Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
-
So much for the rule of law2
-
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.1 -
Yes, on so many levels.JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.
0 -
99.9% of people would object. We're not North Korea. You can't stop people from going to places.JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.5 -
SporadicAddick said:
Yes, on so many levels.JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.
I thought we were saving the planet?cafcnick1992 said:
99.9% of people would object. We're not North Korea. You can't stop people from going to places.JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.
1 -
Can't you?cafcnick1992 said:
99.9% of people would object. We're not North Korea. You can't stop people from going to places.JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.
It was only a couple of years ago nearly every country around the world stopped people from going to places.3 -
You'll be lucky if Khan and C20 have their way...JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.
Khan is the current chairman of C40, a global network of city mayors backed by numerous hard-Left billionaire foundations. Removing cars from cities is just one of its aims. In a Headline Report published by the group in 2019 and re-emphasised earlier this year, a “progressive” target for 2030 was set of a daily per person allowance of 44g of meat (enough for two small meatballs), a daily limit of 2,500 calories, (less than the ration in the Second World War), one short haul flight every three years, eight new clothing items a year and private cars available for only one in five people.
Here's a link to the full article: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/31/sadiq-khans-green-globalist-gang-suggests-daily-44g-meat-allowance-and-rations-lower-than-second-world-war/
7 -
Nobody really cares about climate change. Not in any serious way.
Nobody doesn't go on holiday to save the planet
Nobody goes out of their way to buy 2nd hand items instead of newly manufactured stuff
Nobody relies exclusively on public transport
Nobody is freeing their arse off in their houses for any reason other than to save money
We all just carry out token gestures every now and again to make ourselves feel better. The second you actually start impinging on people's quality of life, they'd get very angry very quickly.7 -
And look how quickly ‘business’ trips have become normal again despite Covid proving many aren’t truly needed.cafcnick1992 said:Nobody really cares about climate change. Not in any serious way.
Nobody doesn't go on holiday to save the planet
Nobody goes out of their way to buy 2nd hand items instead of newly manufactured stuff
Nobody relies exclusively on public transport
Nobody is freeing their arse off in their houses for any reason other than to save money
We all just carry out token gestures every now and again to make ourselves feel better. The second you actually start impinging on people's quality of life, they'd get very angry very quickly.If you had such a rule there would be so many exemptions it wouldn’t be meaningfulWe all revert to type.4 - Sponsored links:
-
Deary me 🤣 2 flights a year. One holiday abroad. Where would it stop. Would anyone object to only putting a certain amount of petrol in your car per year. I'd be ok with it.JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.
0 -
Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.0 -
Maybe we're in the situation we are is perhaps because the majority are unwilling to change their actions? We all know what we should be doing but we don't so then what's left? People won't change until they are forced to do it and we know if we carry on as we are there is not going to be much left pretty soon.cafcnick1992 said:Nobody really cares about climate change. Not in any serious way.
Nobody doesn't go on holiday to save the planet
Nobody goes out of their way to buy 2nd hand items instead of newly manufactured stuff
Nobody relies exclusively on public transport
Nobody is freeing their arse off in their houses for any reason other than to save money
We all just carry out token gestures every now and again to make ourselves feel better. The second you actually start impinging on people's quality of life, they'd get very angry very quickly.0 -
Our actions are completely irrelevant if China and India don't curb their emissions. Why would anyone ruin their quality of life for zero benefit?3
-
That's just whataboutism though. I'm not going to try because someone else isn't doesn't really cut it in any walk of life. We all need to do better.cafcnick1992 said:Our actions are completely irrelevant if China and India don't curb their emissions. Why would anyone ruin their quality of life for zero benefit?5 -
It’s every conspiracy theory inspired nonsense now0
-
so i should go on holiday less?colthe3rd said:
That's just whataboutism though. I'm not going to try because someone else isn't doesn't really cut it in any walk of life. We all need to do better.cafcnick1992 said:Our actions are completely irrelevant if China and India don't curb their emissions. Why would anyone ruin their quality of life for zero benefit?0 -
I stopped reading this nonsense at ‘Hard left billionaire foundations’. 🤣🤣Redskin said:
You'll be lucky if Khan and C20 have their way...JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.
Khan is the current chairman of C40, a global network of city mayors backed by numerous hard-Left billionaire foundations. Removing cars from cities is just one of its aims. In a Headline Report published by the group in 2019 and re-emphasised earlier this year, a “progressive” target for 2030 was set of a daily per person allowance of 44g of meat (enough for two small meatballs), a daily limit of 2,500 calories, (less than the ration in the Second World War), one short haul flight every three years, eight new clothing items a year and private cars available for only one in five people.
