I failed my 'giving up smoking' last year. The patches really seem to be working so far this time (almost a month). I am also going to a nicotine anonymous meeting on Saturday but mainly because I was asked by a kindly gentleman in courderoy and a brown jumper. I have a weakness for fatherly types.
"but I do feel that it is very easy for people that wouldnt be affected one iota by regulations such as the proposed above, to cheerlead it as a good idea"
I don't support it because it doesn't affect me, Liana. I can state, hand on heart, that I would support it even if it DID affect me. There's no schadenfreude about it at all. I'd be happy, for instance, to pay more income tax if I thought that it would make a difference to education and the health service.
Global warming? Well, everyone'll believe what they want to about it. I happen to believe it's a serious threat to life on this planet, and I also happen to believe (crank though that may make me) that mankind is responsible for a lot of it. Now, IF the view I go along with is right, it won't just affect taxpayers or car-owners or cyclists: it'll affect all of us.
I wouldn't qualify for the Bachelor Tax, Fish. How about a Divorcee Tax?
I don't want to live with anyone else, anyway. People are smelly. I'm smelly, too.
"I am not hearing those who actually do the shopping and cooking for 4 or 5 people begging to give up their cars." Well, you ain't likely to. Society's grown up car-centrically. Who can blame them. Again, though... AGAIN... Who's saying they should have to give them up?
"In any case in the light of Amazon forests burning and the expansion of China and the carbon footprint of the USA are we just P ing in the wind?" Which doesn't have to be an argument for 'business as usual'.
"Now it would be reasonable to encourage school busses as a lot of people don't live within any kind of walk of school.It would also be reasonable to plan new build areas so there are schools doctors shops within reach.I also think we should have American style brown bags in supermarkets at least they could be recycled just like all those daily broadsheets."
Couldn't agree more. In my area, too, they operate an excellent 'Walking Bus' service for younger children. It's hugely popular and successful. It also keeps the town and city centres freer in the mornings and evenings.
cheers jude. We can be each others support on this then, and well done you too.
Alan. You don't mind your every move being monitored? It scares me to fucken death that I might live in a country that thinks it's ok.
"You don't mind your every move being monitored?" I did say earlier on that I wasn't so happy about that. I'd prefer it if there were separate proposals. But our (more or less) every move is montitored every day, anyway. That scares me to fucken death, too - and the number of people who support it.
I have a couple of "don't cross me I'm menopausal" stories related to cars.One woman I heard of returned home to find her house being burgled.She rammed their car with her 4x4 and chased them.Another when faced with a rude creature who wouldn't take turns on a narrow road got out removed her key and said "fine I'm not in a hurry " She also when honked before a barrier was raised got out of her car to remonstrate at the drivers rudeness.The wife of the rude driver scrunched down and was heard to say" oh God she is comming."
Back to the issue being discussed .There used to be a discussion about zero population growth.Where has that movement gone!! We need enopugh sproggs to pay our pensions but on the whole there are too many people for the earth to support, and Gaia might get cross.
I wasn't saying business as usual I was saying that the UK has always been useful in terms of innovation and tech.You still are thinking of town living if you speak of walking busses.My school run is far more than any reasonable walk it is several miles and there are no pavements.There are also no pavements between me and the nearest food shop.I don't think we should all have to live in vast city sprawls.
"what on earth do you mean you cant afford to live in the country??? its vastly cheaper, thats why i do it."
As you said, you *have* to have a car to go anywhere. I can't afford a car. Not at the same time as rent and bills. I'm sure you get more for your money in terms of housing, but you also seem to get propertionally less for your hours. In London, I can get by because I don't have to pay *anything* for transport unless I want to get somewhere particularly fast or am with friends. I can bike to work and walk to the shops.
I dunno - maybe it evens out - and, of course, I don't have kids to feed - but when I was looking at where I could move to so as to give me some hope of having money to set aside, London looked a better prospect than the sticks. Now I tell myself that once I'm on better footing I'll move somewhere nicer.
