| London ULEZ, who can afford it now 10:03 - Nov 25 with 30998 views | RangersDave |
Just announced that ULEZ in the smoke is going to get bigger, and expanded to cover all of London.
WTF?
Up here in Manchester it will happen soon, making average Joe and Josephine pay to take their car past the boundary, which extends to the border with the M6!
all in all, what a sh1t show. [Post edited 25 Nov 2022 10:23]
|  |
| |  |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:07 - Aug 15 with 2351 views | izlingtonhoop |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 14:12 - Aug 15 by Northernr |
I have wondered whatever happened to civil disobedience. Could happily have taken a bat to the bloody camera that snapped me coming back from Middlesbrough last season - 70mph on a two lane road in the middle of the countryside at 2am, won't somebody please think of the children. |
But fans mustn't celebrate on the pitch at the end of the season because you don't like it, and 'it's illegal'.
Sigh |  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:08 - Aug 15 with 2352 views | derbyhoop |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:00 - Aug 15 by denhamhoop2 |
Well the ULEZ(In London anyway) is probably be used to help supplement the loss in earnings for TFL from less people actually commuting to work every day using their services. Just remember public money can always be used to help make private enterprise more profitable. The good old privatise profits and nationalise debts for businesses and infrastructure which sees weird mixes of our public transport system in this country |
50% of Londoners dont own a car. But they all gave to breathe the air. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:14 - Aug 15 with 2324 views | izlingtonhoop |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:08 - Aug 15 by derbyhoop |
50% of Londoners dont own a car. But they all gave to breathe the air. |
I don't.
And obviously I do.
👏🙌 | | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:33 - Aug 15 with 2246 views | Sakura |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 14:34 - Aug 15 by Hunterhoop |
Jesus Christ. Misinformation alert.
There have been multiple studies done and multiple articles debunking a lot of nonsense on this topic.
The full lifecycle of a petrol car vs EV of comparable sizes is as follows. Petrol car has lower emissions up to about 8,000 miles. Thereafter the full lifecycle of the EV is better (including manufacturing and shipment). Most EVs now have ranges of 250-300 miles, btw.
Obviously the best way to reduce emissions is simply to consume less (I.E. don’t change cares, don’t buy new things regularly, etc) but no govt or business promotes that because it would be sacrilegious to the Captialist Gods and impact GDP growth, which the world appears to have deemed the most important metric.
On ULEZ. I’m in favour simply because it has been proven to have a hugely positive impact on air quality, bringing London back to below legal limits. Awful air quality kills (slowly, over time) and impacts the living standards of many. The evidence is undeniable. Air quality improved exactly on line and in the areas when ULEZ took affect.
I know it’s hard for people to pay it, but as others have said, it’s a tax. You’ll pay it through other means if it wasn’t extended. |
Graham Conway, Principal Engineer in the Automotive Division at Southwest Research Institute that was my source
Really poor of you to call it "misinformation" and more importantly wrong. When their is expert opinion that contradicts your beliefs it isn't healthy for society to say things like that. You need to have a look at yourself
The longer the range of the vehicle the more rare earth metals you need. So it would be much higher than the 80,000 miles needed to offset
Mining is a very energy intensive process. Whether you are drilling and blasting the earth to get to it. Running it through furnaces to separate the elements. The harmful by products filling up tailings dams with cyanide etc
It all has great cost before it arrives on your driveway. Also very often the energy source charging it when it does arrive is in no way "clean energy". Even wind and solar have great environmental costs in their production and due to their intermittent nature meaning you need alternatives ready to fire up at short notice (but this is far less efficient than if they were allowed to run constantly)
Also, need to keep in mind if we were to achieve net zero what would that achieve... nothing is the answer
China and India use of fossil fuels is far more significant and continues to grow
Africa and parts of South America use very little fossil fuels compared to us. They need and should use much more to raise their living standards |  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:48 - Aug 15 with 2203 views | StanFan |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 14:34 - Aug 15 by Hunterhoop |
Jesus Christ. Misinformation alert.
There have been multiple studies done and multiple articles debunking a lot of nonsense on this topic.
