, unprecedented wildfires, floods, heatwaves and deep freezes.

Here in the UK we're relatively lucky as we have this "green and pleasant land", our climate isn't one of extremes unlike say the U.S, Canada, China and Russia. The U.S., China and the likes of Indian are the worlds biggest polluters and their climates have always been ones of extremes since well before the industrialised world really took off last century. The worlds biggest polluters are also the lands of the most extreme weather systems before today and they will suffer far worse in the time to come.

For none of us here will it really matter, even the youngest of us will be long gone and forgotten by the time mother nature shows what's she ultimately capable of. I worry mostly for my grand kid's, their children and what the world will be like for them to live in. Things need to change and rapidly!

Hopefully we as a race will find a way to stop the runaway train we have climbed aboard.

[Yugguy1970]

I'm off to see this tomorrow with my father in law https://tanks-trucks-and-firepower.co.uk/

Which will probably negate all the hybrid benefits anyway 🤣

[Bper]

This always fascinates me with this argument on microplastics and the blame that is put on the consumer.  

If I have missed something please let me know.

Plastics have been around for decades and were not invented or demanded by the general public. 

They have been a cheap and highly profitable means for corporate companies to push these into nearly every form of manufacturing and at the same time the general public is blamed for it's mass use and disposal.

I didn't demand that plastics are used in food production or that it should be disposed of in our seas and waterways. Who is dumping this into the sea and damaging both wildlife and fish? it's those that are in pursuit of profit.

Who asked for food to be wrapped in plastic, I didn't. When they invented plastics did the corporate boards sit around a table and discuss that this might not be a good idea or if the disposal of plastics would damage the health of people, the environment or wildlife? no they didn't.

It was geared for mass production and profit. The damage this has caused to wildlife, the seas and fish is terrible, but what about the damage this is causing to our health. Plastics are in nearly every form of manufacturing and it's disposal is being found in countless consumer products, let alone the water and food we consume. And to add insult to injury, it's the consumer that is blamed for this.

We were blamed for the over use of paper bags and the damage it was causing to both the trees and climate but who was it that was cutting them down. Corporate organisations whose sole aim was to make profit.

Amazing how governments and corporates can make decisions when profits and agenda's are at stake but take no responsibility when it all goes wrong. 

Funny how the consumer is blamed for everything that damages the planet when the the ones who are really responsible can be found if you just follow the money.

Councils can justify cutting down hundreds of trees to make way for bus and cycle lanes in London and Cambridge but then blame us for things that the mass populations never invented or asked for.

 

[Haliotis]

Have a great time, Guy. These things represent history and, IMHO, must be preserved and demonstrated.

When our S-I-L was in the RAF, we regularly visited air shows.  Arriving day before show, we stayed in their married quarters home and got prime position for the show. Got close up to some awesome airplanes.

[Haliotis]

Bob, when I was a kid, everything was bought at local shops, and what was not tinned or bottled was wrapped in paper bags.   It was the advent of supermarkets that moved lots of foodstuffs into plastic throw-away trays and wrappings.  Most councils had furnaces to burn much of their waste, the rest going into landfill sites.  Expired landfill sites eventually ended up having housing estates built on them, until problems of methane gas and harmful toxic waste forced this practice to end.  The unavailability of new sites for landfill, plus buried toxic waste finding its way into rivers, brought about councils having to recycle waste whenever possible.  And then they simply exported much of this (particularly plastics), which often went to third world countries and found them throwing it into the oceans.

Waste recycling is still poorly controlled, with variations in what local authorities will, or will not, accept.  Full control will not be achieved until, wherever one moves countrywide, the only difference can be the collection day. Also, for this to be successful, producers of all manufacturing processes, from food to general goods, will have to do their share in minimising packaging, and the general public will also have to act responsibly in keeping wastage and packaging to a minimum.

