Saved me posting similar, the air quality improvements help reduce the load on the health services. Making city centers largely vehicle free has greatly improved the quality of life for residents and visitors here in the Netherlands.
It's also just straight-up more pleasant. I like cars. Driving cars in the downtown of any city is not fun, and infrastructure designed to facilitate cars is almost universally unappealing. So long as you have the public transit infrastructure in place (and London certainly does), there is simply no good reason to prioritize the experience of being bumper-to-bumper in a carbon monoxide haze, hunting for parking. A few years ago, Halifax shut down vehicular traffic for exactly one street in the downtown area, of about 500 meters in length, and turned it into a pedestrian plaza with outdoor cafes. It's crazy how much that changed the character of the area. There simply isn't any good reason to prioritize cars beyond some vague MUH FREEDOMS nonsense.
Yeh right, the imaginary climate crisis We were in London the other day and commented on how much less traffic there was and how it didn’t smell toxic like it used to The ‘elites’? What the Tory Gov who oppose ULEZ and are backtracking on green policies? Oh no, that’s right, it’s the mysterious liberal elite who hold all the power right? Fairy Stories
It think this climate stuff must come from how basically our right wing lunatics (and left wing lunatics for that matter) steal their talking points from the US. In the case of the left wing / liberal establishment (“blob” / “deep state”) it is a nonsense with regards to the U.K. since we have have a a Tory government for 13 years and then a relatively centre left labour one just before that (that needed to bail the country back from a right wing pro small government, and free market period). It makes a little more sense in the US with the current democrat rule and only a four year interruption from the previous eight. And the claim that what blocked trump was this “deep state” rather than him just not being a good politician or negotiator. Funny that they ignore him forcing on three Supreme Court justices and loads of other judges when people claim he was thwarted. And the right wingers also crow about him being a really effective president. Seriously there are middle aged people who with a straight face claim he was the most efficient president of their lifetime (and pine for him back) The other reason the deep state narrative works in America but doesn’t here is due to their split of federal and state government system. You can make claims that a federal deep state is thwarting the states. That is just not a factor here (And the left aren’t totally innocent of this either but that isn’t the current topic)
Utter horse ****. Just made up numbers and total bollocks. The government can get someone to write a report and get it signed off easily. It’s just lies to keep the con going. I just read that report and it is utter horseshit. Most of the report is done based of calculating a fewer number of cars on the road and then estimating the outcome. Barely anything is actually measured in that study, it’s all extrapolated - because they can’t measure the change in such a large area. Then there are some measured values which show some slight drops in emissions from 2019 to now… hmm can anyone think of a reason why this could be? Could it be… that the whole of London was under lockdown so there we’re way less cars on the road? It’s just nonsense to get people to believe the scam. Nowhere near enough provable data there. Correlation does not equal causation despite what the frauds that “peer reviewed” that study want you to think
So, you admit that fewer cars on the road for lockdown reduces pollution, but fewer cars on the roads due to ULEZ has no impact? Have you ever stopped to think about what you are saying? Here is a scientific paper on the incredible difference Low Emmission Zones have made in Germany. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965856415001159?via=ihub
I have. Have you considered that measuring NO2 levels by the side of the road has almost no relevance to the climate? As we all know, statistics can be manipulated to prove anything you like. They are using bad data to make generalised conclusions in order to make sweeping changes to society. There are also peer reviewed studies which show that methane & nitrous oxide has no effect on the wider climate. To be honest though, I am glad Labour Party members seem to be supporting this nonsense. It means that they have no chance of winning again
So, you think that pollution by the side of the road is about the climate? Os, this one is about people's health. You know the little kids with Asthma and the older people with COPD without ever having smoked. The fact that roads act like rivers, channelling pollution through cities, means anyone living on a larger road is going to be adversely affected.
