Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
Yes, the anti-car obsession of some is remarkably consistent, isn't it? Any excuse to get people out of their vehicles, even when its not justified.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
But bicycle use does have the advantage over EVs of reducing obesity, which is the bit you were questioning. And they also cause less noise and road wear, which were two of his other points.
Your knee-jerk anti-cycling stance is, frankly, a bit weird.
Though cycling from rural areas and risking your life on abike on British roads are big drawbacks.
My wife was quite relieved when, as a consequence of me losing control of my balance, I stopped riding my bike. Next purchase for me is an electric wheelchair or similar.
My mobility has worsened this last year with several balance issues which rules out my bike
Indeed I may need to follow you @OldKingCole, though I know you have had far more complications than myself
I’ve been told to use a Zimmer frame in the house and a wheelchair outside. If I fall and damage my neck again I’ll probably be paralysed. Which isn’t a nice prospect.
Best of luck and wishes - take care and do not take chances
Thank you very much, and the ‘liker’. I’ve got a very nice ‘push’ wheelchair from the NHS which my family can push me around in, and which I can ‘drive’ myself short distances but I would like an electric one. I’m on the list for an NHS one, but I think I’ll get myself something first. At least I can get in and out of a car now.
"German inflation surges more than expected to 6.8%"
All economies are "divergent". The UK economy differs massively regionally. You would have probably understood that back in the day before your trip to Damascus.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
Yes, the anti-car obsession of some is remarkably consistent, isn't it? Any excuse to get people out of their vehicles, even when its not justified.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
But bicycle use does have the advantage over EVs of reducing obesity, which is the bit you were questioning. And they also cause less noise and road wear, which were two of his other points.
Your knee-jerk anti-cycling stance is, frankly, a bit weird.
What anti-cycling stance? I have my own bike, I'm teaching my kids to ride theirs, and I have no qualms with people riding a bike.
But bicycles have the square root of sod all to do with dealing with climate change.
In order to reach net zero emissions, reducing car journeys by replacing a tiny fraction of car journeys with cycling does absolutely nothing. It is fiddling while the planet burns.
In order to reach net zero emissions, having clean car journeys is the only valid solution.
Ride a bike because its good to ride a bike. Not for the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment.
Replacing car journeys with bicycle journeys or public transport is self-evidently good for the environment. Of course not all car journeys can be replaced, and then EVs are a good solution.
FWIW, we have 3 cars in our household: My old petrol city car, which I've kept for teaching the kids to drive, my Leaf for local use where public transport isn't an option, and the missus's older diesel for long distances. That hardly makes me "hysterically anti-car". But I use a bike as much as possible for shorter journeys.
Its not remotely self-evident.
How is replacing clean car journeys good for the environment?
If you replace only a small number of dirty car journeys with a clean alternative, that is not good enough for the planet. All dirty car journeys have to be replaced with a clean alternative, and only EVs achieve that.
Using a diesel for long journeys and a bicycle for short ones is terrible for the environment. Using an EV for car journeys is far, far better for the environment.
Use a bicycle because you want to use a bicycle, not for the environment.
It's not massively clear cut that EVs are always massively better for the environment, once you take into account issues like environmental costs of construction (which are greater for EVs) and particulate emissions (which are greater for EVs).
I think small, low range EVs are probably quite a positive, environmentally, on balance. But with large EVs like Teslas the calculus looks a lot more marginal.
It is massively clear cut that EVs are massively better for the environment. Particulate emissions are far lower for EVs.
As we reach net zero we need clean construction costs too, as well as clean energy costs.
Occasional use of a bicycle then getting into your diesel to make the long journeys emits massively more CO2 and particulates than replacing your vehicle with an EV and using it as you did before.
I don't think that's right Bart. My understanding is that particulate emissions (which come from tire and brake matter - not engines) are higher for EVs because EVs are heavier. Though a quick Google suggests there is at least a grey area there. But I don't see how particulates could be lower.
NOx emissions are clearly lower for EVs, of course. I don't think there is much doubt there.
The environmental cost of manufacturing EVs is higher - what isn't yet clear is how long EVs last. It could be that the environmental cost is offset by longer-lasting vehicles. Or it could be that there is an environmental cost in replacement of batteries.
Particulate emissions being higher for EVs is a myth spread by those who are anti-EV.
If you want to save the environment from climate change then we need to eliminate all petrol and diesel journeys. Not just replace a few that are in walking distance anyway with a bike ride instead.
As it happens, I'm using the Leaf more frequently for longer journeys too as I become more used to navigating the labyrinth of public charging systems. I used it instead of the diesel to fetch my lad from Oxford yesterday, for example. When the missus's diesel ultimately expires, we'll probably sell the Leaf as well and buy a shared, longer-range EV. But I'll always keep using a bike when I can and public transport where convenient, both for my own fitness and for the sake of the environment.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
Yes, the anti-car obsession of some is remarkably consistent, isn't it? Any excuse to get people out of their vehicles, even when its not justified.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
But bicycle use does have the advantage over EVs of reducing obesity, which is the bit you were questioning. And they also cause less noise and road wear, which were two of his other points.
Your knee-jerk anti-cycling stance is, frankly, a bit weird.
What anti-cycling stance? I have my own bike, I'm teaching my kids to ride theirs, and I have no qualms with people riding a bike.
But bicycles have the square root of sod all to do with dealing with climate change.
In order to reach net zero emissions, reducing car journeys by replacing a tiny fraction of car journeys with cycling does absolutely nothing. It is fiddling while the planet burns.
In order to reach net zero emissions, having clean car journeys is the only valid solution.
Ride a bike because its good to ride a bike. Not for the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment.
Replacing car journeys with bicycle journeys or public transport is self-evidently good for the environment. Of course not all car journeys can be replaced, and then EVs are a good solution.
FWIW, we have 3 cars in our household: My old petrol city car, which I've kept for teaching the kids to drive, my Leaf for local use where public transport isn't an option, and the missus's older diesel for long distances. That hardly makes me "hysterically anti-car". But I use a bike as much as possible for shorter journeys.
Its not remotely self-evident.
How is replacing clean car journeys good for the environment?
If you replace only a small number of dirty car journeys with a clean alternative, that is not good enough for the planet. All dirty car journeys have to be replaced with a clean alternative, and only EVs achieve that.
Using a diesel for long journeys and a bicycle for short ones is terrible for the environment. Using an EV for car journeys is far, far better for the environment.
Use a bicycle because you want to use a bicycle, not for the environment.
It's not massively clear cut that EVs are always massively better for the environment, once you take into account issues like environmental costs of construction (which are greater for EVs) and particulate emissions (which are greater for EVs).
I think small, low range EVs are probably quite a positive, environmentally, on balance. But with large EVs like Teslas the calculus looks a lot more marginal.
It is massively clear cut that EVs are massively better for the environment. Particulate emissions are far lower for EVs.
As we reach net zero we need clean construction costs too, as well as clean energy costs.
Occasional use of a bicycle then getting into your diesel to make the long journeys emits massively more CO2 and particulates than replacing your vehicle with an EV and using it as you did before.
I don't think that's right Bart. My understanding is that particulate emissions (which come from tire and brake matter - not engines) are higher for EVs because EVs are heavier. Though a quick Google suggests there is at least a grey area there. But I don't see how particulates could be lower.
NOx emissions are clearly lower for EVs, of course. I don't think there is much doubt there.
The environmental cost of manufacturing EVs is higher - what isn't yet clear is how long EVs last. It could be that the environmental cost is offset by longer-lasting vehicles. Or it could be that there is an environmental cost in replacement of batteries.
Particulate emissions being higher for EVs is a myth spread by those who are anti-EV.
If you want to save the environment from climate change then we need to eliminate all petrol and diesel journeys. Not just replace a few that are in walking distance anyway with a bike ride instead.
Yes, I did a quick Google before I posted (hence my 'grey area' comment - there were a lot of links to it being a myth but all that I could see were references to the one report). Not enough consensus to be conclusive. I don't necessarily disagree with your final sentence. I'm just wary of seeing EVs as a panacea.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
Yes, the anti-car obsession of some is remarkably consistent, isn't it? Any excuse to get people out of their vehicles, even when its not justified.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
But bicycle use does have the advantage over EVs of reducing obesity, which is the bit you were questioning. And they also cause less noise and road wear, which were two of his other points.
Your knee-jerk anti-cycling stance is, frankly, a bit weird.
Though cycling from rural areas and risking your life on abike on British roads are big drawbacks.
My wife was quite relieved when, as a consequence of me losing control of my balance, I stopped riding my bike. Next purchase for me is an electric wheelchair or similar.
My mobility has worsened this last year with several balance issues which rules out my bike
Indeed I may need to follow you @OldKingCole, though I know you have had far more complications than myself
I’ve been told to use a Zimmer frame in the house and a wheelchair outside. If I fall and damage my neck again I’ll probably be paralysed. Which isn’t a nice prospect.
As well as the WTF button - which has its merits in the current circs - we need a commiserations button ... but nice to see you posting.