As one example of irresponsibility, my received emails ask for a hard copy not to be made unless essential.  Yet, when our mobile service provider sends a printed letter concerning our two phones, we each get a letter even though they are on the same account, and under Mr & Mrs at the same address.  This must be a common occurrence by many institutions, so imagine the amount of unnecessary waste of paper that involves. Furthermore, the Royal Mail post advertising leaflets along with the mail and, in the space of a week, this unwanted garbage can sometimes nearly fill a carrier bag.

[anchorman]

On 8/5/2023 at 4:01 PM, Big_D said:

And as @Bper says how this will effect those on lower incomes who cannot afford to change their cars

They will find the money if they stop unnecessary spending and if not, they can use public transport.  These cars have to go.  It’ll be interesting to see what happens now.  Will they find the £12.50 deterrent, buy a compliant car or turn to public transport.  

[Haliotis]

2 hours ago, anchorman said:

They will find the money if they stop unnecessary spending and if not, they can use public transport.  These cars have to go.  It’ll be interesting to see what happens now.  Will they find the £12.50 deterrent, buy a compliant car or turn to public transport.  

There are thousands of very low paid families who have already stopped unnecessary spending (some have never started), and those just above the level where benefit entitlement ends are the worst disadvantaged. And where is the cut-off point that defines “unnecessary spending”. Many have non-compliant cars which they cannot afford to replace, and are situated where public transport is not a viable option. In particular, those who work unsocial hours and have to travel in and out of the ULEZ zone on a daily basis, are really hit hard. Extension of the zone will increase the problem for more people.

If society and the government consider it fair for people to be so low paid, then society and the government are guilty of placing these people in dire straits.

My own car is fairly new and compliant - the ULEZ charge would not affect me - but I would consider myself extremely hard-hearted if I was unsympathetic towards those stuck with low incomes.  Also, we are now witnessing illegal migrants being more cared-for than our own UK citizens so, as a country, what has happened to our morality?

[Cyker]

I do find it a bit depressing and ironic that Labour, who are supposed to be the party that look after the working class, are the ones who have consistently been screwing over the working class as much as possible.

 

[anchorman]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

There are thousands of very low paid families who have already stopped unnecessary spending (some have never started), and those just above the level where benefit entitlement ends are the worst disadvantaged. And where is the cut-off point that defines “unnecessary spending”. Many have non-compliant cars which they cannot afford to replace, and are situated where public transport is not a viable option. In particular, those who work unsocial hours and have to travel in and out of the ULEZ zone on a daily basis, are really hit hard. Extension of the zone will increase the problem for more people.

If society and the government consider it fair for people to be so low paid, then society and the government are guilty of placing these people in dire straits.

My own car is fairly new and compliant - the ULEZ charge would not affect me - but I would consider myself extremely hard-hearted if I was unsympathetic towards those stuck with low incomes.  Also, we are now witnessing illegal migrants being more cared-for than our own UK citizens so, as a country, what has happened to our morality?

It depends on how you view morality.  I’m not hard up now but I was for a good part of my working life when times were much harder than they are now and I didn’t have entitled snowflakes coming down on my side.  It needs rolling out nationally to get these older cars scrapped year on year by Euro standards.  

[Bper]

27 minutes ago, anchorman said:

It depends on how you view morality.  I’m not hard up now but I was for a good part of my working life when times were much harder than they are now and I didn’t have entitled snowflakes coming down on my side.  It needs rolling out nationally to get these older cars scrapped year on year by Euro standards.  

Don, so many issues with the circumstances of people that will effect their ability to change their cars, the biggest one is obviously the cost to do so as many are running their cars on a shoestring with the cost of living and poor incomes the prime reasons.

[Bper]

Despite the denial of Sadiq Khan himself and his office do you trust that he will not implement pay per mile driving even though he commissioned a study to look in to the feasibility of doing this. What will you do if he does.

My own opinion is he will see how both profitability and reaction to the ULEZ expansion goes and then implement it as soon as possible.😡

[Cyker]

The thing is, removing those older cars prematurely only helps emissions on a very local level - On a wider scale it's actually worse; Think about how many new cars would need to be created to fill that gap, and the resources, energy, waste and emissions involved.

Even tho' we can use the resources from the old cars to make new ones, a lot of energy and emissions goes into converting that back into useable raw material, so overall it's a net loss.

