Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova; Even EVs like Tesla are not safe from this new demand from the green British Conservative Government.
Ditch cars to meet climate change targets, say MPs
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst
22 August 2019
People will have to get out of their cars if the UK is to meet its climate change targets, MPs say.The Science and Technology Select Committee says technology alone cannot solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions from transport.
It says the government cannot achieve sufficient emissions cuts by swapping existing vehicles for cleaner versions.
The government said it would consider the committee’s findings.
In its report, the committee said: “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation.”
It echoes a report from an Oxford-based group of academics who warned that even electric cars produce pollution through their tyres and brakes.
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49425402
From the government press release;
Government’s target for ‘net-zero’ by 2050 undeliverable unless clean growth policies introduced
…
Plan for reducing vehicle emissions: The Government must bring forward the date of its proposed ban on the sales of new ‘conventional’ cars and vans to 2035 at the latest, and ensure that it covers hybrids too. In the near-term, the Government must reconsider the fiscal incentives for consumers to purchase both new and used vehicle models with lower emissions. The Government should also work with public services and owners of public land, such as schools and hospitals, to accelerate the deployment of electric vehicle chargepoints, and introduce measures to ensure that chargepoints are interoperable, compatible with a smart energy system, reliable, and provide real-time information on their current functionality. Although ultra-low emissions vehicles generate very little emissions during use, their manufacture generates substantial emissions. In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership therefore does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation. The Government should not aim to achieve emissions reductions simply by replacing existing vehicles with lower-emissions versions.
…
Read more: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news-parliament-2017/clean-growth-report-published-17-19/
If you ever attempted to get anywhere by British public transport you would know how absurd and out of touch this demand is.
Sure, getting about on the London metro underground is easy enough, but there are vast swathes of the country, even in the home counties close to London, where public transport, if available, is expensive, slow and unreliable.
When I lived in Britain I was approached on more than one occasion in London and elsewhere by groups of gentlemen hanging around public transport terminals, who seemed to want me to share the contents of my wallet with them. Though to be fair, after vigorous discussion, everyone always agreed that I could keep my money.
No remotely plausible investment in British public transport would replace the convenience, safety and accessibility of private vehicle ownership.
Of course if this policy is implemented, politicians and other important people would still enjoy a chauffeured limousine service; the prohibition will only affect private ownership of vehicles.
They truly are insane !
Perhaps they will ponder over putting one of these in every garage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_GT
That is the funniest thing I’ve ever read!
The “Committee of Idiots” has spoken. Dump them in the trash heap.
Here’s the funniest thing I’ve ever read …
with deliveries originally expected in 2009,[3] but sales to the public have been put back due to a lack of UK funding to the second quarter of 2019 when plans for production will be announced
Why does every faux eco-dream require taxpayer dollars to come true? Hint: Free Market Economics are the only unbiased TRUTH on the planet. The Free Market shrugs at these electric contraptions with kewl looking plastic bodies. Stop WASTING tax dollars on expensive vanity saloons for the ultra wealthy. Force them to pay$$ FULL price!!
I prefer the 2nd generation Tesla Roadster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster_(2020)
look here:
https://www.motor1.com/reviews/240038/gumpert-aiways-rg-nathalie-drive/
a family car with this techology would drive 1000 miles without refilling.
To fully appreciate the complete insanity of this group of British MP’s you need to read the actual report :
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/1454/145408.htm#_idTextAnchor074
I have been saying for years that this is where they really are heading with the daemonisation of “carbon” . For the state, it is all about total control of the population. At least they are now coming out of the closet and saying where they are really going with this.
That should wake a lot of people up.
The absolute FREEDOM of movement and association afforded by the personal automobile is loathed by Fascists who claim to be Socialists, Communists, and Statists. They want your FREEDOMS denied. All of them. You WILL OBEY!!
Not likely.
The problem isn’t where they *think* they are going with this scheme, the problem is where these ideas always end.
It seems that more ‘vigorous discussion’ will always be needed with thugs, however well dressed.
Do these clowns have any idea of the number of jobs which would disappear without car manufacturing, servicing, repairing, & fuel supply?