Thank you; I’m learning to use the prompts on my iPad as well as getting better at dictation.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
Yes, the anti-car obsession of some is remarkably consistent, isn't it? Any excuse to get people out of their vehicles, even when its not justified.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
But bicycle use does have the advantage over EVs of reducing obesity, which is the bit you were questioning. And they also cause less noise and road wear, which were two of his other points.
Your knee-jerk anti-cycling stance is, frankly, a bit weird.
What anti-cycling stance? I have my own bike, I'm teaching my kids to ride theirs, and I have no qualms with people riding a bike.
But bicycles have the square root of sod all to do with dealing with climate change.
In order to reach net zero emissions, reducing car journeys by replacing a tiny fraction of car journeys with cycling does absolutely nothing. It is fiddling while the planet burns.
In order to reach net zero emissions, having clean car journeys is the only valid solution.
Ride a bike because its good to ride a bike. Not for the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment.
Replacing car journeys with bicycle journeys or public transport is self-evidently good for the environment. Of course not all car journeys can be replaced, and then EVs are a good solution.
FWIW, we have 3 cars in our household: My old petrol city car, which I've kept for teaching the kids to drive, my Leaf for local use where public transport isn't an option, and the missus's older diesel for long distances. That hardly makes me "hysterically anti-car". But I use a bike as much as possible for shorter journeys.
Its not remotely self-evident.
How is replacing clean car journeys good for the environment?
If you replace only a small number of dirty car journeys with a clean alternative, that is not good enough for the planet. All dirty car journeys have to be replaced with a clean alternative, and only EVs achieve that.
Using a diesel for long journeys and a bicycle for short ones is terrible for the environment. Using an EV for car journeys is far, far better for the environment.
Use a bicycle because you want to use a bicycle, not for the environment.
It's not massively clear cut that EVs are always massively better for the environment, once you take into account issues like environmental costs of construction (which are greater for EVs) and particulate emissions (which are greater for EVs).
I think small, low range EVs are probably quite a positive, environmentally, on balance. But with large EVs like Teslas the calculus looks a lot more marginal.
It is massively clear cut that EVs are massively better for the environment. Particulate emissions are far lower for EVs.
As we reach net zero we need clean construction costs too, as well as clean energy costs.
Occasional use of a bicycle then getting into your diesel to make the long journeys emits massively more CO2 and particulates than replacing your vehicle with an EV and using it as you did before.
I don't think that's right Bart. My understanding is that particulate emissions (which come from tire and brake matter - not engines) are higher for EVs because EVs are heavier. Though a quick Google suggests there is at least a grey area there. But I don't see how particulates could be lower.
NOx emissions are clearly lower for EVs, of course. I don't think there is much doubt there.
The environmental cost of manufacturing EVs is higher - what isn't yet clear is how long EVs last. It could be that the environmental cost is offset by longer-lasting vehicles. Or it could be that there is an environmental cost in replacement of batteries.
Particulate emissions being higher for EVs is a myth spread by those who are anti-EV.
If you want to save the environment from climate change then we need to eliminate all petrol and diesel journeys. Not just replace a few that are in walking distance anyway with a bike ride instead.
As it happens, I'm using the Leaf more frequently for longer journeys too as I become more used to navigating the labyrinth of public charging systems. I used it instead of the diesel to fetch my lad from Oxford yesterday, for example. When the missus's diesel ultimately expires, we'll probably sell the Leaf as well and buy a shared, longer-range EV. But I'll always keep using a bike when I can and public transport where convenient, both for my own fitness and for the sake of the environment.
How in your eyes is the bicycle "better for the environment" than a clean electric car, using clean electricity?
Riding a bike is good for your health, sure, as too is walking, but as far as the environment is concerned the key is having clean cars and clean electricity.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
“It’s that simple”. The siren call of the right! FFS how many of these rightist “simple” deterrent solutions actually work? You think, for example, that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder? If so I’ve some illuminating statistics for you from Texas.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
Using Texas as an example for what would happen if we had the death penalty is like using the US as an example of what would happen if we privatised healthcare delivery.
It is impossible on this board to give an example without someone stretching it to breaking point. The point is that the death penalty is not, despite protestations to the contrary on the right, a proven deterrent to murder. Even the US DoJ has concluded that "...there is little empirical evidence in favor of the deterrence hypothesis."(1). Similarly, crass assertions that Rwanda flights will stop boats "the minute" they start is an assertion without evidence.(2) All we have is the results of similar attempts at deterrence, none of which have very conclusive results.
Australia is comprehensive evidence that (2) works, so long as all boat arrivals are immediately put on a flight.
Do not pass go, do not speak to a lawyer, do not have a hearing or attend a court, do not pay any regard to their story.
Virtually as soon as Australia did (2) the boat crossings stopped.
In any system it is certainty and consistency that matters.
I weep. I really do. You never bother to read anything do you? On a webpage the blue things are "links" and the one I posted provided evidence rebutting that very point. There is no evidence the will work here, as confirmed by the Oxford paper I linked to. It states in respect of the Australian scheme (and remember that we are not Australian, we are British, a vastly different thing) -
"...it cannot be inferred from these statistics that Australia’s offshoring policy is wholly or principally responsible for the marked fall in unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is because that policy also coincided with several other enforcement policies, most notably the policies of boat ‘turnbacks’ and boat ‘takebacks’. Turnbacks entailed the interception of boats at sea, and their return to just outside the territorial waters of their country of departure. Takebacks entailed Australia returning people to their country of departure via sea or air transfers. Both of these policies require co-operation with countries of departure, with Australia cooperating with Indonesia on boat turnbacks, and Sri Lanka and Vietnam on takebacks...."
Try reading stuff other than your dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged and you might actually lean something
Yes, but turnbacks worked for the very few boats intercepted (the numbers collapsed) in part because of the policy of transferring too.
Facing a choice of being transferred to Nauru/PNG or going back to point of origin, people decided they'd rather be turned back. The number of turnbacks has been a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of people going across pre-Nauru/PNG. Instead of over 20,000 people attempting the journey its been below 100.
Prior to their implementing this system many people were drowning in Australia's water as tens of thousands were making the journey and not all survived. Since implementing this system, nobody has drowned and numbers attempting the journey collapsed from tens of thousands to just tens.
The system has worked.
The UK is never going to turn back boats in the Channel.
Once you accept that then we can all start looking for other solutions.
The main one being helping to make the origin counties attractive places to be so that there is no incentive to come to the UK, or anywhere else. But that of course is beyond the timeframe of a PB thread or Daily Mail headline.
The UK doesn't need to though, if people know they will be sent elsewhere if they make the journey then they won't make the journey in the first place. The number of turnbacks in Australian waters have been utterly negligible as fewer than 100 people a year are even attempting the journey, as opposed to tens of thousands a year in the past.
Making the origin countries attractive places to be makes the UK more attractive, not less. Development vastly increases the desire for migration, it doesn't reduce it.
Really? How many middle class German loss adjusters are queuing up on the beaches of Calais ready to come over here by cover of night in a small boat?
You are sounding quite Farage-y. There is a subset of people who want to come here for economic reasons of course there is but family and own country ties are quite strong and hence we don't have the millions or billions on their way here.
That stealing is illegal in the UK hasn't curtailed occurrences of theft.
Its not Farage-y because I believe in migration. I encourage it. I don't want people dying while doing the journey though. Germans funnily enough can afford a plane ticket or a safe ferry ticket to get here rather than travelling here on an inflatable dinghy. A far higher proportion of Germans than Ethiopians travel to the UK.
Again it's your timeframe that's gone to cock. The aim is to make eg Mali like Germany. That will take time, but not necessarily a crazy amount. How many South Koreans are floating over on flimsy boats overnight from Calais?
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
Yes, the anti-car obsession of some is remarkably consistent, isn't it? Any excuse to get people out of their vehicles, even when its not justified.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
But bicycle use does have the advantage over EVs of reducing obesity, which is the bit you were questioning. And they also cause less noise and road wear, which were two of his other points.
Your knee-jerk anti-cycling stance is, frankly, a bit weird.
What anti-cycling stance? I have my own bike, I'm teaching my kids to ride theirs, and I have no qualms with people riding a bike.
But bicycles have the square root of sod all to do with dealing with climate change.
In order to reach net zero emissions, reducing car journeys by replacing a tiny fraction of car journeys with cycling does absolutely nothing. It is fiddling while the planet burns.
In order to reach net zero emissions, having clean car journeys is the only valid solution.
Ride a bike because its good to ride a bike. Not for the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment.
Replacing car journeys with bicycle journeys or public transport is self-evidently good for the environment. Of course not all car journeys can be replaced, and then EVs are a good solution.
FWIW, we have 3 cars in our household: My old petrol city car, which I've kept for teaching the kids to drive, my Leaf for local use where public transport isn't an option, and the missus's older diesel for long distances. That hardly makes me "hysterically anti-car". But I use a bike as much as possible for shorter journeys.
Its not remotely self-evident.
How is replacing clean car journeys good for the environment?
If you replace only a small number of dirty car journeys with a clean alternative, that is not good enough for the planet. All dirty car journeys have to be replaced with a clean alternative, and only EVs achieve that.