The full lifecycle of a petrol car vs EV of comparable sizes is as follows. Petrol car has lower emissions up to about 8,000 miles. Thereafter the full lifecycle of the EV is better (including manufacturing and shipment). Most EVs now have ranges of 250-300 miles, btw.
Obviously the best way to reduce emissions is simply to consume less (I.E. don’t change cares, don’t buy new things regularly, etc) but no govt or business promotes that because it would be sacrilegious to the Captialist Gods and impact GDP growth, which the world appears to have deemed the most important metric.
On ULEZ. I’m in favour simply because it has been proven to have a hugely positive impact on air quality, bringing London back to below legal limits. Awful air quality kills (slowly, over time) and impacts the living standards of many. The evidence is undeniable. Air quality improved exactly on line and in the areas when ULEZ took affect.
I know it’s hard for people to pay it, but as others have said, it’s a tax. You’ll pay it through other means if it wasn’t extended. |
Interesting. Yes, I can see that a new EV does less damage to the environment over its whole lifecycle than an equivalent petrol car. Otherwise there is a HUGE con going on here.
But my point was that my petrol car has already gone through 7 years of its lifecycle or more if you include manufacture. Surely hanging onto it for another 7 years does less damage than buying a new EV and running it for 7 years. However, I'm going to be more heavily taxed for doing that, which strikes me as perverse. |  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:50 - Aug 15 with 2165 views | Northernr |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:07 - Aug 15 by izlingtonhoop |
But fans mustn't celebrate on the pitch at the end of the season because you don't like it, and 'it's illegal'.
Sigh |
Not sure where on earth that's come from mate.
I think on that particular topic I've said it makes us look a bit muggy when we've finished 16th and we're charging the pitch, and I thought it was a shame the Championship trophy didn't make it all the way around when we won it and a bit selfish that once people had seen it themselves they ran on. A few years back the club got threatened with fines (which count against FFP) and potentially licensing restrictions and reduced capacity by the council if they didn't put a stop to it, they asked us and the QPR Podcast to put that out there and we agreed to do so.
But yeh, I'm not sure what that's got to do with this, or my fairly tongue in cheek post about speed cameras. Genuinely sorry if I've offended you at some point but I can't think when or why... |  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:52 - Aug 15 with 2157 views | hubble |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 14:34 - Aug 15 by Hunterhoop |
Jesus Christ. Misinformation alert.
There have been multiple studies done and multiple articles debunking a lot of nonsense on this topic.
The full lifecycle of a petrol car vs EV of comparable sizes is as follows. Petrol car has lower emissions up to about 8,000 miles. Thereafter the full lifecycle of the EV is better (including manufacturing and shipment). Most EVs now have ranges of 250-300 miles, btw.
Obviously the best way to reduce emissions is simply to consume less (I.E. don’t change cares, don’t buy new things regularly, etc) but no govt or business promotes that because it would be sacrilegious to the Captialist Gods and impact GDP growth, which the world appears to have deemed the most important metric.
On ULEZ. I’m in favour simply because it has been proven to have a hugely positive impact on air quality, bringing London back to below legal limits. Awful air quality kills (slowly, over time) and impacts the living standards of many. The evidence is undeniable. Air quality improved exactly on line and in the areas when ULEZ took affect.
I know it’s hard for people to pay it, but as others have said, it’s a tax. You’ll pay it through other means if it wasn’t extended. |
There's no way on God's earth that buying a brand new electic car is more environmentally friendly than buying a second hand petrol one.
If you care so much about the environment, stop buying new cars. |  |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:57 - Aug 15 with 2123 views | izlingtonhoop |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:50 - Aug 15 by Northernr |
Not sure where on earth that's come from mate.
I think on that particular topic I've said it makes us look a bit muggy when we've finished 16th and we're charging the pitch, and I thought it was a shame the Championship trophy didn't make it all the way around when we won it and a bit selfish that once people had seen it themselves they ran on. A few years back the club got threatened with fines (which count against FFP) and potentially licensing restrictions and reduced capacity by the council if they didn't put a stop to it, they asked us and the QPR Podcast to put that out there and we agreed to do so.
