The Rwanda policy just reinforces negative views of the Tories – politicalbetting.com

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

williamglenn said:

DougSeal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

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.

(1) https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216548.pdf
(2) https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/

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...."

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/#kp3

Try reading stuff other than your dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged and you might actually lean something

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

Is the 5th wicket the key one ?

279-4 looks good, 279-5 looks shaky

Hard to see them getting to parity now.

Well Bairstow and Brook will need to put on plenty of runs. Has there ever been a sharper batting gap between No 7 Bairstow and No 8 (Broad) in test match history ?

8 is too high for Broad these days, that is for sure.
I also fear this is finally looking a series too far for Jimmy. Sacrilege, I know. But replacing him with Woakes or Curran would help.

But neither have quite his parsimony in conceding runs, so the net benefit wouldn't be great.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DavidL said:

Andy_JS said:

Stokes goes second ball of the day, first ball he faces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/64959131

You know, if he wasn’t captain, his place would be in jeopardy.

Who would England pick instead? The strength in depth of those shown to be able to ever do it at test level is rather lacking. Hence why Crawley is given an extended run in the team.

Would Woakes be in with a shout if Stokes wasn't the captain ?

Would add to the bowling.

Woakes in English conditions is always useful with bat & ball, but at same time is a bit of a backward step effectively saying we don't have anybody like him who is younger and potentially got upside of being effective both home and away.

Its also yet another fast-medium 85mph right arm seamer.

bondegezou said:

algarkirk said:

RochdalePioneers said:

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.

The “foreign born mother” statistic can be misleading. If two UK citizens spend a short period of time abroad and have a child, who is then raised in the UK, that child is foreign born. There’s a lot of people in the UK who were born in Germany, but they’re not German: it’s just that there have been periods where lots of British people worked in Germany (often with the armed forces). For example, Boris Johnson is foreign (US) born, so he’ll add considerably to the foreign born father statistic!

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

Pulpstar said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

Is the 5th wicket the key one ?

279-4 looks good, 279-5 looks shaky

Hard to see them getting to parity now.

Well Bairstow and Brook will need to put on plenty of runs. Has there ever been a sharper batting gap between No 7 Bairstow and No 8 (Broad) in test match history ?

8 is too high for Broad these days, that is for sure.
I also fear this is finally looking a series too far for Jimmy. Sacrilege, I know. But replacing him with Woakes or Curran would help.

But neither have quite his parsimony in conceding runs, so the net benefit wouldn't be great.

Stokes economy is 3.3, Woakes 3.03, Curran 3.23

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

Andy_JS said:

Brooks goes to a short ball.

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

williamglenn said:

DougSeal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

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.

(1) https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216548.pdf
(2) https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/

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...."

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/#kp3

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.

Theuniondivvie said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ghedebrav said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

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.

Do you really believe that?

And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.

Precisely.
If months of hazardous and/or uncomfortable travel, living under polythene until you find a people trafficker to take several thousand $ off you and a highly risky boat trip at the end of it isn't a deterrent, a bit of Rwandising isn't going to put you off.

'Rwandising' won't put anyone off. A better than evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination will.

I'm not convinced that people who have already thrown themselves at the mercy of fate are going to be calculating the odds of being sent to Rwanda.

'I thought Destination Kigali was 2/1 against but now its 5/4 on we might as well head back to Murderrapeandtortureania.'

Stuartinromford said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ghedebrav said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

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.

Do you really believe that?

And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.

Precisely.
If months of hazardous and/or uncomfortable travel, living under polythene until you find a people trafficker to take several thousand $ off you and a highly risky boat trip at the end of it isn't a deterrent, a bit of Rwandising isn't going to put you off.

'Rwandising' won't put anyone off. A better than evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination will.

But that's the tell that this isn't a serious policy.

At the moment, even if all the other ducks were in a row, there's currently space for a couple of hundred British boat people in Rwanda. That would fill up faster than word would get out, and what happens then?

I've been in schools that have decided they need to reset behavioural norms, which often boils down to setting detentions for all the things the school has claimed it was setting detentions for all along.

When planning this, wise schools accept that they are going to need massive capacity for the first week or two. Sports halls potentially full of misbehaving children reflecting on their misdemeanours. After that, everything settles down again, but the initial massive capacity is essential.

Foolish schools say "we're going to give detentions for every naughty deed" but don't plan for the temporary surge. The result is that it becomes impossible to give all the promised detentions, the system collapses, and the school is often worse off than before.

If the government really wants to scare people into not crossing the Channel, they need to go big. Otherwise they're better off not trying. And a combination of the grimness of going big and the unwillingness of the government to spend the money means that they aren't going big.