Using a diesel for long journeys and a bicycle for short ones is terrible for the environment. Using an EV for car journeys is far, far better for the environment.
Use a bicycle because you want to use a bicycle, not for the environment.
It's not massively clear cut that EVs are always massively better for the environment, once you take into account issues like environmental costs of construction (which are greater for EVs) and particulate emissions (which are greater for EVs).
I think small, low range EVs are probably quite a positive, environmentally, on balance. But with large EVs like Teslas the calculus looks a lot more marginal.
It is massively clear cut that EVs are massively better for the environment. Particulate emissions are far lower for EVs.
As we reach net zero we need clean construction costs too, as well as clean energy costs.
Occasional use of a bicycle then getting into your diesel to make the long journeys emits massively more CO2 and particulates than replacing your vehicle with an EV and using it as you did before.
I don't think that's right Bart. My understanding is that particulate emissions (which come from tire and brake matter - not engines) are higher for EVs because EVs are heavier. Though a quick Google suggests there is at least a grey area there. But I don't see how particulates could be lower.
NOx emissions are clearly lower for EVs, of course. I don't think there is much doubt there.
The environmental cost of manufacturing EVs is higher - what isn't yet clear is how long EVs last. It could be that the environmental cost is offset by longer-lasting vehicles. Or it could be that there is an environmental cost in replacement of batteries.
Particulate emissions being higher for EVs is a myth spread by those who are anti-EV.
If you want to save the environment from climate change then we need to eliminate all petrol and diesel journeys. Not just replace a few that are in walking distance anyway with a bike ride instead.
Yes, I did a quick Google before I posted (hence my 'grey area' comment - there were a lot of links to it being a myth but all that I could see were references to the one report). Not enough consensus to be conclusive. I don't necessarily disagree with your final sentence. I'm just wary of seeing EVs as a panacea.
They put out more than not having one, having a smaller one, or using one less, however.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
You just have the wrong type of bike
But seriously, the sweet spot for bikes is 1-6 miles. Walking is sub-one mile for most people.
I did the school run this morning on an (e-) bike. It's three hilly miles to school, three hilly miles back. Two kids on the back. For this journey - which I make once or twice a day - the bike is no slower than the car door-to-door, takes up less roadspace (which in our constrained Cotswold town is a big deal), and uses less energy than even an electric car would (even before you take construction into account).
And I live in a rural town with 3000 residents. If you live in a city with most facilities within a few miles' ride, the case is more compelling still.
E-bikes can't replace every journey, but they are absolutely the most practical choice for lots of them. I think it's quite possible that our current petrol car is going to be our last car.
Trying to find a bright spot on a dark, dark cloud, the wicket is clearly quicker and bouncier than on the first 2 days. Can the England bowlers take advantage? I wish they had a bit more speed.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
Yes, the anti-car obsession of some is remarkably consistent, isn't it? Any excuse to get people out of their vehicles, even when its not justified.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
But bicycle use does have the advantage over EVs of reducing obesity, which is the bit you were questioning. And they also cause less noise and road wear, which were two of his other points.
Your knee-jerk anti-cycling stance is, frankly, a bit weird.
What anti-cycling stance? I have my own bike, I'm teaching my kids to ride theirs, and I have no qualms with people riding a bike.
But bicycles have the square root of sod all to do with dealing with climate change.
In order to reach net zero emissions, reducing car journeys by replacing a tiny fraction of car journeys with cycling does absolutely nothing. It is fiddling while the planet burns.
In order to reach net zero emissions, having clean car journeys is the only valid solution.
Ride a bike because its good to ride a bike. Not for the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment.
Replacing car journeys with bicycle journeys or public transport is self-evidently good for the environment. Of course not all car journeys can be replaced, and then EVs are a good solution.
FWIW, we have 3 cars in our household: My old petrol city car, which I've kept for teaching the kids to drive, my Leaf for local use where public transport isn't an option, and the missus's older diesel for long distances. That hardly makes me "hysterically anti-car". But I use a bike as much as possible for shorter journeys.
Its not remotely self-evident.
How is replacing clean car journeys good for the environment?
If you replace only a small number of dirty car journeys with a clean alternative, that is not good enough for the planet. All dirty car journeys have to be replaced with a clean alternative, and only EVs achieve that.
Using a diesel for long journeys and a bicycle for short ones is terrible for the environment. Using an EV for car journeys is far, far better for the environment.
Use a bicycle because you want to use a bicycle, not for the environment.
It's not massively clear cut that EVs are always massively better for the environment, once you take into account issues like environmental costs of construction (which are greater for EVs) and particulate emissions (which are greater for EVs).
I think small, low range EVs are probably quite a positive, environmentally, on balance. But with large EVs like Teslas the calculus looks a lot more marginal.
It is massively clear cut that EVs are massively better for the environment. Particulate emissions are far lower for EVs.
As we reach net zero we need clean construction costs too, as well as clean energy costs.
Occasional use of a bicycle then getting into your diesel to make the long journeys emits massively more CO2 and particulates than replacing your vehicle with an EV and using it as you did before.
I don't think that's right Bart. My understanding is that particulate emissions (which come from tire and brake matter - not engines) are higher for EVs because EVs are heavier. Though a quick Google suggests there is at least a grey area there. But I don't see how particulates could be lower.
NOx emissions are clearly lower for EVs, of course. I don't think there is much doubt there.
The environmental cost of manufacturing EVs is higher - what isn't yet clear is how long EVs last. It could be that the environmental cost is offset by longer-lasting vehicles. Or it could be that there is an environmental cost in replacement of batteries.
Particulate emissions being higher for EVs is a myth spread by those who are anti-EV.
If you want to save the environment from climate change then we need to eliminate all petrol and diesel journeys. Not just replace a few that are in walking distance anyway with a bike ride instead.
As it happens, I'm using the Leaf more frequently for longer journeys too as I become more used to navigating the labyrinth of public charging systems. I used it instead of the diesel to fetch my lad from Oxford yesterday, for example. When the missus's diesel ultimately expires, we'll probably sell the Leaf as well and buy a shared, longer-range EV. But I'll always keep using a bike when I can and public transport where convenient, both for my own fitness and for the sake of the environment.
How in your eyes is the bicycle "better for the environment" than a clean electric car, using clean electricity?
Riding a bike is good for your health, sure, as too is walking, but as far as the environment is concerned the key is having clean cars and clean electricity.
No car is clean and little electricity is clean, that's the trouble. Add the capital and material in producing them ... how much more does it take to produce a Knightsbridge Sturmpanzerkraftwagen, or the EVs that are getting almost as large, and the support network, than a mince or -tofu-powered bog standard bike?
Trying to find a bright spot on a dark, dark cloud, the wicket is clearly quicker and bouncier than on the first 2 days. Can the England bowlers take advantage? I wish they had a bit more speed.
How dare you doubt the 78mph "enforcer" to bounce out Australia.....its not like we have a 95 mph speedster who put the shits up everybody in the IPL, sitting on his arse doing crosswords.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
Yes, the anti-car obsession of some is remarkably consistent, isn't it? Any excuse to get people out of their vehicles, even when its not justified.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
But bicycle use does have the advantage over EVs of reducing obesity, which is the bit you were questioning. And they also cause less noise and road wear, which were two of his other points.
Your knee-jerk anti-cycling stance is, frankly, a bit weird.
What anti-cycling stance? I have my own bike, I'm teaching my kids to ride theirs, and I have no qualms with people riding a bike.
But bicycles have the square root of sod all to do with dealing with climate change.
In order to reach net zero emissions, reducing car journeys by replacing a tiny fraction of car journeys with cycling does absolutely nothing. It is fiddling while the planet burns.
In order to reach net zero emissions, having clean car journeys is the only valid solution.
Ride a bike because its good to ride a bike. Not for the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment.
Replacing car journeys with bicycle journeys or public transport is self-evidently good for the environment. Of course not all car journeys can be replaced, and then EVs are a good solution.
FWIW, we have 3 cars in our household: My old petrol city car, which I've kept for teaching the kids to drive, my Leaf for local use where public transport isn't an option, and the missus's older diesel for long distances. That hardly makes me "hysterically anti-car". But I use a bike as much as possible for shorter journeys.
Its not remotely self-evident.
How is replacing clean car journeys good for the environment?
If you replace only a small number of dirty car journeys with a clean alternative, that is not good enough for the planet. All dirty car journeys have to be replaced with a clean alternative, and only EVs achieve that.
Using a diesel for long journeys and a bicycle for short ones is terrible for the environment. Using an EV for car journeys is far, far better for the environment.
Use a bicycle because you want to use a bicycle, not for the environment.
It's not massively clear cut that EVs are always massively better for the environment, once you take into account issues like environmental costs of construction (which are greater for EVs) and particulate emissions (which are greater for EVs).
I think small, low range EVs are probably quite a positive, environmentally, on balance. But with large EVs like Teslas the calculus looks a lot more marginal.
It is massively clear cut that EVs are massively better for the environment. Particulate emissions are far lower for EVs.
As we reach net zero we need clean construction costs too, as well as clean energy costs.