The country would collapse in just days.
I don’t think they would survive long if they tried that one.
Especially did you notice the clause private, implying the state AKA politicians could keep theirs. As Orwell would say some pigs are more equal than others 🙂
And, of course, taxis and buses. Should we be buying bicycle company futures?
Imagine the cost of a single taxicab or a limousine vehicle should the entire personal car industry shut down. No more economies of scale whatsoever.
No chance in hell. Would love to see those assumptions trhgey are using.
Watch their new prime minister, Boris Johnson, scotch that sort of idiocy.
Everybody is becoming certifiably insane. Communism by any other name is still communism and all are dictatorships. Wake up people. Climate is the least of your worries.
I actually like the idea of these crazy policies. It will alienate the jo average punter quicker and bring about the collapse of the warmist hysteria.
This is good. People have to understand what is being demanded of them. People are willing to go along to get along, as long as it isn’t too painful. When the pain really kicks in, expect a spike in CAGW skepticism.
I don’t think they will even be skeptical they will just outright say NO, which is basically what happened in the Australian Election. Even the whole Australia upsetting the pacific islands only played to a small audience in Australia. It died out fast in the Media because the majority have already made the decision if comes down to a choice between them and us, they choose us.
And now the real agenda is fully in the open… The only saving grace is that most people haven’t swallowed the pill fully and I expect there would be protests that would dwarf the French experience, never mind a full-on collapse of the economy.
More personal freedom taken by government in the name of the bogey man du jour.
The Science and Technology Select Committee is not part of the Conservative government.
It is a cross party committee chaired by a Liberal Democrat (Norman Lamb) with 5 conservatives, 4 labour and 1 SNP members. The Conservative members can be outnumbered by the remainder of the committee.
Can we have the names of the remaining members of the committee so that they can be exposed to ridicule and relieved of their posts at the next election so that their brainless stupidity can be treated at one of our NHS mental institutions.
George Lawson
Norman Lamb (Chair) – Liberal Democrat
Vicky Ford – Conservative
Bill Grant – Conservative
Mr Sam Gyimah – Conservative
Darren Jones – Labour
Liz Kendall – Labour
Stephen Metcalfe – Conservative
Carol Monaghan – Scottish National Party
Damien Moore – Conservative
Graham Stringer – Labour
Martin Whitfield – Labour
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/
NOTE: Graham Stringer MP is Labour (Socialist) and a member of the GWPF.
He was the leading MP who challenged Phil Jones over Climategate. And he doubts that man is the main cause of climate change. The Indy doesn’t like him for that reason.
It’s the Lib Dem / Conservative alliance again causing this mess.
Norman lamb is the son of the late great Hubert lamb, one of the worlds greatest climatologists
TonybTony
Here they are George; a sad bunch of lefty Remainers soon to be put on a diet of humble pie.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/membership/
It is worth reading the full report including the list of those who gave evidence. There you can see the extent of the Quangocracy including Academics and their obvious dependence on the public purse, judging by the ‘Climate-Change’ stuff they have served up to the politicians. Post-brexit and post the next general election we will not be able to support such a panoply of experts to advise us on every move, so stand by for a modern “bonfire of the vanities”.
Hope is given by the recommendation to review that 2050 no-ic deadline
Far too kind George. These ‘people’ are a waste of good skin that could be used for lampshades…..
Mods
This is too much IMO.
To Mr Watts or whoever manages this site.
Can you set up a replica site with just factual rebuttals of some of the alarmist stuff, updated, and with no comments allowed?
I try linking or mentioning articles here but as soon as people see the comments with their flippant or rude remarks they just think everybody is mad.
Thanks
If it’s such an issue set it up yourself … oh that would require effort and you just want someone else to do the effort for your whim.
Perhaps stop and think how many hours and how much effort is required to run the site, then go take a long cold shower and stop whinning.
I have no idea who is credible and who is not – e.g. Rex Fleming – author of a recent book called “The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Global Warming” – he looks sensible to me but when I linked to the publishers site people just told me he wasn’t credible. Some of you named 386 or so at least might separate valid counters to the alarm from the spurious ones.