This is what ULEZ is supposedly for. To “protect the environment” and “stop climate change”. They deliberately use vague terms so that they can flip their argument around. In another 30-50 years when it’s evident that co2 has no effect on the climate, they will be able to keep the tax scam going. Just like they have done in the past. From global cooling then to global warming, now it’s just “the climate”
No, it isn't! Seriously, it is about health. I get more and more tired of trying to have a civil discussion with you. Those who disagree with you throw sources and evidence your way and you just make big claims about them being made up while offering nothing in return. ULEZ is a LONDON project about LONDON health. They are not trying to change the world! Public health leaders come together to improve air quality | London City Hall
As has been pointed out several times before the expansion of the year ULEZ was initiated by Johnson and Shapps as a condition of funding for TfL. You continue as ever to ignore verifiable facts presented to counter your claims producing no evidence to support your scams and conspiracies of made up reports.
Sunak and the Tories really think they are on to something with the Uxbridge survival and seem to be overhauling their entire national strategy based on it, ignoring the fact they still haemorrhaged votes and survived there by the skin of their teeth. Given it was a London only issue and it barely worked it looks desperate as hell. Especially when they got a record slaughtering in Selby on the same night.
As seen by the approval of about 100 new North Sea oil and gas licences, (erroneously reported in the Telegraph as 100s) flying in the face of climate change science and the government's own UK Climate Risk Independent Assessment. https://www.ukclimaterisk.org/ There's dissention amongst the tories to. "The plan was also criticised by the Conservative MP who led a review into net zero, Chris Skidmore, who said it was “on the wrong side of modern voters”. He is a former science minister and advocate of green policies within the Tory party, and called the new licences “the wrong decision at precisely the wrong time, when the rest of the world is experiencing record heat waves”. He said: “It is on the wrong side of a future economy that will be founded on renewable and clean industries, and not fossil fuels. “It is on the wrong side of modern voters who will vote with their feet at the next general election for parties that protect, and not threaten, our environment. And it is on the wrong side of history, that will not look favourably on the decision taken today.” Blatant opportunism by Sunak pandering to wrongly perceived voter aspirations and scaremongering about energy security and prices. The tories become more and more unelectable day by day.
I have never particularly liked champagne (tastes like posh cider at ten times the price), but I see no reason why a socialist shouldn’t drink it if they choose. Anyway, it’s a complete non-argument; you’re a hypocrite if you enjoy the good things in life while simultaneously caring about equality and justice? Why?
Please mate, at least be honest; instead of pretending you are motivated by a desire to protect the poorest in society (as if!) just admit you are against anything that might possibly inconvenience you in any way. There is only one possible reason for defending owning a gas guzzling polluting vehicle in London (do you even live in London?) and that’s because you don’t give a **** about air quality or other people’s kids. So just be open about it, because no one is fooled by this fake concern for the downtrodden masses.
I'm not adverse to a glass of French fizzy or similar less expensive alternatives. The why? It's because those that use champagne socialist and other terms as a mealy mouthed denigrating snidey smear have poor arguments, if any at all, and less intellect. Edit: “Wealth is not new. Neither is charity. But the idea of using private wealth imaginatively, constructively, and systematically to attack the fundamental problems of mankind is new.” John Gardner https://www.historyofgiving.org/
This is not to be confused with the New York indictment or the indictment/superseding indictments in Florida: this is for the Jan 6th sedition. Only four counts, but three of them are conspiracy charges. The indictment is...detailed. Really, really detailed. People complained that the J6 indictment took too long, but it's clear that they covered all of their bases (as they should, given that they're charging the former president of the United States with defrauding the United States). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_2.pdf In general, if you're participating in a criminal conspiracy, it is bad to put in writing that you are participating in a criminal conspiracy: Reading through it, it's incredible how many times Trump's co-conspirators, campaign staff and lawyers indicated in writing that they were aware that this wasn't even remotely legal. Still wonder whether we might see a superseding indictment here as well...this covers their fake-electors scheme and the blatant fraud therein, but it doesn't cover Trump's role in actually storming the Capitol. Might be that they feel proving something like seditious conspiracy is too high of a bar to clear, but they also clearly laid the groundwork for such a charge in the indictment.