Here's a link to the full article: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/31/sadiq-khans-green-globalist-gang-suggests-daily-44g-meat-allowance-and-rations-lower-than-second-world-war/9 -
‘Nobody’ is a bit strong mate. I know people who won’t fly. They holiday in the UK or go to Europe by train. Loads of people use public transport exclusively. My next door neighbours got rid of their car, for example. People don’t have to freeze their arses off, but plenty insulate their houses.cafcnick1992 said:Nobody really cares about climate change. Not in any serious way.
Nobody doesn't go on holiday to save the planet
Nobody goes out of their way to buy 2nd hand items instead of newly manufactured stuff
Nobody relies exclusively on public transport
Nobody is freeing their arse off in their houses for any reason other than to save money
We all just carry out token gestures every now and again to make ourselves feel better. The second you actually start impinging on people's quality of life, they'd get very angry very quickly.Plenty of people by second hand clothes these days.If the only way this planet survives is if we start taking serious measures that will impinge on the way people live their lives then that’s better than the alternative isn’t it?The alternative is crop failures leading to mass starvation, food and water shortages globally (including wine), mass migration like we’ve never seen before, prices sky high, cost of living through the roof. Now that’s what you call impinging on people’s quality of life.6 -
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?2 - Sponsored links:
-
The airlines woud probably object.JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.0 -
10% of drivers damaging up to 25% of ULEZ cameras is really not the mark of a civilised and democratic society.Dansk_Red said:
According to TFL Data the daily average of vehicles in the Extended ULEZ area in November 2022 was approx 800,000 of which 80,000 were non compliant so around 10%.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:What percentage of vehicles are non compliant?
Can't see EVs as any sort of solution. The battery technology is still limited allied to the high cost of vehicles, problems with disposing of batteries and a poor charging structure.
Invariably those least affected will be most in favour and ultimately a lot of people will be driven off the road.
The whole thing seems half arsed.2 -
Being spurred on by <1% of mouthy, paid twitter ‘commentators’Arthur_Trudgill said:
10% of drivers damaging up to 25% of ULEZ cameras is really not the mark of a civilised and democratic society.Dansk_Red said:
According to TFL Data the daily average of vehicles in the Extended ULEZ area in November 2022 was approx 800,000 of which 80,000 were non compliant so around 10%.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:What percentage of vehicles are non compliant?
Can't see EVs as any sort of solution. The battery technology is still limited allied to the high cost of vehicles, problems with disposing of batteries and a poor charging structure.
Invariably those least affected will be most in favour and ultimately a lot of people will be driven off the road.
The whole thing seems half arsed.4 -
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?5 -
The answer to all of this is not regression or some centrally regulated lifestyle.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
Individuals will make choices and ultimately policies, like ULEZ, will be introduced to "encourage" different behaviour.
Governments will continue the drive for clean energy and sustainable economies.
At the same time companies and industries that have an impact on the environment will be adapting their operations to reduce or mitigate their impact. The airline industry, for example, is investing in engine tech and the development of sustainable fuels. The reason is that the future of their industry is dependent on it.
Centrally imposed regulation that impacts on individuals lives or that will fundamentally change economies will cause the sort of disruption you predict from climate change much more rapidly.
0 -
If you don't want to fly for environmental reasons, don't.
Governments are there to make sure that people who cause negative externalities pay appropriately (ULEZ, carbon taxes, cigarette duty) not to necessarily ban things.
Maybe the answer is to tax flying much more heavily? Maybe you get taxed exponentially more on each subsequent flight? Banning though, no.1 -
Ruin their quality of life by buying a newer car? Wouldn't people's quality of life be improved if the vehicles driving outside their homes were omitting less? Number of kids with Asthma at my school was mental, it's far lower these days.cafcnick1992 said:Our actions are completely irrelevant if China and India don't curb their emissions. Why would anyone ruin their quality of life for zero benefit?
0 -
Also very briefly on destroying the cameras.
There's 2 particular groups of idiots here.
1) the group of people that condemn Just Stop Oil's actions but approve of the destruction of cameras.
2) the group of people that approve of Just Stop Oil's actions but condemn the destruction of cameras.
"You don't understand how important this issue is therefore I can [insert stupid action here]" is an incredibly slippery slope in a democracy... If you view things in a black and white manner, you aren't using your brain and you're probably in a dangerous echo chamber.3 -
So you fly 4 times per year and then some more additional flights to see family members (where you could take the train) and you also think we are going to have to take drastic action, but you are waiting for someone in government to force you to stop doing all that flying.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
Why wait for them to put rules in place and take that drastic action yourself and fly less?5 -
"Why won't the government stop me doing what I'm doing"
4