I'm not even sure what the real value is - One of the arguments against the ULEZ is most of the cars targeted would have likely have expired naturally 5-10 years later anyway, so all the money poured into this will ultimately be wasted - The only way it won't is if the goalposts get moved, and we already know this is the plan with the Per Mile Charging, so even people who drive compliant cars and think they're safe will likely find they aren't in the not to distant future, because it will be so easy for the government to raise capital at will by increasing the charge because it won't be subject to the same rules as existing taxation.

 

The other big argument is this is probably one of the worst times for this to happen - I think only the well-off do any 'unnecessary spending' now, with rocketing mortgages and energy costs vacuuming up what little margin people had; This summer holiday I've seen the least number of people go abroad for a holiday ever, with most just staying at home with the occasional family visit or day/weekend trip.

On top of that, the daily £12.50 charge is going to make it even harder to save up any money to get a replacement car. You could go public transport, but I found that actually cost more than my Mk1 D4D and Mk4 hybrid (About break-even with the Mk2), and the journey time was often worse due to them deciding to cut short the route so I'd have to change busses mid-journey, and especially road works on the routes I used. It doesn't help with KHAAAAAN! cutting bus routes, when all this ULEZ money should mean he's adding them! And if I used the tube then the daily cost was far in excess of my journey by car!

I just don't understand how we've smegged up public transport so badly that a personal vehicle is cheaper on a daily basis.

 

[olddriver]

There may be light at the end of the tunnel, although this article says the result of the legal challenge does not necessarily affect other actions - Chaos for Sadiq Khan on the eve of ULEZ expansion as signs for Low Emission Zone are ruled ILLEGAL after action by driver who appealed after he ran up fines of £11,500:-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12452271/A-blow-ULEZ-expansion-plan-Scaffolder-wins-legal-ruling-signs-ultra-low-emission-zones-sister-scheme-not-lawful.html

[anchorman]

2 hours ago, Bper said:

Don, so many issues with the circumstances of people that will effect their ability to change their cars, the biggest one is obviously the cost to do so as many are running their cars on a shoestring with the cost of living and poor incomes the prime reasons.

I’m aware but there’s bigger issues at stake 👍

[anchorman]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

Despite the denial of Sadiq Khan himself and his office do you trust that he will not implement pay per mile driving even though he commissioned a study to look in to the feasibility of doing this. What will you do if he does.

My own opinion is he will see how both profitability and reaction to the ULEZ expansion goes and then implement it as soon as possible.😡

 

Me?   You mean pay per mile with E6 vehicles.  That won’t happen.  

[Cyker]

I hate to say it, but that is what we increasingly feel will happen; The scenario we're predicting is, once they've established the infrastructure for ULEZ fully, London is going to be the test bed to see what the best way of implementing pay per mile is, then they're going to start rolling it out to the whole country for all vehicles, regardless of their emissions ratings.

As I keep saying, this is nothing to do with the environment or emissions - That is just a pretext to try and sell it to us without provoking resistance - This is about how they're going to fill the massive funding deficit created by the loss in fuel tax when EVs start becoming the majority of vehicles.

It will be a good few years, but I fear that's where we're headed...

[Bper]

32 minutes ago, Cyker said:

I hate to say it, but that is what we increasingly feel will happen; The scenario we're predicting is, once they've established the infrastructure for ULEZ fully, London is going to be the test bed to see what the best way of implementing pay per mile is, then they're going to start rolling it out to the whole country for all vehicles, regardless of their emissions ratings.

As I keep saying, this is nothing to do with the environment or emissions - That is just a pretext to try and sell it to us without provoking resistance - This is about how they're going to fill the massive funding deficit created by the loss in fuel tax when EVs start becoming the majority of vehicles.

It will be a good few years, but I fear that's where we're headed...

Perhaps any loss in revenue will be made up by increase in road tax, obviously pay per mile would be a big earner, additional tax on car  insurance along with increase in fines,parking permits, on street parking to name a few. I've depressed myself now😩