New petrol and diesel vehicles sales ban in UK from 2035
Discussion
Nickgnome said:
JNW1 said:
But big, noisy, polluting, engines in cars owned and driven by enthusiasts represent a tiny proportion of the total vehicle population on our roads. The smokers you're talking about ruined the atmosphere for almost everyone in a pub and were quite rightly stopped from doing so IMO; however, if you took all the large engined enthusiast cars off the road tomorrow it wouldn't change the overall level of vehicle pollution significantly as there simply aren't enough of them to make a difference. Therefore, seeking to highlight and target them and their owners as a matter of priority is nothing more than empty symbolism in my view - if you want to reduce total pollution from vehicles significantly you're not going to do it by focusing on the likes of M5's and C63's...
You are correct and those cars will still be usable post 2035. The legislation is for NEW vehicles post that date.JNW1 said:
Nickgnome said:
JNW1 said:
But big, noisy, polluting, engines in cars owned and driven by enthusiasts represent a tiny proportion of the total vehicle population on our roads. The smokers you're talking about ruined the atmosphere for almost everyone in a pub and were quite rightly stopped from doing so IMO; however, if you took all the large engined enthusiast cars off the road tomorrow it wouldn't change the overall level of vehicle pollution significantly as there simply aren't enough of them to make a difference. Therefore, seeking to highlight and target them and their owners as a matter of priority is nothing more than empty symbolism in my view - if you want to reduce total pollution from vehicles significantly you're not going to do it by focusing on the likes of M5's and C63's...
You are correct and those cars will still be usable post 2035. The legislation is for NEW vehicles post that date.This week I saw a Transport for London poster proudly advertising their 200 odd charging points. In a city where most live in a flat and will not be able to charge at home, that is woefully inadequate. I want my next car to be electric but aside from difficulty there's the cost, which is now more of a concern due to the removal of the government incentives.
At the last estimate, which was some months ago, it was calculated that that we'd have to install hundreds of charging points per day to meet the old target or at least make that feasible yet in London there have barely been a handful added.
At the last estimate, which was some months ago, it was calculated that that we'd have to install hundreds of charging points per day to meet the old target or at least make that feasible yet in London there have barely been a handful added.
Edited by R Mutt on Thursday 6th February 11:30
Pollution and CO2 reduction are two different things. Solar conditions have far more to do with any climate change than humanity ever will. MMGW is just the next hole in the Ozone Layer or Y2K bug. What humanity needs to resolve is pollution, for the profound simple reason that we are poisoning ourselves. Or more accurately a section of industry is poisoning the population as a whole.
I walked up Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow (one of the most polluted cities in Britain) this morning. There were cars going by, some diesel, some petrol, but all relatively modern. There was no air quality issue whatsoever, until a bus went past (operated by the Council you understand). It was pumping out foul unfiltered muck from its exhaust. But that's OK! Because it is the Council. This is the Council which is going to close the city centre to private cars. Before too long, I expect that they will be buying electric cars for their employees (at the taxpayers expense of course) because no other b
d is going to buy them. Then Council employees wil be the only people who are allowed to drive into the city centre. (NHS are already buying 700 Jaguar I-Paces for their management staff, how lovely.)
We have a pollution problem, but local and national politicians are doing nothing about it. Deforestation, waste recycling (or rather failure to recycle), use of toxic chemicals in our streets, houses and food. Nothing happens. But we have all to change our lifestyle for the worse, to reduce CO2, which you will note is an entirely beneficial gas which plants require in order to survive. And I would argue that humans need plants in order to survive. Two 'professors' were on Radio 4 this morning telling us all how we have to stop producing CO2 immediately, and adopt economically unviable equipment to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. That will come down to stopping breathing.
We are in the thrall of witch doctors and the response is just political tokenism, by politicians who have no intention of being around when the birds come home to roost.