Occasional use of a bicycle then getting into your diesel to make the long journeys emits massively more CO2 and particulates than replacing your vehicle with an EV and using it as you did before.
I don't think that's right Bart. My understanding is that particulate emissions (which come from tire and brake matter - not engines) are higher for EVs because EVs are heavier. Though a quick Google suggests there is at least a grey area there. But I don't see how particulates could be lower.
NOx emissions are clearly lower for EVs, of course. I don't think there is much doubt there.
The environmental cost of manufacturing EVs is higher - what isn't yet clear is how long EVs last. It could be that the environmental cost is offset by longer-lasting vehicles. Or it could be that there is an environmental cost in replacement of batteries.
Particulate emissions being higher for EVs is a myth spread by those who are anti-EV.
If you want to save the environment from climate change then we need to eliminate all petrol and diesel journeys. Not just replace a few that are in walking distance anyway with a bike ride instead.
As it happens, I'm using the Leaf more frequently for longer journeys too as I become more used to navigating the labyrinth of public charging systems. I used it instead of the diesel to fetch my lad from Oxford yesterday, for example. When the missus's diesel ultimately expires, we'll probably sell the Leaf as well and buy a shared, longer-range EV. But I'll always keep using a bike when I can and public transport where convenient, both for my own fitness and for the sake of the environment.
How in your eyes is the bicycle "better for the environment" than a clean electric car, using clean electricity?
Riding a bike is good for your health, sure, as too is walking, but as far as the environment is concerned the key is having clean cars and clean electricity.
No car is clean and little electricity is clean, that's the trouble. Add the capital and material in producing them ... how much more does it take to produce a Knightsbridge Sturmpanzerkraftwagen, or the EVs that are getting almost as large, and the support network, than a mince or -tofu-powered bog standard bike?
If we are to reach net zero then that can only be achieved by using clean electricity. Anything else is tinkering at the edge. If electricity is clean, there's no reason not to use it.
And yes your EV needs to be made, but assuming you're using a car for a significant proportion of your journeys anyway (since the conversation was about replacing some, local journeys only with a bike instead of all journeys) then that is a sunk environment "cost" that has happened anyway, so there's no marginal cost in you using it there.
Indeed, to reach net zero we need to be producing via clean mechanisms anyway. Which again circles back to needing clean energy.
From 188-1 to 325 all out on this very benign wicket is genuinely dreadful, I'm afraid. Apparently the ball has deviated very little, either in the air or off the pitch. I'd be surprised if Australia don't score another 350-400 or so by mid-afternoon tomorrow, setting England an implausible 450-500 to win.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
“It’s that simple”. The siren call of the right! FFS how many of these rightist “simple” deterrent solutions actually work? You think, for example, that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder? If so I’ve some illuminating statistics for you from Texas.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
Using Texas as an example for what would happen if we had the death penalty is like using the US as an example of what would happen if we privatised healthcare delivery.
It is impossible on this board to give an example without someone stretching it to breaking point. The point is that the death penalty is not, despite protestations to the contrary on the right, a proven deterrent to murder. Even the US DoJ has concluded that "...there is little empirical evidence in favor of the deterrence hypothesis."(1). Similarly, crass assertions that Rwanda flights will stop boats "the minute" they start is an assertion without evidence.(2) All we have is the results of similar attempts at deterrence, none of which have very conclusive results.
Australia is comprehensive evidence that (2) works, so long as all boat arrivals are immediately put on a flight.
Do not pass go, do not speak to a lawyer, do not have a hearing or attend a court, do not pay any regard to their story.
Virtually as soon as Australia did (2) the boat crossings stopped.
In any system it is certainty and consistency that matters.
I weep. I really do. You never bother to read anything do you? On a webpage the blue things are "links" and the one I posted provided evidence rebutting that very point. There is no evidence the will work here, as confirmed by the Oxford paper I linked to. It states in respect of the Australian scheme (and remember that we are not Australian, we are British, a vastly different thing) -
"...it cannot be inferred from these statistics that Australia’s offshoring policy is wholly or principally responsible for the marked fall in unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is because that policy also coincided with several other enforcement policies, most notably the policies of boat ‘turnbacks’ and boat ‘takebacks’. Turnbacks entailed the interception of boats at sea, and their return to just outside the territorial waters of their country of departure. Takebacks entailed Australia returning people to their country of departure via sea or air transfers. Both of these policies require co-operation with countries of departure, with Australia cooperating with Indonesia on boat turnbacks, and Sri Lanka and Vietnam on takebacks...."
Try reading stuff other than your dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged and you might actually lean something
Yes, but turnbacks worked for the very few boats intercepted (the numbers collapsed) in part because of the policy of transferring too.
Facing a choice of being transferred to Nauru/PNG or going back to point of origin, people decided they'd rather be turned back. The number of turnbacks has been a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of people going across pre-Nauru/PNG. Instead of over 20,000 people attempting the journey its been below 100.
Prior to their implementing this system many people were drowning in Australia's water as tens of thousands were making the journey and not all survived. Since implementing this system, nobody has drowned and numbers attempting the journey collapsed from tens of thousands to just tens.
The system has worked.
The UK is never going to turn back boats in the Channel.
Once you accept that then we can all start looking for other solutions.
The main one being helping to make the origin counties attractive places to be so that there is no incentive to come to the UK, or anywhere else. But that of course is beyond the timeframe of a PB thread or Daily Mail headline.
The UK doesn't need to though, if people know they will be sent elsewhere if they make the journey then they won't make the journey in the first place. The number of turnbacks in Australian waters have been utterly negligible as fewer than 100 people a year are even attempting the journey, as opposed to tens of thousands a year in the past.
Making the origin countries attractive places to be makes the UK more attractive, not less. Development vastly increases the desire for migration, it doesn't reduce it.
Really? How many middle class German loss adjusters are queuing up on the beaches of Calais ready to come over here by cover of night in a small boat?
You are sounding quite Farage-y. There is a subset of people who want to come here for economic reasons of course there is but family and own country ties are quite strong and hence we don't have the millions or billions on their way here.
That stealing is illegal in the UK hasn't curtailed occurrences of theft.
Its not Farage-y because I believe in migration. I encourage it. I don't want people dying while doing the journey though. Germans funnily enough can afford a plane ticket or a safe ferry ticket to get here rather than travelling here on an inflatable dinghy. A far higher proportion of Germans than Ethiopians travel to the UK.
Again it's your timeframe that's gone to cock. The aim is to make eg Mali like Germany. That will take time, but not necessarily a crazy amount. How many South Koreans are floating over on flimsy boats overnight from Calais?
The aim? You talk as if making Mali become like Germany were somehow within our control.
If we have this transformative capability, perhaps we should demonstrate it by making some of the deprived parts of England like Germany.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
It isn't perfectly obvious at all. Britain's integration model is entirely different from France's, as you would know if you had thought about this for more than 15 seconds.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
The French have always loved rioting, but I'm not sure the people trying to cross in dinghies while coming from France are actually French.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
I think the anger here is pretty justified although the looting of shops, as shown on last nights news, is clearly not. The perps seemed a mix of backgrounds as well
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
“It’s that simple”. The siren call of the right! FFS how many of these rightist “simple” deterrent solutions actually work? You think, for example, that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder? If so I’ve some illuminating statistics for you from Texas.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
Using Texas as an example for what would happen if we had the death penalty is like using the US as an example of what would happen if we privatised healthcare delivery.
It is impossible on this board to give an example without someone stretching it to breaking point. The point is that the death penalty is not, despite protestations to the contrary on the right, a proven deterrent to murder. Even the US DoJ has concluded that "...there is little empirical evidence in favor of the deterrence hypothesis."(1). Similarly, crass assertions that Rwanda flights will stop boats "the minute" they start is an assertion without evidence.(2) All we have is the results of similar attempts at deterrence, none of which have very conclusive results.
Australia is comprehensive evidence that (2) works, so long as all boat arrivals are immediately put on a flight.
Do not pass go, do not speak to a lawyer, do not have a hearing or attend a court, do not pay any regard to their story.
Virtually as soon as Australia did (2) the boat crossings stopped.
In any system it is certainty and consistency that matters.
I weep. I really do. You never bother to read anything do you? On a webpage the blue things are "links" and the one I posted provided evidence rebutting that very point. There is no evidence the will work here, as confirmed by the Oxford paper I linked to. It states in respect of the Australian scheme (and remember that we are not Australian, we are British, a vastly different thing) -
"...it cannot be inferred from these statistics that Australia’s offshoring policy is wholly or principally responsible for the marked fall in unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is because that policy also coincided with several other enforcement policies, most notably the policies of boat ‘turnbacks’ and boat ‘takebacks’. Turnbacks entailed the interception of boats at sea, and their return to just outside the territorial waters of their country of departure. Takebacks entailed Australia returning people to their country of departure via sea or air transfers. Both of these policies require co-operation with countries of departure, with Australia cooperating with Indonesia on boat turnbacks, and Sri Lanka and Vietnam on takebacks...."
Try reading stuff other than your dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged and you might actually lean something
Yes, but turnbacks worked for the very few boats intercepted (the numbers collapsed) in part because of the policy of transferring too.
