Prices of the electricity we use to charge

[saneagle]

Your favourite twerp Geoff obviously doesn't think:

The congestion charge lowered central London motor traffic by 20%.

The scrappage scheme permanently got rid of a large number of the dirtiest diesel vehicles.

The LEZ and ULEZ zones have resulted in large numbers of other high emission diesels leaving London for much more distant parts.

Over 1400 of our buses are zero emission and that is rapidly increasing.

Over half of all our London cabs are battery electric driven now and zero emission capable.

Over 65,000 of our London cars and vans have no exhaust pipe now.

Private car ownership in London is now at an all time low.

National average annual car mileages are down 40% from those of fifty years ago.

And vehicle mileages per gallon have enormously increased over that same period.

Over a million of our national car fleet is now solely battery electric, with a further 600,000 hybrids.

Of course our pollution is down, enormously down.
.

That's not what Geoff is saying. He says that the justification for ULEZwas air quality. He believes that the undisclosed aims were to raise money, like a London tax, and to discourage people from using their cars. The measured data shows no change in air quality since they expanded ULEZ, even though there are fewer and cleaner cars. To any statistician, the air quality, number of cars and type of cars are therefore independent variables. In that case, if the goal of ULEZ was air quality, it should now be abandoned and they should divert their efforts to find the actual cause.

Logic says that pollution should be down, but the data show's it isn't.

 

[Woosh]

. The measured data shows no change in air quality since they expanded ULEZ

can you quote the datasource?

 

[saneagle]

can you quote the datasource?

It's in the video.

 

[flecc]

He believes that the undisclosed aims were to raise money, like a London tax, and to discourage people from using their cars. To any statistician, the air quality, number of cars and type of

He is wrong on that point alone, from the congestion charge on it has been openly declared that the funds raised are for the benefit of public transport and cycling. That is the real point of such charging, since the improvement of public transport itself reduces personal car use and therefore its pollution, achieving the right outcome eventually.

LEZ and ULEZ are an essential part of a highly desirable package of measures to rid us of fossil fuel usage, here to stay, there is no way it will be scrapped.

What people like car dealer Geoff are concealing is their hatred of the switch to battery powered vehicles, all of their various videos showing this only too clearly. So they look for negatives in any aspect favouring e-cars to try to discredit that policy.
.

 

[saneagle]

He is wrong on that point alone, from the congestion charge on it has been openly declared that the funds raised are for the benefit of public transport and cycling. That is the real point of such charging, since the improvement of public transport itself reduces personal car use and therefore its pollution, achieving the right outcome eventually.

LEZ and ULEZ are an essential part of a highly desirable package of measures to rid us of fossil fuel usage, here to stay, there is no way it will be scrapped.

What people like car dealer Geoff are concealing is their hatred of the switch to battery powered vehicles, all of their various videos showing this only too clearly. So they look for negatives in any aspect favouring e-cars to try to discredit that policy.
.

You need to watch the video. What you're saying is irrelevant. The original purpose was to raise money; however, Geoff is talking about the ULEZ expansion, which Khan justified on the basis of air quality.

 

[Woosh]

It's in the video.

Before Ulez, if you follow an old diesel car or a lorry for half a mile in London where every car is limited to 20 miles an hour, you don't need further convincing. I don't pay Ulez charge so I have no complaint.

From BBC article: London air quality improved by Ulez and Lez - report - BBC News

QUOTE:
It says roadside pollution in outer London was down an average of 3.5% on what it would have been without Ulez in the six months after the zone was extended last August.

Nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from cars are estimated to have reduced by 13% and from vans by 7%, as drivers scrapped or cut down on driving their polluting vehicles.

 

[saneagle]

Before Ulez, if you follow an old diesel car or a lorry for half a mile in London where every car is limited to 20 miles an hour, you don't need further convincing. I don't pay Ulez charge so I have no complaint.

From BBC article: London air quality improved by Ulez and Lez - report - BBC News

QUOTE:
It says roadside pollution in outer London was down an average of 3.5% on what it would have been without Ulez in the six months after the zone was extended last August.

Nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from cars are estimated to have reduced by 13% and from vans by 7%, as drivers scrapped or cut down on driving their polluting vehicles.

BBC is not a trusted source. You'd have been better quoting from Micky Mouse.