I walked up Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow (one of the most polluted cities in Britain) this morning. There were cars going by, some diesel, some petrol, but all relatively modern. There was no air quality issue whatsoever, until a bus went past (operated by the Council you understand). It was pumping out foul unfiltered muck from its exhaust. But that's OK! Because it is the Council. This is the Council which is going to close the city centre to private cars. Before too long, I expect that they will be buying electric cars for their employees (at the taxpayers expense of course) because no other b
d is going to buy them. Then Council employees wil be the only people who are allowed to drive into the city centre. (NHS are already buying 700 Jaguar I-Paces for their management staff, how lovely.)We have a pollution problem, but local and national politicians are doing nothing about it. Deforestation, waste recycling (or rather failure to recycle), use of toxic chemicals in our streets, houses and food. Nothing happens. But we have all to change our lifestyle for the worse, to reduce CO2, which you will note is an entirely beneficial gas which plants require in order to survive. And I would argue that humans need plants in order to survive. Two 'professors' were on Radio 4 this morning telling us all how we have to stop producing CO2 immediately, and adopt economically unviable equipment to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. That will come down to stopping breathing.
We are in the thrall of witch doctors and the response is just political tokenism, by politicians who have no intention of being around when the birds come home to roost.
Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 6th February 11:37
cardigankid said:
Pollution and CO2 reduction are two different things. Solar conditions have far more to do with any climate change than humanity ever will. MMGW is just the next hole in the Ozone Layer or Y2K bug. What humanity needs to resolve is pollution, for the profound simple reason that we are poisoning ourselves. Or more accurately a section of industry is poisoning the population as a whole.
I walked up Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow (one of the most polluted cities in Britain) this morning. There were cars going by, some diesel, some petrol, but all relatively modern. There was no air quality issue whatsoever, until a bus went past (operated by the Council you understand). It was pumping out foul unfiltered muck from its exhaust. But that's OK! Because it is the Council. This is the Council which is going to close the city centre to private cars. Before too long, I expect that they will be buying electric cars for their employees (at the taxpayers expense of course) because no other bd is going to buy them. Then Council employees wil be the only people who are allowed to drive into the city centre. (NHS are already buying 700 Jaguar I-Paces for their management staff, how lovely.)
We have a pollution problem, but local and national politicians are doing nothing about it. Deforestation, waste recycling (or rather failure to recycle), use of toxic chemicals in our streets, houses and food. Nothing happens. But we have all to change our lifestyle for the worse, to reduce CO2, which you will note is an entirely beneficial gas which plants require in order to survive. And I would argue that humans need plants in order to survive. Two 'professors' were on Radio 4 this morning telling us all how we have to stop producing CO2 immediately, and adopt economically unviable equipment to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. That will come down to stopping breathing.
We are in the thrall of witch doctors and the response is just political tokenism, by politicians who have no intention of being around when the birds come home to roost.
I walked up Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow (one of the most polluted cities in Britain) this morning. There were cars going by, some diesel, some petrol, but all relatively modern. There was no air quality issue whatsoever, until a bus went past (operated by the Council you understand). It was pumping out foul unfiltered muck from its exhaust. But that's OK! Because it is the Council. This is the Council which is going to close the city centre to private cars. Before too long, I expect that they will be buying electric cars for their employees (at the taxpayers expense of course) because no other b
d is going to buy them. Then Council employees wil be the only people who are allowed to drive into the city centre. (NHS are already buying 700 Jaguar I-Paces for their management staff, how lovely.)We have a pollution problem, but local and national politicians are doing nothing about it. Deforestation, waste recycling (or rather failure to recycle), use of toxic chemicals in our streets, houses and food. Nothing happens. But we have all to change our lifestyle for the worse, to reduce CO2, which you will note is an entirely beneficial gas which plants require in order to survive. And I would argue that humans need plants in order to survive. Two 'professors' were on Radio 4 this morning telling us all how we have to stop producing CO2 immediately, and adopt economically unviable equipment to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. That will come down to stopping breathing.
We are in the thrall of witch doctors and the response is just political tokenism, by politicians who have no intention of being around when the birds come home to roost.
Edited by cardigankid on Thursday 6th February 11:37
vonuber said:
Both of which were real issues that required effort to fix.