Facing a choice of being transferred to Nauru/PNG or going back to point of origin, people decided they'd rather be turned back. The number of turnbacks has been a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of people going across pre-Nauru/PNG. Instead of over 20,000 people attempting the journey its been below 100.
Prior to their implementing this system many people were drowning in Australia's water as tens of thousands were making the journey and not all survived. Since implementing this system, nobody has drowned and numbers attempting the journey collapsed from tens of thousands to just tens.
The system has worked.
The UK is never going to turn back boats in the Channel.
Once you accept that then we can all start looking for other solutions.
The main one being helping to make the origin counties attractive places to be so that there is no incentive to come to the UK, or anywhere else. But that of course is beyond the timeframe of a PB thread or Daily Mail headline.
The UK doesn't need to though, if people know they will be sent elsewhere if they make the journey then they won't make the journey in the first place. The number of turnbacks in Australian waters have been utterly negligible as fewer than 100 people a year are even attempting the journey, as opposed to tens of thousands a year in the past.
Making the origin countries attractive places to be makes the UK more attractive, not less. Development vastly increases the desire for migration, it doesn't reduce it.
Really? How many middle class German loss adjusters are queuing up on the beaches of Calais ready to come over here by cover of night in a small boat?
You are sounding quite Farage-y. There is a subset of people who want to come here for economic reasons of course there is but family and own country ties are quite strong and hence we don't have the millions or billions on their way here.
That stealing is illegal in the UK hasn't curtailed occurrences of theft.
Its not Farage-y because I believe in migration. I encourage it. I don't want people dying while doing the journey though. Germans funnily enough can afford a plane ticket or a safe ferry ticket to get here rather than travelling here on an inflatable dinghy. A far higher proportion of Germans than Ethiopians travel to the UK.
Again it's your timeframe that's gone to cock. The aim is to make eg Mali like Germany. That will take time, but not necessarily a crazy amount. How many South Koreans are floating over on flimsy boats overnight from Calais?
The aim? You talk as if making Mali become like Germany were somehow within our control.
If we have this transformative capability, perhaps we should demonstrate it by making some of the deprived parts of England like Germany.
In TOPPINGs mind the way to stop illegal immigration is to economically transform Africa, but we can't get people riding bikes because obesity is a natural fact of the world.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
That is interesting if it shows Labour leaking votes to the Greens as it moves too far to attract votes from Tories, but one seat in a local probably means nothing.
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
The French have always loved rioting, but I'm not sure the people trying to cross in dinghies while coming from France are actually French.
No, they are not. They are equivalent to the previous generation of Algerians and Tunisians and Ivorians who got into France, the parents and grandparents of the rioters.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
It isn't perfectly obvious at all. Britain's integration model is entirely different from France's, as you would know if you had thought about this for more than 15 seconds.
Surely if some children of migrants to France are rioting alongside their compatriots then that's perfectly good evidence that they have successfully been integrated into French society?
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
Only if we start treating them like the French do, eg shooting unarmed people at point blank range.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
I think the anger here is pretty justified although the looting of shops, as shown on last nights news, is clearly not. The perps seemed a mix of backgrounds as well
A mix of the descendants of white north Africans and black sub-Saharan Africans. Race is irrelevant. Unskilled people from countries with weak cultures of law abiding and histories of terrorism is the problem.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
Only if we start treating them like the French do, eg shooting unarmed people at point blank range.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
Only if we start treating them like the French do, eg shooting unarmed people at point blank range.
Jean Charles de Menezes has entered the chat
Its a good job those responsible were never promoted to the top of the service....
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
“It’s that simple”. The siren call of the right! FFS how many of these rightist “simple” deterrent solutions actually work? You think, for example, that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder? If so I’ve some illuminating statistics for you from Texas.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
Using Texas as an example for what would happen if we had the death penalty is like using the US as an example of what would happen if we privatised healthcare delivery.
It is impossible on this board to give an example without someone stretching it to breaking point. The point is that the death penalty is not, despite protestations to the contrary on the right, a proven deterrent to murder. Even the US DoJ has concluded that "...there is little empirical evidence in favor of the deterrence hypothesis."(1). Similarly, crass assertions that Rwanda flights will stop boats "the minute" they start is an assertion without evidence.(2) All we have is the results of similar attempts at deterrence, none of which have very conclusive results.
Australia is comprehensive evidence that (2) works, so long as all boat arrivals are immediately put on a flight.
Do not pass go, do not speak to a lawyer, do not have a hearing or attend a court, do not pay any regard to their story.
Virtually as soon as Australia did (2) the boat crossings stopped.
In any system it is certainty and consistency that matters.
I weep. I really do. You never bother to read anything do you? On a webpage the blue things are "links" and the one I posted provided evidence rebutting that very point. There is no evidence the will work here, as confirmed by the Oxford paper I linked to. It states in respect of the Australian scheme (and remember that we are not Australian, we are British, a vastly different thing) -
"...it cannot be inferred from these statistics that Australia’s offshoring policy is wholly or principally responsible for the marked fall in unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is because that policy also coincided with several other enforcement policies, most notably the policies of boat ‘turnbacks’ and boat ‘takebacks’. Turnbacks entailed the interception of boats at sea, and their return to just outside the territorial waters of their country of departure. Takebacks entailed Australia returning people to their country of departure via sea or air transfers. Both of these policies require co-operation with countries of departure, with Australia cooperating with Indonesia on boat turnbacks, and Sri Lanka and Vietnam on takebacks...."
Try reading stuff other than your dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged and you might actually lean something
Yes, but turnbacks worked for the very few boats intercepted (the numbers collapsed) in part because of the policy of transferring too.
Facing a choice of being transferred to Nauru/PNG or going back to point of origin, people decided they'd rather be turned back. The number of turnbacks has been a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of people going across pre-Nauru/PNG. Instead of over 20,000 people attempting the journey its been below 100.
Prior to their implementing this system many people were drowning in Australia's water as tens of thousands were making the journey and not all survived. Since implementing this system, nobody has drowned and numbers attempting the journey collapsed from tens of thousands to just tens.
The system has worked.
The UK is never going to turn back boats in the Channel.
Once you accept that then we can all start looking for other solutions.
The main one being helping to make the origin counties attractive places to be so that there is no incentive to come to the UK, or anywhere else. But that of course is beyond the timeframe of a PB thread or Daily Mail headline.
The UK doesn't need to though, if people know they will be sent elsewhere if they make the journey then they won't make the journey in the first place. The number of turnbacks in Australian waters have been utterly negligible as fewer than 100 people a year are even attempting the journey, as opposed to tens of thousands a year in the past.
Making the origin countries attractive places to be makes the UK more attractive, not less. Development vastly increases the desire for migration, it doesn't reduce it.
Really? How many middle class German loss adjusters are queuing up on the beaches of Calais ready to come over here by cover of night in a small boat?
You are sounding quite Farage-y. There is a subset of people who want to come here for economic reasons of course there is but family and own country ties are quite strong and hence we don't have the millions or billions on their way here.
That stealing is illegal in the UK hasn't curtailed occurrences of theft.
Its not Farage-y because I believe in migration. I encourage it. I don't want people dying while doing the journey though. Germans funnily enough can afford a plane ticket or a safe ferry ticket to get here rather than travelling here on an inflatable dinghy. A far higher proportion of Germans than Ethiopians travel to the UK.
Again it's your timeframe that's gone to cock. The aim is to make eg Mali like Germany. That will take time, but not necessarily a crazy amount. How many South Koreans are floating over on flimsy boats overnight from Calais?
How the fuck are you going to make Mali like South Korea?
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
Only if we start treating them like the French do, eg shooting unarmed people at point blank range.
Jean Charles de Menezes has entered the chat
The fact that you needed to use an example from 19 years ago is rather good evidence about how rare this is in the UK.
Its like suggesting that we have the same rate of school shootings as America, because of Dunblane.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
Only if we start treating them like the French do, eg shooting unarmed people at point blank range.
Trashing entire neighbourhoods in response to an injustice shows an uncivilized culture. Change should properly be channelled in a democracy through legal cases and elections.
The point of the Rwanda policy is deterrence. People don't get on channel boats because they want to make a life in Rwanda; they do it to make a life in the UK. The minute that regular flights to Rwanda start, boats stop. It's really that simple.
“It’s that simple”. The siren call of the right! FFS how many of these rightist “simple” deterrent solutions actually work? You think, for example, that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder? If so I’ve some illuminating statistics for you from Texas.
People hope and think they won’t get caught, that the bad consequences won’t happen to them. Like most smokers think they’re the ones who won’t get cancer. The idea that this hare brained scheme deterrent scheme will work, “the minute” it starts, is hopelessly wishful thinking.
Using Texas as an example for what would happen if we had the death penalty is like using the US as an example of what would happen if we privatised healthcare delivery.
It is impossible on this board to give an example without someone stretching it to breaking point. The point is that the death penalty is not, despite protestations to the contrary on the right, a proven deterrent to murder. Even the US DoJ has concluded that "...there is little empirical evidence in favor of the deterrence hypothesis."(1). Similarly, crass assertions that Rwanda flights will stop boats "the minute" they start is an assertion without evidence.(2) All we have is the results of similar attempts at deterrence, none of which have very conclusive results.