But yeh, I'm not sure what that's got to do with this, or my fairly tongue in cheek post about speed cameras. Genuinely sorry if I've offended you at some point but I can't think when or why... |
Pick your disobedience | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:58 - Aug 15 with 2115 views | denhamhoop2 |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 14:07 - Aug 15 by Sakura |
It's more about control and power over lives, restricting choice than money making. Your intuition is right it doesn't help the environment. Creating a new car requires massive amounts of energy inputs. This includes the energy intensive process involved in mining and collecting all the rare Earth metals that create the car.
The problem that the virtue signallers overlook is that when your Tesla turns up they asses it as if zero CO2 has been produced
A conventional vehicle arrives in showroom having generated around 6 tonnes of CO2. Has a 400 mile range
An electric car with just a 125 mile range takes around 12 tonnes of CO2 to produce. So it needs to be driven 80,000 miles before it offsets the CO2 difference.
The most environmentally friendly thing would be to keep older cars on the road to reduce the need for the energy intensive process in making a car |
The most environmentally friendly way is to head back to life where everything is eaten and produced locally and people work locally therefore less need to expend energy and resources on travelling. Just stay home and walk to the shops but that doesn't really fit with modern day lifestyles | | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:59 - Aug 15 with 2105 views | Sakura |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:48 - Aug 15 by StanFan |
Interesting. Yes, I can see that a new EV does less damage to the environment over its whole lifecycle than an equivalent petrol car. Otherwise there is a HUGE con going on here.
But my point was that my petrol car has already gone through 7 years of its lifecycle or more if you include manufacture. Surely hanging onto it for another 7 years does less damage than buying a new EV and running it for 7 years. However, I'm going to be more heavily taxed for doing that, which strikes me as perverse. |
You are absolutely right… if they are wanted to help the environment. A 7 year old car like yours would be far better for the environment then a new car being needed to be produced to replace it. Forcing it off the road is a con
Anyone who argues against that is being disingenuous
The CO2 that comes out of making a new vehicle is far far worse than continuing to use a car where that cost has already been incurred [Post edited 15 Aug 2023 15:59]
| | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 16:00 - Aug 15 with 2107 views | Northernr |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:57 - Aug 15 by izlingtonhoop |
Pick your disobedience |
Yeh, sorry, lost me.
Like I say, sorry if I've rubbed you up the wrong way somehow. | | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 16:07 - Aug 15 with 2071 views | TheChef |
Of course, it's just easier if everyone moves to EV so people travel less far, and then you can always switch off the grid so people just have to stay at home.
 |  |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 16:24 - Aug 15 with 1984 views | wombat |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 14:27 - Aug 15 by DavieQPR |
As electric cars become more popular, through enforcement, there is going to be billions lost in petrol tax. This could be a precursor to compensating for this. |
next step will be a charge every mile you drive esp with more electirc cars on the road |  |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 19:12 - Aug 15 with 1712 views | BlackCrowe |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 16:24 - Aug 15 by wombat |
next step will be a charge every mile you drive esp with more electirc cars on the road |
Feel certain that this is coming down the line, with the price per mile dependent on engine size, EV, hybrid, diesel, unleaded etc etc. It's not driven by net zero, it's driven by raising taxes. Nothing changes without India, China, Russia and US making dramatic changes and that ain't happening.
Added to which a very learned and qualified pal of mine (yes i know that's weak) has said that climate change is inevitable....it's what happens and has happened on this planet over the millions of years of existence. Going net zero might slow global warming down a bit, but it's a stay of execution, it will happen. |  |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now (n/t) on 19:20 - Aug 15 with 1692 views | HAMRanger |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:08 - Aug 15 by derbyhoop |
50% of Londoners dont own a car. But they all gave to breathe the air. |
|  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 20:12 - Aug 15 with 1624 views | kensalriser |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 19:12 - Aug 15 by BlackCrowe |
Feel certain that this is coming down the line, with the price per mile dependent on engine size, EV, hybrid, diesel, unleaded etc etc. It's not driven by net zero, it's driven by raising taxes. Nothing changes without India, China, Russia and US making dramatic changes and that ain't happening.