I run a couple of small websites – if people want to send me articles I’ll set up a site, but I suspect it will have zero credibility, not least because I won’t know when I’m being spoofed.
I think one reason the warmists got their message across is that they kept it simple:
“Man made CO2 is causing global warming. Reduce man made CO2”
“Man made CO2 is causing global warming. Reduce man.”
Isn’t that the real message? Eugenics via the back door.
Keep it simpler: “No, it isn’t.”
“Can you set up a replica site with just factual rebuttals of some of the alarmist stuff, updated, and with no comments allowed?”
Many of the factual rebuttals are in the comments. Eliminating them entirely because the comments contain some irrelevant/flippant posts would be counterproductive.
I would include the gratuitous and pointless comments in the articles as well. For example “gentlemen hanging around public transport terminals” paragraph is nothing to do with the report. And nowhere near as bad as the gentlemen in the USA on every junction haranguing drivers for cash.
Thank goodness we got rid of public toilets in the UK. Climate alarmists and other insalubrious people would be hanging around inside the exits too.
Agreed It has become a joke site that is rapidly dismissed when I refer someone to WUWT
Ed MacAulay
If it’s a joke site
1. Please put in the years of effort Anthony has to produce something better.
2. Why TF are you here?
Then, summarise what you think are the compelling arguments, memorise them, and use them in discussion. Be prepared to cite the original sources,
398,316,561 hits
Doesn’t look like a joke site to me.
David Tallboys – Ed MacAulay
The worst thing you can do is to refer an alarmist to this site, they will ridicule you no matter what. It’s a bit like the alarmist morons who live on skepticalscience and link to it incessantly, other than skepticalscience is just a compendium of fallacious claims.
Use this site as a reference to get to the information you want. You can pretty well tap ‘WUWT’ followed by your subject into Google and bingo, you will have a list of articles which will provide the original research.
I think you are right.
I’m a naive sceptic.
NEVER use Google for searching.
Bing not my preferred search engine but better
duckduckgo or startpage are my preferred
+1
David, You wouldn’t happen to be a Liberal Dem would you? I only ask, because your comment is so in keeping with the favourite LibDem campaign poster that’s used so often “Whining Here”.
No I’m not.
I generally learn more from reading the comments than I do from reading the post itself. If people let a few off comments drive them away then they are not interested in learning.
Here are a few:
https://newspunch.com/tens-of-thousands-of-scientists-declare-climate-change-a-hoax/
https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/warming-the-truth-the-real-story-about-climate-change
https://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/
https://www.wnd.com/2019/08/ex-noaa-scientist-now-climate-change-denier/
https://www.climatehustle.org/product/climate-hustle-dvd/ref/Watts/
https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/43896/ep-205-climate-alarmism-has-turned-cult
https://www.theepochtimes.com/climate-change-confusion-what-are-we-to-think-2_2859742.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html
https://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler
And here is one from this websiste:
https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2018/05/28/distortions-misdirections-and-lack-of-accountability-continue-to-plague-climate-science/
The New World Order invisible elitist government or the deep state establishment which comprises the Bilderbergs,Big Corporations,the Trilateral commission,the CFR(Council on Foreign Relations),The United Nations,secret societies,the illuminati,the Club of Rome,The World Monetary Organization, and the federal reserve(which is not federally owned,but is owned privately) and others are using the fake ‘man made climate change’ scheme with their advocacy for political correctness as one of their tools for a socialist/communist take over of the world towards their goal of a one world government in which all nations will lose their sovereignty and freedoms.They also use the fake news media as a tool to condition us and brainwash us with their politically correct philosophy towards their evil ‘New World Order’ agenda of a one world government.
@Dan Cody. Oh dear. Please go back to telling corny jokes.
Dan Cody
Far too scripted mate. That’s like telling someone to eat an elephant all in one mouthful, even folks on here are shaking their heads in dismay.
You’re not wrong but hand it to anyone and they will laugh.