Andy_JS said:

Brooks goes to a short ball.

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

bondegezou said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ghedebrav said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

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.

Do you really believe that?

And in any case: if you're fleeing, let's say Afghanistan and in the hands of people traffickers and middlemen - how do you even know about the Rwanda thing? And if you do, you'll probably just be told that it won't happen to most people (it won't), nor would it stop you potentially then leaving Rwanda for another go. It is not a deterrent.

Precisely.
If months of hazardous and/or uncomfortable travel, living under polythene until you find a people trafficker to take several thousand $ off you and a highly risky boat trip at the end of it isn't a deterrent, a bit of Rwandising isn't going to put you off.

'Rwandising' won't put anyone off. A better than evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination will.

The Government has not proposed any plan involving anything approaching an evens chance that Rwanda will be your final destination, so your comment seems moot.

Neither did Australia at first. Australia did a trial of transferring people, overcame the legal challenges, got the system up and running, then expanded it to all arrivals by boat. By the end of that, the boat journeys stopped and nobody has drowned in Australian waters due to coming across on a dodgy boat since 2012. Many lives have been saved via that policy, as tough as it may be.

The UK is still at the legal challenges stage. Doesn't mean that it can't be as successful in its goals, if rolled out, post-challenges.

TOPPING said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

God I hate this. There is a huge number of people who are simply never going to get on a bike. Take a trip to your local high street and look at the people there. How many have come from two miles away and would get on a bike. Not too many. Are they shopping, for example. No one's going on a bike to go shopping that's for sure. Plus are they older, carrying some sort of an injury, overweight, unfit, disabled, etc.

Then where do you get your bike. And lock. And where do you put it. And then all the kit. And then it starts to rain.

And so on.

Cycling is fantastic but only ever for a (small I would say, perhaps very small) subset of the population.

TOPPING said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

williamglenn said:

DougSeal said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

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.

(1) https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216548.pdf
(2) https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/

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...."

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/#kp3

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.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

God I hate this. There is a huge number of people who are simply never going to get on a bike. Take a trip to your local high street and look at the people there. How many have come from two miles away and would get on a bike. Not too many. Are they shopping, for example. No one's going on a bike to go shopping that's for sure. Plus are they older, carrying some sort of an injury, overweight, unfit, disabled, etc.

Then where do you get your bike. And lock. And where do you put it. And then all the kit. And then it starts to rain.

And so on.

Cycling is fantastic but only ever for a (small I would say, perhaps very small) subset of the population.

This is true but causation goes the other way too. We are a country of decrepit fat people in part because we can't be arsed to cycle or indeed take any form of exercise.

That may be so (I think it's an exaggeration) and by all means encourage people to get fit, get cycling, etc. But "get on your bike" has a long and ignoble history of being wholly inappropriate for the issue it is used for.

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

God I hate this. There is a huge number of people who are simply never going to get on a bike. Take a trip to your local high street and look at the people there. How many have come from two miles away and would get on a bike. Not too many. Are they shopping, for example. No one's going on a bike to go shopping that's for sure. Plus are they older, carrying some sort of an injury, overweight, unfit, disabled, etc.

Then where do you get your bike. And lock. And where do you put it. And then all the kit. And then it starts to rain.

And so on.

Cycling is fantastic but only ever for a (small I would say, perhaps very small) subset of the population.

This is true but causation goes the other way too. We are a country of decrepit fat people in part because we can't be arsed to cycle or indeed take any form of exercise.

We are a country of fat people because we eat too much and eat unhealthy, sugary food.

Cycling is fun and healthy but being overweight is diet not exercise.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

God I hate this. There is a huge number of people who are simply never going to get on a bike. Take a trip to your local high street and look at the people there. How many have come from two miles away and would get on a bike. Not too many. Are they shopping, for example. No one's going on a bike to go shopping that's for sure. Plus are they older, carrying some sort of an injury, overweight, unfit, disabled, etc.

Then where do you get your bike. And lock. And where do you put it. And then all the kit. And then it starts to rain.

And so on.

Cycling is fantastic but only ever for a (small I would say, perhaps very small) subset of the population.

This is true but causation goes the other way too. We are a country of decrepit fat people in part because we can't be arsed to cycle or indeed take any form of exercise.

We are a country of fat people because we eat too much and eat unhealthy, sugary food.

Cycling is fun and healthy but being overweight is diet not exercise.

The two go together. Exercise is good for keeping in shape, but it's good for staying healthy more broadly (there is more to bring healthy than BMI). The health situation in this country right now is disastrous - I would argue that it is perhaps the biggest threat we face as a country. The NHS will collapse under the weight (no pun intended) of it. People are too unfit to work. We make it so hard to be healthy and do easy to be unhealthy. It's complete madness.