Added to which a very learned and qualified pal of mine (yes i know that's weak) has said that climate change is inevitable....it's what happens and has happened on this planet over the millions of years of existence. Going net zero might slow global warming down a bit, but it's a stay of execution, it will happen. |
Your pal is obviously not learned and qualified in the appropriate disciplines. The climate has changed, but normal changes happen over thousands of years, not a few decades. We're at smoking causes lung cancer here. It's true and nearly everyone who's looked at the evidence knows it's true.
And the old others aren't doing anything so we shouldn't is wrong on both counts. |  |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 21:37 - Aug 15 with 1547 views | RangersDave |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:33 - Aug 15 by Sakura |
Graham Conway, Principal Engineer in the Automotive Division at Southwest Research Institute that was my source
Really poor of you to call it "misinformation" and more importantly wrong. When their is expert opinion that contradicts your beliefs it isn't healthy for society to say things like that. You need to have a look at yourself
The longer the range of the vehicle the more rare earth metals you need. So it would be much higher than the 80,000 miles needed to offset
Mining is a very energy intensive process. Whether you are drilling and blasting the earth to get to it. Running it through furnaces to separate the elements. The harmful by products filling up tailings dams with cyanide etc
It all has great cost before it arrives on your driveway. Also very often the energy source charging it when it does arrive is in no way "clean energy". Even wind and solar have great environmental costs in their production and due to their intermittent nature meaning you need alternatives ready to fire up at short notice (but this is far less efficient than if they were allowed to run constantly)
Also, need to keep in mind if we were to achieve net zero what would that achieve... nothing is the answer
China and India use of fossil fuels is far more significant and continues to grow
Africa and parts of South America use very little fossil fuels compared to us. They need and should use much more to raise their living standards |
No one has ever proven to me that the whole process of making, from scratch, using all the materials, the digging out of the earth the ore to make steel, the concrete, the wages, the fuel driving to work etc, the delivery of said concrete, the engineering the steel, the preparation, the foundations, the copper for the generator, the transport to site etc etc etc, for a wind turbine, can pay for itself over its life span, let alone when the wind drops to nothing for days on end!
If someone better than i started this list from very beginning, including literally everything involved in making just 1 wind turbine, i'm pretty sure peeps may be surprised nay shocked.
Wind turbines are only good for 1 thing in my book, and thats as a tax break! | |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 22:12 - Aug 15 with 1498 views | Hunterhoop |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 15:52 - Aug 15 by hubble |
There's no way on God's earth that buying a brand new electic car is more environmentally friendly than buying a second hand petrol one.
If you care so much about the environment, stop buying new cars. |
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-
Sakura is deliberately spreading misinformation. The 80,000 miles calc is based on the Electricty grid of a country being entirely driven by fossil fuels with no renewable energy in the mix. That is not the case for almost all countries and something like 95% of the locations EVs are based in. So it’s wrong and irrelevant. In the Uk the break even point is somewhere between 8,000 and 13,500 miles according to the study Reuters quote. After that petrol cars have higher lifecycle emissions.
This one says they have between 30-70% less emissions over the average lifecycle depending on how the country’s energy mix, which obviously requires determine an average mileage.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0488-7.epdf?sharing_token=nRkFmXmV6CJ
It’s respected enough to be quoted by main news outlets.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/23/electric-cars-produce-less-c
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51977625
RAC quote the govt’s own study.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/choosing/are-electric-cars-really-bett
This article debunks most of the main misinformation with helpful links to studies, which helpfully was put in one place by Rowan Atkinson.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/fact-check-why-rowan-atkinso
And most of these are from a few years back, since when the energy mix of most countries has only improved (to be more weighted towards renewables), which improves the case for EVs.
But I don’t really know why I post all this. Those who don’t want to accept this will just waffle on about MSM, and other scientists… Believe what you want. [Post edited 15 Aug 2023 23:13]
|  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 23:01 - Aug 15 with 1426 views | Nov77 |
Khan’s now planning to charge a toll fee for drivers using the Blackwall tunnel. |  |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 23:28 - Aug 15 with 1385 views | Lblock |
Amazes me how people who are clearly anti government and anti establishment in their usual approach are so quick to buy into the great climate lie. Maybe because it’s so right on, trendy and woke at the moment?