Australia is comprehensive evidence that (2) works, so long as all boat arrivals are immediately put on a flight.
Do not pass go, do not speak to a lawyer, do not have a hearing or attend a court, do not pay any regard to their story.
Virtually as soon as Australia did (2) the boat crossings stopped.
In any system it is certainty and consistency that matters.
I weep. I really do. You never bother to read anything do you? On a webpage the blue things are "links" and the one I posted provided evidence rebutting that very point. There is no evidence the will work here, as confirmed by the Oxford paper I linked to. It states in respect of the Australian scheme (and remember that we are not Australian, we are British, a vastly different thing) -
"...it cannot be inferred from these statistics that Australia’s offshoring policy is wholly or principally responsible for the marked fall in unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is because that policy also coincided with several other enforcement policies, most notably the policies of boat ‘turnbacks’ and boat ‘takebacks’. Turnbacks entailed the interception of boats at sea, and their return to just outside the territorial waters of their country of departure. Takebacks entailed Australia returning people to their country of departure via sea or air transfers. Both of these policies require co-operation with countries of departure, with Australia cooperating with Indonesia on boat turnbacks, and Sri Lanka and Vietnam on takebacks...."
Try reading stuff other than your dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged and you might actually lean something
Yes, but turnbacks worked for the very few boats intercepted (the numbers collapsed) in part because of the policy of transferring too.
Facing a choice of being transferred to Nauru/PNG or going back to point of origin, people decided they'd rather be turned back. The number of turnbacks has been a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of people going across pre-Nauru/PNG. Instead of over 20,000 people attempting the journey its been below 100.
Prior to their implementing this system many people were drowning in Australia's water as tens of thousands were making the journey and not all survived. Since implementing this system, nobody has drowned and numbers attempting the journey collapsed from tens of thousands to just tens.
The system has worked.
The UK is never going to turn back boats in the Channel.
Once you accept that then we can all start looking for other solutions.
The main one being helping to make the origin counties attractive places to be so that there is no incentive to come to the UK, or anywhere else. But that of course is beyond the timeframe of a PB thread or Daily Mail headline.
The UK doesn't need to though, if people know they will be sent elsewhere if they make the journey then they won't make the journey in the first place. The number of turnbacks in Australian waters have been utterly negligible as fewer than 100 people a year are even attempting the journey, as opposed to tens of thousands a year in the past.
Making the origin countries attractive places to be makes the UK more attractive, not less. Development vastly increases the desire for migration, it doesn't reduce it.
Really? How many middle class German loss adjusters are queuing up on the beaches of Calais ready to come over here by cover of night in a small boat?
You are sounding quite Farage-y. There is a subset of people who want to come here for economic reasons of course there is but family and own country ties are quite strong and hence we don't have the millions or billions on their way here.
That stealing is illegal in the UK hasn't curtailed occurrences of theft.
Its not Farage-y because I believe in migration. I encourage it. I don't want people dying while doing the journey though. Germans funnily enough can afford a plane ticket or a safe ferry ticket to get here rather than travelling here on an inflatable dinghy. A far higher proportion of Germans than Ethiopians travel to the UK.
Again it's your timeframe that's gone to cock. The aim is to make eg Mali like Germany. That will take time, but not necessarily a crazy amount. How many South Koreans are floating over on flimsy boats overnight from Calais?
The aim? You talk as if making Mali become like Germany were somehow within our control.
If we have this transformative capability, perhaps we should demonstrate it by making some of the deprived parts of England like Germany.
In TOPPINGs mind the way to stop illegal immigration is to economically transform Africa, but we can't get people riding bikes because obesity is a natural fact of the world.
It is wilful do-gooding liberal stupidity of the grossest kind
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
Only if we start treating them like the French do, eg shooting unarmed people at point blank range.
Jean Charles de Menezes has entered the chat
Indeed. Luckily the Met don't make a habit of this. The French police have I think shot dead 14 people at traffic stops this year. French police have a racism problem that makes the Met look like the NAACP. This is of course one of the reasons the boats keep coming here.
I am more interested in the politics of the policy than the actual policy. HY can quote as many polls as he likes - this is not a moral nor a workable policy and Tory voters are not as amoral as Braverman and HY would like.
Lutz has told the Tories their only remaining lever is go very negative. The 2023 version of Stop The Boats is a law more inhumane than the 2022 Stop The Boats law. So the 2024 edition will go totally tonto. And as we're already seeing, Tory voters have gone past the tipping point where they are no longer prepared to stomach these policies especially when told "these are your priorities"
We can expect the Tory vote to crater even lower than it is now.
We already have a particular sort of society - the one in which 30% of babies born here have a foreign born mother and where there is annual net migration of +500,000. The number of boat people is very small in comparison, and inevitably includes a high number of driven and motivated people.
Like many people on here I am a parent. I also have nieces and nephews. To put myself onto one of these dinghies with a high chance of drowning would be a hard decision to take. To put a child - mine, one of my brothers etc - on the boat with me and also put them at high risk of drowning? How bad must it be to take that risk? They are motivated alright - motivated to find a place they can rebuild their lives.
This is what othering does. It makes these people not human. That they aren't making the horrendous choice to get on a boat because to not do so is worse. That we don't need to and worse should not have a human response.
Do I need to post that horrendous photo of Alan Kurdi lying dead on that beach in Greece to illustrate that these people are human? The Tories want to demonise these people. To secure the votes of the pro-golliwog people. I'm not surprised that nobody on QT put their hands up in support. Its shameful and immoral. And sadly for the Tories voters actually do have human feelings still.
To be fair you can say that about their initial journey but not coming from France to UK. That is a personal choice.
According to a number of Human Rights organisations the refugees conditions there are intolerable.
If conditions in France are intolerable, then France is a failed state. And they have oil…
One of the less talked about elements of the route to the UK via small boats is how the individuals pay for this last step. Some, in the case of Albanians, it is debt bonded to working in illegal cannabis grows etc. However, a significant proportion work illegally in France for many months (some much longer) to fund it.
A friend has a very fast boat. We are talking about outrunning anything floating.
I suggested that at the prices being offered we should offer a deluxe service - maybe a glass of champagne of a good vintage? Mind you, at full pace you’d never manage to drink it.
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
There's a notoriously factional Labour NEC member who lives in Oxford.
He's married to an Oxford City councillor who is absolutely dead-set against the cross-party alliance on Oxfordshire County Council.
I don't think it takes too much to guess where this has come from.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
I suspect he was thinking of bicycles as well as EVs.
Yes, the anti-car obsession of some is remarkably consistent, isn't it? Any excuse to get people out of their vehicles, even when its not justified.
If you have clean energy supplies then riding your bicycle is no better for emissions than EVs.
Time is running out on "climate" being a reason to be hysterically anti-car. Thank goodness.
But bicycle use does have the advantage over EVs of reducing obesity, which is the bit you were questioning. And they also cause less noise and road wear, which were two of his other points.
Your knee-jerk anti-cycling stance is, frankly, a bit weird.
What anti-cycling stance? I have my own bike, I'm teaching my kids to ride theirs, and I have no qualms with people riding a bike.
But bicycles have the square root of sod all to do with dealing with climate change.
In order to reach net zero emissions, reducing car journeys by replacing a tiny fraction of car journeys with cycling does absolutely nothing. It is fiddling while the planet burns.
In order to reach net zero emissions, having clean car journeys is the only valid solution.
Ride a bike because its good to ride a bike. Not for the environment. It has nothing to do with the environment.
Replacing car journeys with bicycle journeys or public transport is self-evidently good for the environment. Of course not all car journeys can be replaced, and then EVs are a good solution.
FWIW, we have 3 cars in our household: My old petrol city car, which I've kept for teaching the kids to drive, my Leaf for local use where public transport isn't an option, and the missus's older diesel for long distances. That hardly makes me "hysterically anti-car". But I use a bike as much as possible for shorter journeys.
Its not remotely self-evident.
How is replacing clean car journeys good for the environment?
If you replace only a small number of dirty car journeys with a clean alternative, that is not good enough for the planet. All dirty car journeys have to be replaced with a clean alternative, and only EVs achieve that.
Using a diesel for long journeys and a bicycle for short ones is terrible for the environment. Using an EV for car journeys is far, far better for the environment.
Use a bicycle because you want to use a bicycle, not for the environment.
It's not massively clear cut that EVs are always massively better for the environment, once you take into account issues like environmental costs of construction (which are greater for EVs) and particulate emissions (which are greater for EVs).
I think small, low range EVs are probably quite a positive, environmentally, on balance. But with large EVs like Teslas the calculus looks a lot more marginal.
It is massively clear cut that EVs are massively better for the environment. Particulate emissions are far lower for EVs.
As we reach net zero we need clean construction costs too, as well as clean energy costs.
Occasional use of a bicycle then getting into your diesel to make the long journeys emits massively more CO2 and particulates than replacing your vehicle with an EV and using it as you did before.