 

[Ghost1951]

That's not what Geoff is saying. He says that the justification for ULEZwas air quality. He believes that the undisclosed aims were to raise money, like a London tax, and to discourage people from using their cars. The measured data shows no change in air quality since they expanded ULEZ, even though there are fewer and cleaner cars. To any statistician, the air quality, number of cars and type of cars are therefore independent variables. In that case, if the goal of ULEZ was air quality, it should now be abandoned and they should divert their efforts to find the actual cause.

Logic says that pollution should be down, but the data show's it isn't.

If the liars who promote the idea that particulate and other pollutants exclusively come from car exhausts would actually consult proper data sources rather than the filthy lies that pour out of that dog Khan's mouth they would be aware of this government graph here which shows that cars are a small part of the particulate and other pollutants that affect air quality. This is about HATRED of personal freedom to move about in cars. Our most keen Khan supporter has said so may times.

Source https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25




NOX pollution sources:

 

[Peter.Bridge]

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/annualreport/assets/documents/annualreport/air_pollution_uk_2022_Compliance_Assessment_Summary_Issue1.pdf

 

[flecc]

You need to watch the video. What you're saying is irrelevant. The original purpose was to raise money; however, Geoff is talking about the ULEZ expansion, which Khan justified on the basis of air quality.

The LEZ and ULEZ origins were not Sadiq Khan's, he has just continued with them.

Towards the end of 2006, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, proposed changing the congestion charge fee, from being a flat rate for all qualifying vehicles, to being based on (VED) bands.[8]

VED bands for new vehicles are based on the results of a laboratory test, designed to calculate the theoretical potential emissions of the vehicle in grammes of CO2 per kilometre travelled, under ideal conditions.

Despite some opposition, on 9 May 2007 the Mayor confirmed that he would proceed with a London Low Emission Zone, focused entirely on vehicle emissions, that plans to reduce emissions overall by 16% by 2012.

And Ken made it absolutely clear at the time what the money raised was for.

Sadiq Khan has continued with this policy by widening it to include all motor vehicles and expanding its scope. It is reducing pollution from what it would have been without all the LEZ and ULEZ measures, regardless of what roadside monitoring spot checks say.
.

 

[Ghost1951]

Yeah - who needs detailed data from expensive roadside air quality monitoring systems. Religious type dogma is much better, and of course it nets a lot of money and suppresses the prols from owning a car. Let them get on the bus like we did in the 1930s. People have far too much freedom. Much better that politicians can control them and make them do what they want.

 

[Woosh]

BBC is not a trusted source. You'd have been better quoting from Micky Mouse.

The point is if only just 1 out of 20 cars or lorries is non ULEZ compliant, if you are stuck behind one of them, you breathe in a lot more NOX and PPM2.5/PPM10 than the average pollution level would suggest. That's simple observation. More importantly, you'll come home that day with a splitting headache and you'd wish for all transport to be battery powered.

 

[saneagle]

If the liars who promote the idea that particulate and other pollutants exclusively come from car exhausts would actually consult proper data sources rather than the filthy lies that pour out of that dog Khan's mouth they would be aware of this government graph here which shows that cars are a small part of the particulate and other pollutants that affect air quality. This is about HATRED of personal freedom to move about in cars. Our most keen Khan supporter has said so may times.

Source https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25

View attachment 59750


NOX pollution sources:

View attachment 59751

I just went out to the shop and saw a neighbour in her front garden. I've never spoken to her before, so I stopped to introduce myself and have a chat. She lives on her own and still drives out of necessity. Quite quickly, she mentioned that she was worried about the restrictions that the government is imposing on cars. She used words that gave me the impression that she was well versed on the WEF agenda, which surprised me considering her age. I guess her only remaining son has been breeding her.

 

[Ghost1951]

The point is if there is even just 1 out of 20 cars or lorries is non ULEZ compliant, if you are stuck behind one of them, you breathe in a lot more NOX and PPM2.5/PPM10 than the average pollution level would suggest. That's simple statistics. More importantly, you'll come home that day with a splitting headache and you'd wish for all transport to be battery powered.

Yeah we all went around all the time with splitting headaches when the emissions of PM10, PM2.5 and NOx was five hundred percent more than now, back during the 1970s. - NOT!

 

[saneagle]

Yeah we all went around all the time with splitting headaches when the emissions of PM10, PM2.5 and NOx was five hundred percent more than now, back during the 1970s. - NOT!