RobH is right, stick to the jokes for now.
no, hes spot on!
any brief reading of the agenda 21 planning outcomes has people moved to transport coridors in designated areas , very tight controls by pretty much forcing public transport corridors and limiting personal vehicles and access to land once freely used ie parks etc(already happening)
herding the gullibles into controllable sectors in the name of co2/eco lunacy
and no one to have much space gardens etc therby aklso forcing reliance of big agri setups to shuttle food in etc
standard city life now but for everyone
rural towns to be absorbed etc etc
when I read some of it I was appalled at the excuses used to manage this.
worse was Aus having some of the proponents entrenched here as well. most of our Unis and so called thinktanks..more like “dont think” cesspits.
the same sort of psyops theyre using to push cashless society saying it all about criminals washing money
no its about total tracking and the banks getting a percentage of all funds everyone spends every second of the day
evidenced by the push for banks towards their own cryptocurencies now too:-/
Can you please put space between the periods and first letter of the next sentence?
Two (2) spaces, please.
Reference:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-018-1527-6
Hard to believe the extent to which Britain is gripped by this hysteria. Even if the UK completely decarbonized, at great cost to quality of life of her citizens, the emissions savings would equal about 15 minutes’ worth of the emissions from India and China combined. Someday, we’ll look back on all this as a lesson on human irrationality.
No we get a good laugh everyday, you don’t have to look back.
No problem, horses, mules and donkeys have been used for eons in the past. However, the politicians don’t like these animals in town. A riding school close to the government building in Copenhagen became a ban from utilizing the queen’s horse exercise are, because the politicians could smell the horses from their open office windows in the summer time.
Are they sure the smell was from the horses?
Haven’t you heard they’re literally trying to wage a war on cows and sheep because of their flatulence? If they’re doing this now how long do you think it will be before they go after the horses and donkeys? If you follow their way of thinking through then since we are basically made if carbon and we breathe out co2 then where are we in the plan?
Flying, cars, meat, all only for the privileged few. Of impeccable green credentials of course. We are seeing the outlines of a new aristocracy. But cheer up, it will end with them the same way as before. At the guillotine.
I’m sure someone reacted with horror when the industrial manufacture of motor vehicles became possible and said “One can’t have the masses moving about too much!!”.
That attitude persists to this day.
Know your place.
So, Agenda21 is just a conspiracy theory? Stealthily and slowly they are introducing components of it on the people while all the time claiming it isn’t mandatory. Without AGW Agenda21 wouldn’t happen and the UN knows it and invented it for that very purpose.
The Framework Convention on Climate Change from the Earth Conference 1992 was justification for implementing Agenda 21 and several other documents like the Biodiversity convention. Getting rid of cars is not a new idea, just the implementation of the 92 Rio Earth Conference agenda.
I think the entire state of California should pilot this for the USA.
We’ll get to see how public transit can work! 🙂
Side benefits;
– less smog in LA.
– fitter people
All this hysteria over a non-problem. There is no evidence that CO2 is going to do what they are afraid it will do.
If the UK cut out all its CO2 production, it wouldn’t matter one bit to reducing CO2 worldwide. These UK politicians are insane and are leading their nation to ruin.
Perhaps trying to outlaw all automobiles will wake the public up and they will oust these fools from office.
No one in Britain is seriously talking about banning the private car. this is one of many ideas by one of many committees. no one takes them seriously
If no one takes them seriously, why have the committee? Obviously, someone in UK government believes the committee serves some purpose.
I wonder why the good people on the committee stopped at transportation. Surely, controlling how production and housing are managed will impact “decarbonisation” to a greater extent than just transportation.
Unfortunately the UK has a long tradition of taking idiotic ideas seriously because some committee had Sirs, Lords or Profs on it. Lord Beecham, ring a bell? No need for railways as everyone in 1980 will be flying around with little helicopters. Lord Sterne’s recommendation to vandalise the energy infrastructure because else Antarctica would melt in our lifetime? More idiotic it could hardly get. This one would fit nicely in the sequence.