I don't think that's right Bart. My understanding is that particulate emissions (which come from tire and brake matter - not engines) are higher for EVs because EVs are heavier. Though a quick Google suggests there is at least a grey area there. But I don't see how particulates could be lower.
NOx emissions are clearly lower for EVs, of course. I don't think there is much doubt there.
The environmental cost of manufacturing EVs is higher - what isn't yet clear is how long EVs last. It could be that the environmental cost is offset by longer-lasting vehicles. Or it could be that there is an environmental cost in replacement of batteries.
Particulate emissions being higher for EVs is a myth spread by those who are anti-EV.
If you want to save the environment from climate change then we need to eliminate all petrol and diesel journeys. Not just replace a few that are in walking distance anyway with a bike ride instead.
As it happens, I'm using the Leaf more frequently for longer journeys too as I become more used to navigating the labyrinth of public charging systems. I used it instead of the diesel to fetch my lad from Oxford yesterday, for example. When the missus's diesel ultimately expires, we'll probably sell the Leaf as well and buy a shared, longer-range EV. But I'll always keep using a bike when I can and public transport where convenient, both for my own fitness and for the sake of the environment.
How in your eyes is the bicycle "better for the environment" than a clean electric car, using clean electricity?
Riding a bike is good for your health, sure, as too is walking, but as far as the environment is concerned the key is having clean cars and clean electricity.
At the moment, electricity isn't completely clean. It's cleaner than it was a decade ago, but not yet completely clean. That being the case, reducing the use of electricity is a meaningful way to improve the cleanliness of the mix; the less electricity we use, the less dirty electricity we need to top up the green supplies.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
Only if we start treating them like the French do, eg shooting unarmed people at point blank range.
Jean Charles de Menezes has entered the chat
The fact that you needed to use an example from 19 years ago is rather good evidence about how rare this is in the UK.
Its like suggesting that we have the same rate of school shootings as America, because of Dunblane.
It was just the most obvious - there have been others.
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
And still huge numbers of PBers want us to take in hundreds of thousands of people arriving in dinghies every decade, when it is perfectly obvious that their descendants will have the same effect in UK cities.
Only if we start treating them like the French do, eg shooting unarmed people at point blank range.
Trashing entire neighbourhoods in response to an injustice shows an uncivilized culture. Change should properly be channelled in a democracy through legal cases and elections.
In the context of France it shows a real attempt to assimilate.
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
This is worrying stuff.
It reminds me of the very worst days of New Labour authoritarianism, and makes PR a lot less likely.
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
The labour right is ruthless, the labour left wants to be everyones friend and sit around the campfire singing Kumbayah. The labour left will never win.,
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
This is worrying stuff.
It reminds me of the very worst days of New Labour authoritarianism, and makes PR a lot less likely.
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
The labour right is ruthless, the labour left wants to be everyones friend and sit around the campfire singing Kumbayah. The labour left will never win.,
Weren't Corbyistas also rather keen on purging those within local power structures they didn't like?
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
There's a notoriously factional Labour NEC member who lives in Oxford.
He's married to an Oxford City councillor who is absolutely dead-set against the cross-party alliance on Oxfordshire County Council.
I don't think it takes too much to guess where this has come from.
Luke Akehurst is total poison
Pin up boy for SKS fans and apartheid fans and private sector water company fans mind
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
There's a notoriously factional Labour NEC member who lives in Oxford.
He's married to an Oxford City councillor who is absolutely dead-set against the cross-party alliance on Oxfordshire County Council.
I don't think it takes too much to guess where this has come from.
Luke Akehurst is total poison
Pin up boy for SKS fans and apartheid fans and private sector water company fans mind
Yep. Your politics and mine might not be the same, BJO, but I'm with you there.
For those of us who don't log on to Twitter it might be helpful to suggest what the link is about.
It finally happened, breaking 5 sigma, the same statistical threshold physicists used to prove the existence of the Higgs boson.
At 2,700,000 km² below the 1991-2020 mean, Antarctic sea ice extent was 5.14σ below the mean, roughly a 1-in-7,400,000 chance.
Thanks.
Don't worry, if you ride a bicycle once in a while, while continuing to drive a diesel the rest of the time, all these problems will be solved apparently.
Who needs the hard work of ensuring clean energy, or switching to clean EVs, when supplementing your diesel with a bike is an option?
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
The labour right is ruthless, the labour left wants to be everyones friend and sit around the campfire singing Kumbayah. The labour left will never win.,
Weren't Corbyistas also rather keen on purging those within local power structures they didn't like?
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say <5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Let’s drill down into @TOPPING’s brilliant solution to the migrant problem. “Turning Mali into Germany”
How long will that take?
Well we can always look at South Africa, which should by now be experiencing Singaporean levels of affluence, given that they had a huge post-colonial head start as a middle income country, and they are blessed with immense natural resources
How are they doing?
The electricity has blacked out and now they are running out of water
“First electricity, now water – South Africa’s infrastructure is falling apart
Just as the country has been unable to keep the lights on, there are now questions about its ability to provide safe, clean water”
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
Can you imagine Manchester or Birmingham banning all public transport after 7pm?
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
"Four London buses were set on fire during the riots (two of which were completely destroyed, one suffered serious damage but was subsequently repaired, and one suffered less serious damage and was also repaired) and other buses suffered broken windows and other minor damage.
On 9 August, Croydon's Tramlink was partly shut down due to damage inflicted along its route.[106] Transport for London, London Overground and London Underground shut Barking, Peckham Rye and Harrow-on-the-Hill and Hackney Central stations. The train operating company Southern later announced that trains were not stopping at many stations in south London.[106] National Express Coaches stopped serving Wolverhampton and suburban stops in the Birmingham area (but not Birmingham Coach Station itself) and Manchester (but not Manchester Airport)£
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
The labour right is ruthless, the labour left wants to be everyones friend and sit around the campfire singing Kumbayah. The labour left will never win.,
The Labour right is more right wing than Rishi Sunak
Reeves and SKS are Thatcherite, The latest reversal on U turning on water company Nationalization is particularly ill timed, Massive opportunity there IMO
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
I did the school run this morning on an (e-) bike. It's three hilly miles to school, three hilly miles back. Two kids on the back. For this journey - which I make once or twice a day - the bike is no slower than the car door-to-door, takes up less roadspace (which in our constrained Cotswold town is a big deal), and uses less energy than even an electric car would (even before you take construction into account).
There are other particular issues around school runs; one is parents driving their kids to school risking the lives of other children, because they are in a rush, or angry, or frustrated, or whatever.
Collisions are surprisingly common, and drop-off restrictions are hardly ever enforced, which does not work in a road culture of breaking the law where the driver can get away with it.
Let’s drill down into @TOPPING’s brilliant solution to the migrant problem. “Turning Mali into Germany”
How long will that take?
Well we can always look at South Africa, which should by now be experiencing Singaporean levels of affluence, given that they had a huge post-colonial head start as a middle income country, and they are blessed with immense natural resources
How are they doing?
The electricity has blacked out and now they are running out of water
“First electricity, now water – South Africa’s infrastructure is falling apart
Just as the country has been unable to keep the lights on, there are now questions about its ability to provide safe, clean water”
I’m not optimistic that Mali will turn into Bavaria any time soon, so we maybe need to look at real world solutions
I agree with your overall point but South Africa is a rather bad example, given how much apartheid screwed the country. Basically abandoning policing in 90% of the country just allowed criminal cultures to exponentially magnify.
“Russia scales back presence at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and has approved plan to 'blow it up', says Ukraine
Russia is scaling back its presence at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plower plant, Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate (GUR) warned on Friday, with staff told to relocate to Crimea and military patrols scaled back.”
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
To me that's rather buying into the American idea that cycling is a leisure pursuit - it is not.
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say less than 5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
Sorry, you had me until your final paragraph. Yes, removing roadblocks to cycling so that those who can cycle are able to do so if they want to is an entirely reasonable objective. Similarly for walking too, too many routes lack safe footpaths and if a journey is sub-2 miles then that is within walking distance for those who are fit and healthy.
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
Zac Goldsmith has resigned his ministerial role to spend more time with his money.
No, he's genuinely primarily in politics for environmental issues and has been increasingly critical of the Government's approach (or non-approach). I've been surprised how long he's stayed on as a Minister. The fact that he's rich isn't relevant here.
He can afford to be an environmentalist. Many people are not so fortunate.
Can any of us afford to not be environmentalists?
Apart from the longer term 'saving the world' aspect, environmental practices (active/public transport where possible, reduced energy consumption, reducing and re-using) are cheaper than non-enviromental practices.
There are three costs associated with climate change - mitigation, adaptation and damage.
On mitigation, I'm very pessimistic, but think we should do it where the CBA is a slam dunk. This is particularly the case with transport due to massive positive externalities.
On adaptation, we need to get moving much more quickly. It holds an inverse relationship with damage.
On damage - I would be most concerned about health. It might not be affected as much as other areas, but a 5% increase in costs here dwarfs a 15% increase in fixing railway lines.
On mitigation, end use emissions in the UK are:
29% Transport (25% in 1990). Low hanging fruit, lots of positive externalities like obesity, air pollution, road noise, less road wear.