Those self same people choose to ignore the payment to “the man” and bask in the thought they are saving a polar bear.
As I’ve already said every published fact for can be counteracted by a published fact against. For instance:
Electric Vehicles will not be sustainable until they consume batteries made of transition metals and magnets consuming rare earth metals. Each ton of rare-earth metal mined from nature leaves behind one ton of radioactive hazardous chemical waste, which nobody wants to discuss. The cobalt used in batteries is mined legally/illegally from African countries. It's killing the vegetation and farming in those countries. Not only is it leading to vast deforestation, but it is also making it difficult for people in African countries to survive.
I’ll go with my gut feel and eyes wide open view.
It also amazes me how I as a confirmed authoritarian, capitalist and right of centrist can be so in favour of pushing back on these clear controls, dictatorial tax grabs and coercion tactics to the extent of being so in favour of an anarchist approach against them I’d seek out groups wanting to smash these policies. I’ve shocked myself!!!!
ULEZ today, mile by mile charges tomorrow, bordered 15 minutes cities in the future…. Who knows where it all ends? |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 00:11 - Aug 16 with 1350 views | Konk |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 23:28 - Aug 15 by Lblock |
Amazes me how people who are clearly anti government and anti establishment in their usual approach are so quick to buy into the great climate lie. Maybe because it’s so right on, trendy and woke at the moment?
Those self same people choose to ignore the payment to “the man” and bask in the thought they are saving a polar bear.
As I’ve already said every published fact for can be counteracted by a published fact against. For instance:
Electric Vehicles will not be sustainable until they consume batteries made of transition metals and magnets consuming rare earth metals. Each ton of rare-earth metal mined from nature leaves behind one ton of radioactive hazardous chemical waste, which nobody wants to discuss. The cobalt used in batteries is mined legally/illegally from African countries. It's killing the vegetation and farming in those countries. Not only is it leading to vast deforestation, but it is also making it difficult for people in African countries to survive.
I’ll go with my gut feel and eyes wide open view.
It also amazes me how I as a confirmed authoritarian, capitalist and right of centrist can be so in favour of pushing back on these clear controls, dictatorial tax grabs and coercion tactics to the extent of being so in favour of an anarchist approach against them I’d seek out groups wanting to smash these policies. I’ve shocked myself!!!!
ULEZ today, mile by mile charges tomorrow, bordered 15 minutes cities in the future…. Who knows where it all ends? |
Genuinely puzzled by the 15 minutes city weirdness. Who enjoys sitting in traffic going to the shops/work/drop the kids at school? Who wouldn’t sooner have all that stuff on their doorstep and being able to leave the car at home? Who wouldn’t sooner have their kids and elderly parents breathe cleaner air? And live on quieter streets? Out of a sense of community and wanting to boost my area, I have always spent as much money as I can in local shops, tried to hire local tradespeople, hired local venues etc for events, whilst spending as little time as possible sat in a tin box in traffic. Obviously I’m just a sheep who needs to wake up to the programme.
The aspiration is that people should have most of the things they need close to hand - not that people in Pinner can never leave Pinner.
People angrily defending their right to sit in traffic poisoning their neighbours kids, rather than supporting towns being planned in such a way to minimize the time people spend in traffic, polluting their neighbours, is pure weird. You might feel different if your kid was at primary school next to a main road.
The whole concept of the 15 min neighbourhood is about making people’s lives easier, healthier and more enjoyable - you can still spend 2 hours driving 10 miles across town if that’s what’s important to you, but for once, someone other than motorists might be considered in planning . Anyone who thinks there’s a plan afoot to restrict you to within 15 minutes of your house is bonkers. It makes no sense. |  |
| Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 06:17 - Aug 16 with 1262 views | Lblock |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 00:11 - Aug 16 by Konk |
Genuinely puzzled by the 15 minutes city weirdness. Who enjoys sitting in traffic going to the shops/work/drop the kids at school? Who wouldn’t sooner have all that stuff on their doorstep and being able to leave the car at home? Who wouldn’t sooner have their kids and elderly parents breathe cleaner air? And live on quieter streets? Out of a sense of community and wanting to boost my area, I have always spent as much money as I can in local shops, tried to hire local tradespeople, hired local venues etc for events, whilst spending as little time as possible sat in a tin box in traffic. Obviously I’m just a sheep who needs to wake up to the programme.