Beeching , not Beecham . He was asked to identify rail routes that carried insufficient traffic to justify the subsidies to keep them running. Within the terms of his remit he did a good job. What killed off so many rail routes was, in part, the growth of personal car ownwership. Look at, eg .the following link
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182497
to see how car travel increased from 1950 to the mid ’60s when the Beeching report came out . As the BBC graph shows, in 1950 less than 15% of households had a car, by the time of the Beeching report almost 50% had a car and in the ’70s 50% of households had more than one car so one parent could commite and the other take kids to school.
Prosperity is one factor that killed off unpopular and unused rail routes. Remember Macmillan won the 1959 election with the slogan “never had it so good” . He was right and the Tories were returned to power.
commute not commite , my apologies.
And now 100% own a car. So why are there demands for many of those closed routes to be reopened?
Good point , Ed , and part of me , the romantic , nostalgic part wishes it might happen (and with a great grandfather and father who both worked for God’s Wonderful Railway-GWR- that is understandable.)
Changes since the ’60s in demography and tourist traffic on heritage lines might make some lines now profitable, but we come up against the unassailable economic rule – use or lose it. If England could find a source of enough wealth to wipe out our debt and guaranteee a budget surplus we could probably afford to subsidise little used lines, but in our present weak financial state we have to be realistic.
People might say, if questioned, that they want to see a line reopened, but would they personally and actually give up their car and use it? Only if forced to I suspect, which brings our discussion back to the starting point.
no one takes them seriously
============
until it is too late.
Hasn’t the UK passed a law prohibiting new ICE vehicles in twenty years? One would presume there were plans for producing more electric power, reinforcing the grid, and designing, standardizing, and architecting a layout of charging stations for all the EVs.
But there aren’t. Why not? Because none of it will be needed. The purchasing and charging of an EV will be unaffordable for the average person. The next step will be the ban on the retail sale of gasoline (or a huge tax on it) by 2045, and the goal of this committee will have been achieved.
At what point will the riots start? No point. The change is incremental, with only some affected by each step.
Welcome to the new world of the haves (politicians and the wealthy will have vehicles), and the have-nots (all the rest of us).
Wow. The UK is even ahead of the US in eco-loon insanity.
It’s going around the blogs over here how all the silliness about climate change bears a striking resemblance to indulgences granted by the catholic church to the rich and powerful in previous ages.
You can use private jets to maintain your lifestyle and remain sin free if you send some money for some bloke to plant a tree somewhere. Of course, this has no effect on planet earth that makes up for your use of the private jet, but hey, it makes Elton John feel good.
IMO, the key is the definition of the words ‘private’ and ‘ownership’.
For example, could corporations own them, such as short-term rental or leasing companies?
How about banks or other financial institutions that hold car loans until the contract is completed? How about a union?
A prime example of why we need the government doing things for us.
That’ll be a vote winner for sure, but not for the party that says they implement this brain dead.
One small overstep for Green overlords one giant leap for Yellow Vests.
In spite of CO2 being a ghg, multiple compelling evidence listed in Section 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com rules it out as a significant contributor to climate change. Explanation of why is in Section 5 and how in Section 6.
Prosperity is not compatible with large decarbonization.
astonerii
Neither is poverty.
our freedom is largely based on cars, washing machines , tap water, central heating and refridgerators.
Only the (very) rich do not need these machines as they are able to employ servants to wash their clothes and carry their water.
Any attack on the ownership or production is an attack on our freedom.
Hmm … no private property rights. That sounds a bit like communism to me.
Or maybe England can give all the property to a few lords. In exchange for protection and a place to live, the people would give a percentage of their labor to the lords. We can call the people who are not lords serfs. And who would be a lord? Well, the existing lords naturally would be. But certain people who have enough money could be a lord, provided they actually have the right viewpoint.
Go for it-so we can watch.
Copy and repeat at the UN so we can expose that one too.
This time they really have gone too far. This is great ammunition for those of us who recognise AGW as history’s greatest fraud.
‘If you ever attempted to get anywhere by British public transport..’
It depends where you are. In a major UK city you would find plenty of safe, clean, fast public transport. There is little point owning a car in London, for example.
In Norfolk or the Scottish Highlands… public transport is at US levels.