Mmm, I never drove whilst in london (1985/6), for the reasons you state. My rent though, cost more then than it does today in the country, 20 years on. Hate to think what my rent would be now in Stoke Newington. A pint at my local is only £1.50 too... definitely cheaper. The car is 17 years old and cost nowt... I couldnt afford a fancy electric one, at least not now. Wish I could. Maybe when they are 17 years old.
"You still are thinking of town living if you speak of walking busses." Yes, of course. But it was striking, when they first started operating them a few years ago, just how quickly it led to easier traffic flow in the mornings. Small things - but lots of small things can add up. Car sharing is another scheme that operates well locally, and is encouraged (though flexi-time can nobble it). Anything like this that people can derive tangible benefits from, and which can have a positive environmental impact, is great. This is what we ought to be talking about. Discussing options, keeping our minds open to ideas and possibilities - rather than just defending positions.
Jack's spot on when he says "Everyone's fiercely protective of their way of life, and the line between indulgence and a genuine need is extremely difficult to discern sometimes". There's a lot of 'what's best for me and mine' running through this thread. We can all think more broadly than that, I hope.
From a 'highly respected' national newspaper printed a few days ago.
The Open University's Science of
Climate programme provides graphs
showing the way carbon dioxide
concentration changes in the
atmosphere and the resulting change in
the mean global temperature (mgt) over
a period of 170,000 years.
The information is derived not from
dodgy computer simulations but
observable facts — from leaf fossils, tree
cores and ice core-samples taken in
Arctic and Antarctic ice fields.
Plotted as graphs, they show a
close correlation between carbon
dioxide quantity (parts per million
by volume [ppm(vol)]) in the
atmosphere and the change in average
global temperature.
Over a period of about 135,000 years, the
mgt runs from -6c at 192 ppm(vol) of
carbon dioxide to +2c at 312 ppm(vol),
corresponding to a world mainly
covered in ice to one with rampant
vegetation. About 150,000 years ago,
there was little or no vegetation to use
up the carbon dioxide and it, therefore,
increased.
The world's temperature takes about
2,000 to 4,000 years to catch up with the
carbon dioxide change causing it.
For the next 10,000 to 12,000 years,
carbon dioxide and temperature rise to
315 ppm(vol), by which time the mgt
stands at +2c and vegetation is rampant,
rapidly using up the carbon dioxide for
its growth. Eventually, this results in a
fall in carbon dioxide concentration with
the mgt falling back down, over the next
125,000 years, to -6c, with the vegetation
being killed off by the cold, so starting a
new cycle.
Humanity's contribution to the carbon
dioxide cycle is so small that human
action has very little to do with it. Global
warming is controlled by vegetation
growth or decline. It is not controlled
by mankind.
I would add that if the penultimate sentence is correct then mankind does in fact have some hand in global warming by decimating rain forests.
"Humanity's contribution to the carbon
dioxide cycle is so small that human
action has very little to do with it."
- which is completely at odds with the global scientific consensus. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the global climate."
Does this 'highly respected' newspaper (use of the word 'dodgy' suggests the editorial policy is 'dodgy', too) say who funded the study?
It wasn't an editorial Alan, just an argument set forth in the paper by a contributor to the discussion. If the OU findings are correct, it doesn't matter who pointed it out anyway.
I've read the IPCC report you refer to but I'm not overly inclined to apportion much credit to a report that uses such terminolgy as 'unlikely' and 'evidence suggests'. The only kind that's worth it's salt is an empirical study that is couched in 'definites'.
I guess that the OU were satisfied with the pedigree of the study or they wouldn't have included it in their curriculum. 'Dodgy', wasn't a word used by the OU, just the contributor to the discussion in the newspaper. I don't know whether the OU stated the origin of the study or who paid for it.
Here's the email reply sent out by 10,Downing St, followed by a couple of links relevant to the discussion.
* The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed.