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

God I hate this. There is a huge number of people who are simply never going to get on a bike. Take a trip to your local high street and look at the people there. How many have come from two miles away and would get on a bike. Not too many. Are they shopping, for example. No one's going on a bike to go shopping that's for sure. Plus are they older, carrying some sort of an injury, overweight, unfit, disabled, etc.

Then where do you get your bike. And lock. And where do you put it. And then all the kit. And then it starts to rain.

And so on.

Cycling is fantastic but only ever for a (small I would say, perhaps very small) subset of the population.

This is true but causation goes the other way too. We are a country of decrepit fat people in part because we can't be arsed to cycle or indeed take any form of exercise.

We are a country of fat people because we eat too much and eat unhealthy, sugary food.

Cycling is fun and healthy but being overweight is diet not exercise.

The two go together. Exercise is good for keeping in shape, but it's good for staying healthy more broadly (there is more to bring healthy than BMI). The health situation in this country right now is disastrous - I would argue that it is perhaps the biggest threat we face as a country. The NHS will collapse under the weight (no pun intended) of it. People are too unfit to work. We make it so hard to be healthy and do easy to be unhealthy. It's complete madness.

BartholomewRoberts said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

God I hate this. There is a huge number of people who are simply never going to get on a bike. Take a trip to your local high street and look at the people there. How many have come from two miles away and would get on a bike. Not too many. Are they shopping, for example. No one's going on a bike to go shopping that's for sure. Plus are they older, carrying some sort of an injury, overweight, unfit, disabled, etc.

Then where do you get your bike. And lock. And where do you put it. And then all the kit. And then it starts to rain.

And so on.

Cycling is fantastic but only ever for a (small I would say, perhaps very small) subset of the population.

This is true but causation goes the other way too. We are a country of decrepit fat people in part because we can't be arsed to cycle or indeed take any form of exercise.

We are a country of fat people because we eat too much and eat unhealthy, sugary food.

Cycling is fun and healthy but being overweight is diet not exercise.

Foxy said:

Eurozone inflation drops more than expected to 5.5%

https://www.ft.com/content/26dd530b-1e33-488d-9619-e53e6f0b6262?emailId=3fea4d8a-74d0-40e8-b5a8-9f92fb58d270&segmentId=3d08be62-315f-7330-5bbd-af33dc531acb

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

God I hate this. There is a huge number of people who are simply never going to get on a bike. Take a trip to your local high street and look at the people there. How many have come from two miles away and would get on a bike. Not too many. Are they shopping, for example. No one's going on a bike to go shopping that's for sure. Plus are they older, carrying some sort of an injury, overweight, unfit, disabled, etc.

Then where do you get your bike. And lock. And where do you put it. And then all the kit. And then it starts to rain.

And so on.

Cycling is fantastic but only ever for a (small I would say, perhaps very small) subset of the population.

This is true but causation goes the other way too. We are a country of decrepit fat people in part because we can't be arsed to cycle or indeed take any form of exercise.

We are a country of fat people because we eat too much and eat unhealthy, sugary food.

Cycling is fun and healthy but being overweight is diet not exercise.

The two go together. Exercise is good for keeping in shape, but it's good for staying healthy more broadly (there is more to bring healthy than BMI). The health situation in this country right now is disastrous - I would argue that it is perhaps the biggest threat we face as a country. The NHS will collapse under the weight (no pun intended) of it. People are too unfit to work. We make it so hard to be healthy and do easy to be unhealthy. It's complete madness.

Mortimer said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

God I hate this. There is a huge number of people who are simply never going to get on a bike. Take a trip to your local high street and look at the people there. How many have come from two miles away and would get on a bike. Not too many. Are they shopping, for example. No one's going on a bike to go shopping that's for sure. Plus are they older, carrying some sort of an injury, overweight, unfit, disabled, etc.

Then where do you get your bike. And lock. And where do you put it. And then all the kit. And then it starts to rain.

And so on.

Cycling is fantastic but only ever for a (small I would say, perhaps very small) subset of the population.

This is true but causation goes the other way too. We are a country of decrepit fat people in part because we can't be arsed to cycle or indeed take any form of exercise.

We are a country of fat people because we eat too much and eat unhealthy, sugary food.

Cycling is fun and healthy but being overweight is diet not exercise.

The two go together. Exercise is good for keeping in shape, but it's good for staying healthy more broadly (there is more to bring healthy than BMI). The health situation in this country right now is disastrous - I would argue that it is perhaps the biggest threat we face as a country. The NHS will collapse under the weight (no pun intended) of it. People are too unfit to work. We make it so hard to be healthy and do easy to be unhealthy. It's complete madness.