Fortunately in London and other major UK cities, Emergencies and Urgencies don’t occur out of schedule with bus routes. Or after 10PM once the sidewalks get rolled up. and Everyone who gets off work at 5pm can wait until 6pm to get home (16K away). Oh I forgot, everyone in large cities lives within walking distance to work and amenities and never need to drive anyplace. Like New York City.
No more food delivery for a Soccer game. Oh that’s right nothing is more wasteful then and carbon generating than a sports event. Kiss that goodbye.
Thankfully, this will put accidents on a schedule. C’mon man it’s a feature.
Return the UK to birth mortality rates of the early 19th century.
Safe travelling on the trains in UK apparently from Griffs favourite source
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/05/crime-soars-on-britains-railways
I used to laugh at the movie premise in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers from the town doctor that waived off the early warning signs as “symptoms of mass hysteria.” Now I guess that movie needs to be reclassified as a documentary film.
Sort of like “Idiocracy” ?
“It is not a movie, but a documentary… sent back from the future as a warning.”
These people have been watching too much Downton Abbey.
They hunger for a return of that way of life.
Aristocracy, peasantry, and academics as the new clergy with their old privilege and authority.
Upstairs and downstairs, know your place.
It’s not about pollution of the air –
it’s about not putting on airs above your station.
I can make explosives and have plenty of rope. Bring it on, you insane EMPLOYEES!
“Let them ride bikes, and eat cake. Win-win!”
There’s no living your own life with this bunch.
They’ll get another wild hair tomorrow. And another one after that.
There’s never any reason to indulge them on anything.
Try to distinguish between things you don’t want to hear and things that are incorrect. It’s stupid to argue that public transit will never be better than it is now—any strategy to get rid of cars obviously must involve providing superior alternatives. It’s also stupid to say “because I want to own a car, reality must adapt to me.” Sometimes reality is not as we could wish. Grow up.
something,
I think you are the one that needs to “Grow up”. You do not have the right to restrict my choice of conveyance. There is no climate crisis. There is no CO2 crisis. All of these ideas are BS.
I don’t live near a large city and I don’t want to. It is not feasible to provide Public Transport everywhere. If you improve Public Transport, more will use it. Until then, don’t put the cart before the horse.
Rule #1 – Never punish everyone for the sins of a few.
Any ‘strategy to get rid of cars’ is pretty much based on ill-informed conceit, or totalitarian agenda.
Try banning private auto ownership in California or Texas. LA no car? Political reality?
Obviously, the idiots have lived a pampered life and hence cannot imagine life in a small town, implications of public transit only for people who have real life problems such as shiftwork, two working parents, daycare, kid activities, and so on.
Or alternatively they are Zombie soldiers who believe in fascism light where we are forced to spend money which we do not have on ….
Curiously no one suggests banning tourism, banning construction, or banning vacation property
“Worldwide tourism accounted for 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions from 2009 to 2013, new research finds, making the sector a bigger polluter than the construction industry.”
Why stop there? End private ownership of property because of climate change! The higher purpose persons obviously know better than we what is for the greater good. End the wasteful practice of democratic choice in governance! End the chaotic and confused practice of choosing our life partners! Life would be so much simpler without choice. Just relax and be taken care of.
Article: People will have to get out of their cars if the UK is to meet its climate change targets.
The questions British people survive the climate change targets and are they necessary based on what they don’t know.
My but the UK is devout…
Bring it on – the sooner the daft Climate Cult following politicians put this kind of idiocy into their election manifestos, the sooner we get rid of the daft Climate Cult politicians for good.
As the saying goes (and a great album by The Clash), “Give ‘Em Enough Rope…”
When are Britons going to divest themselves of the crypto-fascist, Fabian socialist political class that is now ruling (not governing) them and “de-leftify” themselves.
Or is that option still open to them?
It’s not a “government committee”. It’s a House of Commons committee, the “The Science and Technology Select Committee”. Of the 11 members of the committee six are members of the Opposition.
The government is expected to respond to any recommendations that are made, so it’s the government’s response that may give you a clue about what legislation might be proposed. In other words y’all are being rather hysterical.
It has to be remembered that Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital in the British museum in London. Engels and Marx wrote the communist manifesto again in the British museum in London. The rest is history.