28% Business and industry (38% in 1990). Already made massive progress, but difficult to do more without slowing growth
23% Buildings (25% in 1990). Difficult again with gas supply etc
11% Agriculture (7% in 1990).
So hit transport hard to take the strain off everything else
Transportation is being hit hard by the switch to electric vehicles, its just going to take time to make the transition, but that fruit is inevitably getting plucked so is the last place that should be concentrated upon besides smoothing the transition such as dealing with how people are going to charge their vehicles if they don't have off-road parking - it is an already solved problem.
I'm curious how electric vehicles reduce obesity though.
It's not all about electric vehicles! 50% of all car trips in the UK are below 2 miles. That's a 12 minute cycle.
It is all about electric vehicles.
Those 50% of journeys make up a small fraction of emissions. Oddly enough a 90 mile journey creates far more emissions than a sub 2 mile journey does. And of course only small proportion of that half are suitable for being replaced with bike journeys anyway, if I drive 2 miles to the shops to fill my boot and then drive home again, I can't replace that with a bike ride.
In order to get to net zero we need to deal with all car trips and ensuring they're all clean, not just a small fraction of them.
Ride a bike because riding a bike is fun and healthy, not because of the planet. We need the planet to be able to cope with all journeys, not just the half of them that do the least damage anyway.
I did the school run this morning on an (e-) bike. It's three hilly miles to school, three hilly miles back. Two kids on the back. For this journey - which I make once or twice a day - the bike is no slower than the car door-to-door, takes up less roadspace (which in our constrained Cotswold town is a big deal), and uses less energy than even an electric car would (even before you take construction into account).
There are other particular issues around school runs; one is parents driving their kids to school risking the lives of other children, because they are in a rush, or angry, or frustrated, or whatever.
Collisions are surprisingly common, and drop-off restrictions are hardly ever enforced, which does not work in a road culture of breaking the law where the driver can get away with it.
In defence of parents who drive their kids to school: in most circumstances it is not because parents are lazy or can't get up early enough, it is because parents have to go to work - with 9 o'clock starts typical - but primary schools want parents to bring kids to school and don't want them before, say, 8.45. Parents simply don't have the slack in their day to walk home before heading into work.
“Russia scales back presence at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and has approved plan to 'blow it up', says Ukraine
Russia is scaling back its presence at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plower plant, Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate (GUR) warned on Friday, with staff told to relocate to Crimea and military patrols scaled back.”
Comments
At least I can get in and out of a car now.
conclusive.
I don't necessarily disagree with your final sentence. I'm just wary of seeing EVs as a panacea.
Riding a bike is good for your health, sure, as too is walking, but as far as the environment is concerned the key is having clean cars and clean electricity.
But seriously, the sweet spot for bikes is 1-6 miles. Walking is sub-one mile for most people.
I did the school run this morning on an (e-) bike. It's three hilly miles to school, three hilly miles back. Two kids on the back. For this journey - which I make once or twice a day - the bike is no slower than the car door-to-door, takes up less roadspace (which in our constrained Cotswold town is a big deal), and uses less energy than even an electric car would (even before you take construction into account).
And I live in a rural town with 3000 residents. If you live in a city with most facilities within a few miles' ride, the case is more compelling still.
E-bikes can't replace every journey, but they are absolutely the most practical choice for lots of them. I think it's quite possible that our current petrol car is going to be our last car.
Though the 1 is a tail-ender.
And yes your EV needs to be made, but assuming you're using a car for a significant proportion of your journeys anyway (since the conversation was about replacing some, local journeys only with a bike instead of all journeys) then that is a sunk environment "cost" that has happened anyway, so there's no marginal cost in you using it there.
Indeed, to reach net zero we need to be producing via clean mechanisms anyway. Which again circles back to needing clean energy.
I'd be surprised if Australia don't score another 350-400 or so by mid-afternoon tomorrow, setting England an implausible 450-500 to win.
If we have this transformative capability, perhaps we should demonstrate it by making some of the deprived parts of England like Germany.
"In the southern city of Marseille, public demonstrations have been banned today after last night's protests across France. All public transport in Marseille, the country's second-largest city, will also stop as of 19:00 local time tonight, according to local authorities."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-66049895
Michael Crick
@MichaelLCrick
I hear Neal Lawson, director of Compass, a leading advocate of cross-party co-operation, has been expelled from the Labour Party for committing "a prohibited act". His offence? Apparently, back in 2021 he described a cross-party deal in Oxfordshire as "grown-up politics".
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
·
8m
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 43% (-3)
CON: 31% (+3)
LDEM: 10% (-1)
REF: 5% (+1)
GRN: 3% (-)
Savanta
Its like suggesting that we have the same rate of school shootings as America, because of Dunblane.
I suggested that at the prices being offered we should offer a deluxe service - maybe a glass of champagne of a good vintage? Mind you, at full pace you’d never manage to drink it.
He's married to an Oxford City councillor who is absolutely dead-set against the cross-party alliance on Oxfordshire County Council.
I don't think it takes too much to guess where this has come from.
It reminds me of the very worst days of New Labour authoritarianism, and makes PR a lot less likely.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1674736887322533888
Is it how they also prop up their car industry?
For those of us who don't log on to Twitter it might be helpful to suggest what the link is about.
Pin up boy for SKS fans and apartheid fans and private sector water company fans mind
At 2,700,000 km² below the 1991-2020 mean, Antarctic sea ice extent was 5.14σ below the mean, roughly a 1-in-7,400,000 chance.
Don't worry, if you ride a bicycle once in a while, while continuing to drive a diesel the rest of the time, all these problems will be solved apparently.
Who needs the hard work of ensuring clean energy, or switching to clean EVs, when supplementing your diesel with a bike is an option?
I mainly utility-cycle, but I can't cycle 4 miles for my occasional supermarket shop because the supermarket has no really safe cycle parking. Ditto the local hospital when I need a blood test. Ditto the local Doctor's surgery where I was this morning.
And if I want to use an off road route down a former local railway they it is blocked by "anti-motobike" barriers that don't block motobikes, but do block cycles, wheelchairs and mobility scooters (the latter two illegally since 2005). The Sustrans Audit in 2018 found 16,000 such barriers on their walking / wheeling / cycling network (of 13,000 miles).
The route to my local hospital even includes multiple pedestrian crossings where the chicanes in the middle are so narrow as to block mobility scooters. And no one notices.
We have about 50-80 years of non-investment to catch up on to make non-motor-vehicular transport attractive for short (say <5 miles say) journeys, then when those more appropriate and better (life expectancy, reduction of type 2 diabetes etc) forms of transport are more convenient they will be used.
That needs adjustments to our transport environment, including discouragement of private motor vehicles where not apprropriate. We are seeing the differences in some places already (notably some parts of London and a few other places), but it is a long-term project for a generation, and needs a culture change as part of it.
How long will that take?
Well we can always look at South Africa, which should by now be experiencing Singaporean levels of affluence, given that they had a huge post-colonial head start as a middle income country, and they are blessed with immense natural resources
How are they doing?
The electricity has blacked out and now they are running out of water
“First electricity, now water – South Africa’s infrastructure is falling apart
Just as the country has been unable to keep the lights on, there are now questions about its ability to provide safe, clean water”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/south-africa-safe-drinking-water-cholera-blackouts/
I’m not optimistic that Mali will turn into Bavaria any time soon, so we maybe need to look at real world solutions
I believe it was, yes
And in any case, wiki remindfs us that memories are short, esp re Manc and Brum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
"Four London buses were set on fire during the riots (two of which were completely destroyed, one suffered serious damage but was subsequently repaired, and one suffered less serious damage and was also repaired) and other buses suffered broken windows and other minor damage.
On 9 August, Croydon's Tramlink was partly shut down due to damage inflicted along its route.[106] Transport for London, London Overground and London Underground shut Barking, Peckham Rye and Harrow-on-the-Hill and Hackney Central stations. The train operating company Southern later announced that trains were not stopping at many stations in south London.[106] National Express Coaches stopped serving Wolverhampton and suburban stops in the Birmingham area (but not Birmingham Coach Station itself) and Manchester (but not Manchester Airport)£
Reeves and SKS are Thatcherite, The latest reversal on U turning on water company Nationalization is particularly ill timed, Massive opportunity there IMO
Collisions are surprisingly common, and drop-off restrictions are hardly ever enforced, which does not work in a road culture of breaking the law where the driver can get away with it.
“Russia scales back presence at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and has approved plan to 'blow it up', says Ukraine
Russia is scaling back its presence at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plower plant, Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate (GUR) warned on Friday, with staff told to relocate to Crimea and military patrols scaled back.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jun/30/russia-ukraine-war-live-us-considering-sending-cluster-munitions-to-ukraine-reports
Putin blew the dam (probably); this is the obvious next escalation
However the use of private motor vehicles is never "not appropriate". Indeed for those with mobility or balance issues it can be their only safe means of transportation.
Discouraging the use of private motor vehicles is no better than discouraging the use of cycling. Far better is to ensure the two can safely coexist side by side and let people choose freely and without pressure which suits them.
https://twitter.com/JohnEdwards33/status/1674564170883256320