This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair *
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/debate/faqhttp://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page11046.asp
I don't give a shit about the CO2 debate; the less cars on the road, the better. You must be a complete and utter asshole if you get in your vehicle each day and don't smell/sense/know what a piece of crap they are. Cmon!
How sad.
There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
His situation is usually, in an armchair, naked, dick in hand, camera on tripod, wondering why the fuck his wife preferred someone else to him.
Oh yeah, and he has no car, a) because he doesn't work,and therefore doesn't need one, and b) cos he can't afford one anyway.
Although that's pretty harsh, I have to say it does twist my melons when people who have no real need for a car bang on about how we should all not have cars.
I do have a car at the moment, but it's way beyond my needs. If I can cope without one, I will, and I am. I can't stand the ugly things. To set record straight, I don't have a web cam, or a mobile, but as missi said, I do like to squirt the groin gravy.
There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
Thanks for posting the e-mail and the links, Missi. Interesting information.
As Tone himself says "This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level." I couldn't agree more. Trouble is that so many people do the old knee-jerk thing and immediately construe any such suggestions or proposals as being either 'anti-car' or 'anti-motorist'.
We may not all have a need for a car - but the congestion argument is about more than just cars, anyway. Most of us rely on road-based transportation for food supplies - and there are all sorts of arguments we could go into there about too much road freight, too much reliance on 'distance-supplied' supermarkets, and so on.
I agree that it doesn't do any good to knock people for having cars. Many people - the elderly or disabled, people in rural areas, business people, and so on - need to use them. Another side of the issue, though, is the way that a good number of people (and, for the benefit of any sensitive souls, I stress this doesn't apply to EVERYONE!) misuse them... or, at least, use them far more than they need to. As I said before, I was guilty of it myself when I had a car. I drove everywhere. In fact, it took not having a car to make me realise just how much I previously took it for granted. Again, people can't be blamed for this. Our society has evolved around car usage. Having a car nowadays is almost as much taken for granted as having a roof over one's head. It's something we're almost brought up to expect. What I hope debates like this can do is to make people think a bit more about their car usage - and, if it's possible, to make some adjustments. Like what? Well... you could always start by checking out this for some useful tips about making motoring greener and more economical:
http://www.eta.co.uk/page.asp?ref=grntipshm
'Switch off the engine if you think you'll be stationary for more than two minutes' is an obvious one. I'm always astonished by the number of people who let their engines idle while they're outside shops, pulled up at ATMs or waiting at railway crossings. They must have money to burn!
Disregarding the usual idiots above, this policy is now dead in the water.
The government may be making a weak attempt to say that public opinion won't deter them, but only a fool would pursue this ludicrous scheme. It raises the spectre of the poll-tax fiasco. How will the government look when a million drivers refuse to pay?
Many have fallen prey of the policy of "disregarding the usual idiots"...
Be warned!
pe
ps
oid
... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)
Haemorrhoid, if you think tossers like you are any threat to me you're even more stupid than I first thought. Many like you have tried to 'prey'on me and almost all of 'em have either fucked off or been banned.
You ain't up to the job, and neither are your pals.
YOU have been warned.
LOL...that was funny. I can just see him there at his pc, banging away with his hairy, grubby fingers, beetroot face and a framed picture of Marlon Brando on his desk.
There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
Don't understand what's happened to my meal routines at the mo. I'm up at 6.00am, not eating my first meal until 5pm (dinner), then I have lunch 9pm and breakfast at 12 midnight.
There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
'Yan... maybe you're preggers...?'
I thought that myself, then realised that there's no way I could be. I've not had sex for over 3 months.
There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
The All New Pepsoid the Second!
The All New Pepsoid the Second!
The All New Pepsoid the Second!
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
The All New Pepsoid the Second!
The All New Pepsoid the Second!
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
The All New Pepsoid the Second!
The All New Pepsoid the Second!
~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~
The All New Pepsoid the Second!
Pages