View attachment 59752

View attachment 59753

Hmmm! How do you measure hundreds of tons of emissions. Did they scoop them up into big balloons and weigh them? I'm going to guess that they're modelled, based on complex algorithms that have similar accuracy to the 500,000 covid deaths predicted by "Professor" Neil Ferguson of Imperial College with his latest computer models, which were basically: Take an instruction from WEF boss; think of a number that's scary enough to make people panic, but not so big that you're going to look a tw@t when the actual figures come out; make a few graphs with made up data that nobody can understand to justify the prediction; hide for a few years after it's over, so people don't get reminded of what you did; get more lucrative contracts that make it look like you're doing something useful; accept the pay rise given for fulfilling your duty.

 

[Ghost1951]

A large amount of those emissions we used to have came from the coal fired power stations we had all over the country. I think they probably had good data about what went up the power station chimney when they burned a ton of coal, so they could very easily come to a total for emissions for that class of polluter because they knew how much coal was being burned. The same kind of data would be available for traffic pollution. There would have been reliable data on how particular generations of engines produced exhaust emissions per volume of petrol or diesel consumed and good data about the amount of fuel consumed.

Anyway - my point wasn't about that but that the assertion that after following a non-ulez compliant vehicle you come home with a headache. That's twaddle. You don't.

EDIT:

Just recalling a long bicycle ride I did in the 1990s between Cheltenham and Newcastle on my Dawes Galaxy tourer. When I got into Nottinghamshire I remember I could taste the very strong sulphur dioxide. I was riding along the old Roman Ermin Street north towards York not far from Lincoln. The air was thick with that taste you get when you burn sulphur. It is a taste you never forget. I looked towards the west and I could see a lot of big old cooling towers and long smoke stacks. They were miles away but the filth coming out of them pervaded the country road I was riding along.

 

[flecc]

Yeah - who needs detailed data from expensive roadside air quality monitoring systems. Religious type dogma is much better, and of course it nets a lot of money and suppresses the prols from owning a car. Let them get on the bus like we did in the 1930s. People have far too much freedom. Much better that politicians can control them and make them do what they want.

Nobody is stopping people travelling anywhere, or even having their own vehicles. They can have any of the forms of electric vehicles, indeed governments are spending heavily on charging infrastructure and encouraging low energy use transport like our pedelecs and e-scooters.
.

 

[saneagle]

Nobody is stopping people travelling anywhere, or even having their own vehicles. They can have any of the forms of electric vehicles, indeed governments are spending heavily on charging infrastructure and encouraging low energy use transport like our pedelecs and e-scooters.
.

They're not stopping at the moment. They're just making it more difficult and expensive. All new cars from next year onwards must be fitted with a remote shut-down device. Go figure. Also, the first thing they did when they started the Oxford 15 minute city experiment was to put barriers across the roads and cameras to monitor movements. They didn't build new schools, doctors surgeries or kids playgrounds.

 

[flecc]

They're not stopping at the moment. They're just making it more difficult and expensive. All new cars from next year onwards must be fitted with a remote shut-down device. Go figure. Also, the first thing they did when they started the Oxford 15 minute city experiment was to put barriers across the roads and cameras to monitor movements. They didn't build new schools, doctors surgeries or kids playgrounds.

I'm not concerned with the Oxford experiment and it didn't any raise money to build new schools, doctors surgeries or kids playgrounds.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that politicians are anti car, indeed I've been posting many times how they regret ever letting car ownership become so universal and are now trying to step backwards. Expensive electric cars are a deliberate part of that policy.
.

 

[Ghost1951]

Harris won't win. She won't win for all the reasons I already posted:

- whatever her achievements, she is unappealing to the average voter

- people are disgusted at the way the Democratic Party pretended that the dementia patient was a great choice for POTUS for the next four years when he can already rapidly descend into idiocy at any moment, and has done repeatedly now on live TV. The ordinary man or woman is no fool usually, and they know what they saw. They saw Democrat leaders LYING about his mental condition.

It is Woosh who thinks Harris is great and a sure winner - not me.

I still despise Trump, but he will win.
-

I just watched the Trump/Harris debate in its entirety.

I think I am going to have to do an about turn on the prediction I made some weeks ago.

Trump was rambling and nasty. Very unappealing to any undecided voter. I now think he will lose. She beat him completely. Everyone will see who the rational adult was in that debate. At one point, Trump said that immigrants were eating people's cats and dogs. When the moderator challenged this, Trump doubled down on it. This was a gift to Harris. It was laughable.

I think I may have offered to eat my cycle helmet if Harris won. I'm not sure how I am going to do that.