Universal free healthcare is as much curse as blessing.

Sub contracting individual well being to the state has led to too many bad habits.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Selebian said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

God I hate this. There is a huge number of people who are simply never going to get on a bike. Take a trip to your local high street and look at the people there. How many have come from two miles away and would get on a bike. Not too many. Are they shopping, for example. No one's going on a bike to go shopping that's for sure. Plus are they older, carrying some sort of an injury, overweight, unfit, disabled, etc.

Then where do you get your bike. And lock. And where do you put it. And then all the kit. And then it starts to rain.

And so on.

Cycling is fantastic but only ever for a (small I would say, perhaps very small) subset of the population.

This is true but causation goes the other way too. We are a country of decrepit fat people in part because we can't be arsed to cycle or indeed take any form of exercise.

That may be so (I think it's an exaggeration) and by all means encourage people to get fit, get cycling, etc. But "get on your bike" has a long and ignoble history of being wholly inappropriate for the issue it is used for.

I blame Tebbit (unfairly, of course, given what he actually said)

I have to say that despite being a lefty I have some sympathy for the sentiment Tebbit was expressing there. (Certainly more than for his cricket test comment, which I think was nonsense). The reality is that in this world nobody owes you a living, people need to take responsibility for themselves including for their own health. But - an important follow up point - government should support people to make good choices, not simply blame them for making bad ones. That means making it easier to cycle than to drive, making it easier to eat healthy food than junk food, making sure people have leisure time and facilities to exercise, making sure people have knowledge and skills to empower themselves. The correct balance of rights and responsibilities in other words.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

God I hate this. There is a huge number of people who are simply never going to get on a bike. Take a trip to your local high street and look at the people there. How many have come from two miles away and would get on a bike. Not too many. Are they shopping, for example. No one's going on a bike to go shopping that's for sure. Plus are they older, carrying some sort of an injury, overweight, unfit, disabled, etc.

Then where do you get your bike. And lock. And where do you put it. And then all the kit. And then it starts to rain.

And so on.

Cycling is fantastic but only ever for a (small I would say, perhaps very small) subset of the population.

This is true but causation goes the other way too. We are a country of decrepit fat people in part because we can't be arsed to cycle or indeed take any form of exercise.

We are a country of fat people because we eat too much and eat unhealthy, sugary food.

Cycling is fun and healthy but being overweight is diet not exercise.

The two go together. Exercise is good for keeping in shape, but it's good for staying healthy more broadly (there is more to bring healthy than BMI). The health situation in this country right now is disastrous - I would argue that it is perhaps the biggest threat we face as a country. The NHS will collapse under the weight (no pun intended) of it. People are too unfit to work. We make it so hard to be healthy and do easy to be unhealthy. It's complete madness.

It is very noticeable that many more are obese and as someone who is actively losing weight it is very difficult to avoid all the sweet things on offer, but also restaurant portions seem to me to be far too generous

I am following a strict soup/salad and fruit diet and it is very effective and, maybe due to my age, I find many plates rather off putting and amazed at how most plates are left empty
.
When we were in the Isle of Man recently we sat outside at a tearoom that served the most wonderful fruit scone with strawberries and jam and cream, indeed it was a meal in itself

A very obsese woman and her partner sat at the table next to us with these scones, but waited until they were served the most enormous plate of ham and cheese toastie with chips each, with a third one as well

Unbelievable they consumed the lot with not a crumb left in sight

I really do not know how you change this overeating

Cookie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

FrancisUrquhart said:

WinviZ 52% England win....what drugs are the coders on?

FrancisUrquhart said:

WinviZ 52% England win....what drugs are the coders on?

Andy_JS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

WinviZ 52% England win....what drugs are the coders on?

Bizarre. I'd put England's chances at about 20%. Even Betfair punters are putting them as high as 9/4 or 31%.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/england-v-australia-betting-32425691

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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

Cookie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cookie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

AlistairM said:

NickPalmer said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

williamglenn said:

Foxy said:

Eurozone inflation drops more than expected to 5.5%

https://www.ft.com/content/26dd530b-1e33-488d-9619-e53e6f0b6262?emailId=3fea4d8a-74d0-40e8-b5a8-9f92fb58d270&segmentId=3d08be62-315f-7330-5bbd-af33dc531acb

We're seeing another example of the problems of a single monetary policy for divergent economies.

https://www.ft.com/content/1ca945fd-dbc9-400f-a753-a1653c235e91

"German inflation surges more than expected to 6.8%"

Big_G_NorthWales said:

England throwing it away