The aspiration is that people should have most of the things they need close to hand - not that people in Pinner can never leave Pinner.
People angrily defending their right to sit in traffic poisoning their neighbours kids, rather than supporting towns being planned in such a way to minimize the time people spend in traffic, polluting their neighbours, is pure weird. You might feel different if your kid was at primary school next to a main road.
The whole concept of the 15 min neighbourhood is about making people’s lives easier, healthier and more enjoyable - you can still spend 2 hours driving 10 miles across town if that’s what’s important to you, but for once, someone other than motorists might be considered in planning . Anyone who thinks there’s a plan afoot to restrict you to within 15 minutes of your house is bonkers. It makes no sense. |
I can only agree with your last sentence
If you really think it’s all about ensuring you breathe cleaner air and restoring a 1920’s sense of community with a slower pace of life then bless you.
I hope you spend your carbon credits wisely in 2033 and your kids don’t chastise you for allowing their lives to be dictated to as they’re not allowed to move from…..I dunno, somewhere like London to Bristol….without paying some hefty premium to be allowed to do so.
Enjoy | |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 07:43 - Aug 16 with 1172 views | Bluce_Ree |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 13:09 - Nov 26 by NW5Hoop |
It remains a myth that motorists are being gouged for cash. Motoring in 2022 is cheaper, in real terms — as a percentage of your income - than it was in the supposed golden age of 1972. |
A myth?
You tried parking in recent years? Back in the day there were always roads where you could park if you didn't mind a 5 min walk I to whatever town it was. Now all those spaces are app controlled and cost a fortune.
Had it last year going to Tooting. Three quid an hour to park nearest to where I was going. |  |
| ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE THROUGH MARTI THE REDEEMER WHO STRENGTHENS ME. |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 08:08 - Aug 16 with 1151 views | Sakura |
Hunterhoop is unknowingly spreading misinformation
You accuse me of misdirection. You admit my stat was true. But then perform your own misdirection. Where in the article does it suggest in the UK it would be anywhere close to the 8,500 miles offset. It says this is the case for Norway, where almost all their energy is from Hyrdo power.
But what about England? Do we get all our electricity from Hydro like Norway, which you compare us to…
https://grid.iamkate.com
NOPE. Over the last year we have got 1.2% from Hydro and just 36% of renewables. But 39% from fossil fuels. Shock!!!!!! Misinformation is actually coming from you then!!!
Even the renewables from how much weighting do we add for their reliance on Chinese coal to exist
More misinformation comes from you, you reference Reuters article which says majority of Polands electricity comes from Coal. But leave out that 21% comes from renewable energy, not too different to us
https://ember-climate.org/countries-and-regions/countries/poland/#:~:text=69%25%
80,000 miles to offset is too high when looking at the UK perhaps. But it’s definitely not 8,500 miles like Norway either. Evidence points to it being much closer to the 80,000 I said and not the 8,500 that you referenced. So who is spreading the misinformation here…
Can we agree on one thing at least. Older cars should not be forced off the road so early. There is no need to penalise societies poorest in that way especially when it provides little to no benefit
Also if you really care about this stuff I would suggest you go and educate yourself on why pure electric vehicles are such a bad thing for the environment and actually hybrid vehicles are far more environmentally friendly [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 8:16]
| | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 08:38 - Aug 16 with 1087 views | wombat |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 23:01 - Aug 15 by Nov77 |
Khan’s now planning to charge a toll fee for drivers using the Blackwall tunnel. |
that tw@t will tryand grab anything he can from where ever he can to make up for screwing TFL budget up and the lack of people using the net work these days , his latest plan i saw was to destroy half of holland park avn to put another underused bike lane in , but in doing so hell be ripping out hundreds of trees which have been there for hundred of years , think its the stetch from lancaster gate gate to marble arch , so nice big bike lane more slow moving traffic causing more pollution , the bloke a lunatic | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