Actually, it was at Chetham’s library in Manchester that he wrote Das Kapital. His desk is on display.
Some also claim it was written in a flat in SOHO. Many claims could be correct. He was probably shlepping around as a shnorrer.
And the Britons are not on the streets to tell them what time it is?
It’s like the pressure of the boiler is rising and no one reads the manometer. Until all rivets pop at once.
“…widespread personal vehicle ownership…”
The key word to focus on is “widespread”.
It is not everyone who must give up their cars…and they will tell you who can keep their car after the law is passed to ban most of them.
But I will tell you now: If you are not sure if some people should give up their cars, and you are also not sure if you would be among the chosen, then you are not among the chosen and you must definitely hand yours in.
One by one you need to turn “consensus” scientists into “contrarian” scientists.
It probably requires years of work because so many have their careers and futures linked to perpetuating the “CO2 is evil” theme.
How about starting #CO2ISINNOCENT
As long as nobody exposes the true agenda – eco-totalitarianism – most won’t perceive the threat and the insanity will continue; Naked Emperor Syndrome.
In 1948, UK, just finished my 3 1/2 year Army service, bought a sports bicycle , 9 miles to work, we lived in the country, soon got a ex. army Enfield motor cycle, by 1957 now better off bought our first car. Now at 92 legs not good enough to drive , but we enjoyed the cars, no way would we have given them up.
If the nutty Greens tried to force that idea, then it would be truly a
“Bridge too far” , the end of the nut cases.
MJE VK5ELL
If the human race ceased to exist the climate would keep changing.
Nothing Britain does will change the climate beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Overton window keeps expanding. First it is thought about, then hinted at, then spoken about out loud, then self referencing proof that everyone wants it and then it is done. “So let it be written, so let it be done”
Converges to socialism.
While we had no car I used public transport to get to an important appointment. It ended p taking over an hour and three quarters for a fifteen minute worst case car journey. It would have been quicker to walk but there are no pavements on this stretch of road so walking is more dangerous than Russian roulette.
Our MPs are not just out of touch they are mentally deranged. I suppose that is why they take their advice from Greta dumbo who they can identify with intellectually.
idiots say that CO2 is a pollutant! all life would end without CO2I
No good me getting a new ICE car now as the wise perfessor has spoken-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/news/electric-cars-will-be-price-competitive-with-petrol-by-2023-professor/ar-AAGkXRE
What would this ignorant bozo know eh? Where’s his models?
https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/auto/2018/10/11/electric-cars-petrol/
“Although ultra-low emissions vehicles generate very little emissions during use, their manufacture generates substantial emissions. In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership therefore does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation. ”
Ah, so the emissions are not the issue…they want to destroy the manufacturing, the goal of the greens all along, to destroy modern industrial society and all the benefits it has brought to the average person. They want complete control, how you drive to the store or work, what food you can eat (no meat now!), and how much electricity you will be able to afford to use.
As explained in their green dream, NPR on Morning edition (March 11, 2019) explained that even electric cars are not allowed in their 2050 vision.
“So, you want an autonomous vehicle? Bless your heart, but it costs you more to drive that autonomous vehicle on the road by yourself. If you ride-share, it’s a little bit less.”
“And this is even if they are electric vehicles?” I ask.
“Even more if they’re electric vehicles!” Hoornweg says. Personal electric cars for everyone couldn’t solve the problem, he explains. First of all, electricity is precious. We can’t waste it powering everybody’s electric car.
Second, electric cars could have clogged the streets of our densely populated cities the same”
Yea, electricity precious, instead of cheap and reliable, their wind and solar fantasy will make it rare, expensive, and intermittent. So not even Teslas will be usable.
“When I lived in Britain I was approached on more than one occasion in London and elsewhere by groups of gentlemen hanging around public transport terminals, who seemed to want me to share the contents of my wallet with them. Though to be fair, after vigorous discussion, everyone always agreed that I could keep my money.”
______________________________________________________
No more lady killers. London has fallen. Tottenham burning.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Tottenham+burning&oq=Tottenham+burning+&aqs=chrome.