Perhaps not the best examples, nonetheless, neither required us to regress several centuries to solve, removal of significant quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere is probably not within our power, and would have only a detrimental effect on the environment were it possible, and effected..AshVX220 said:
JNW1 said:
Nickgnome said:
JNW1 said:
But big, noisy, polluting, engines in cars owned and driven by enthusiasts represent a tiny proportion of the total vehicle population on our roads. The smokers you're talking about ruined the atmosphere for almost everyone in a pub and were quite rightly stopped from doing so IMO; however, if you took all the large engined enthusiast cars off the road tomorrow it wouldn't change the overall level of vehicle pollution significantly as there simply aren't enough of them to make a difference. Therefore, seeking to highlight and target them and their owners as a matter of priority is nothing more than empty symbolism in my view - if you want to reduce total pollution from vehicles significantly you're not going to do it by focusing on the likes of M5's and C63's...
You are correct and those cars will still be usable post 2035. The legislation is for NEW vehicles post that date.JNW1 said:
AshVX220 said:
JNW1 said:
Nickgnome said:
JNW1 said:
But big, noisy, polluting, engines in cars owned and driven by enthusiasts represent a tiny proportion of the total vehicle population on our roads. The smokers you're talking about ruined the atmosphere for almost everyone in a pub and were quite rightly stopped from doing so IMO; however, if you took all the large engined enthusiast cars off the road tomorrow it wouldn't change the overall level of vehicle pollution significantly as there simply aren't enough of them to make a difference. Therefore, seeking to highlight and target them and their owners as a matter of priority is nothing more than empty symbolism in my view - if you want to reduce total pollution from vehicles significantly you're not going to do it by focusing on the likes of M5's and C63's...
You are correct and those cars will still be usable post 2035. The legislation is for NEW vehicles post that date.Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 7th February 11:06
John Locke said:
Perhaps not the best examples, nonetheless, neither required us to regress several centuries to solve, removal of significant quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere is probably not within our power, and would have only a detrimental effect on the environment were it possible, and effected..
Why would you applaud someone who makes completely in-evidenced statements. We do not need to regress. We need to take heed of future development whilst simultaneously dealing with the issues we have already caused. We may progress more slowly.
Now if you evidence the measures that will take us back centuries I’m sure we would all be interested to see hem.
Nickgnome said:
AshVX220 said:
Yep, stop having kids would be a good start.......
That doesn’t seem like a good plan for the long term advancement of the human race, or even looking shorter term someone to wipe the B.S from your lips in your dotage.robinessex said:
No one seems to have mentioned the subsidies the renewables and EV's receive. That must distort the cost comparisons. I suspect a few shocks would result if they were all suddenly removed.
Or the tax breaks for fossil fuels.Why don’t you do a comparator over the last century or so.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Isn't producing kids so that someone will be around to wipe your rear (or whatever else needs wiping) a rather shallow, selfish reason for having kids, especially bearing in mind the damage to the planet the extra billions of kids will be inflicting on the planet, whilst they are waiting around for the opportunity to wipe your rear?
I assume you never go to a dentist, optician, doctor, never went to school etc.etc. You just popped into the world an angry old man.Don’t be a plonker.
robinessex said:
No one seems to have mentioned the subsidies the renewables and EV's receive. That must distort the cost comparisons. I suspect a few shocks would result if they were all suddenly removed.
Yes there is a subsidy on new cars, which seems sensible given society as a whole benefits from people choosing an EV over an ICE car, and the costs will remain fairly high until supply volume increases further.As I understand it fossil fuels receive significantly more subsidy than renewables, and yet things like wind power are growing at a good rate because it is now the cheapest way to make power, despite subsidies of onshore wind farms actually being blocked. A change in policy here could make a big difference, as well as re-looking at bizarre decisions like approving the opening of a new coal mine in Cumbria. And that's without looking at what it costs the world's armed forces to protect our precious oil supplies.
We just don't need to be digging stuff out of the ground and burning it any more.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff