SUVs Second worst polluters afte power

onwards&upwards

Supersonos wrote: »

We're humans. Humans are intrinsically selfish and self-serving. It's not going to happen.

So change will only happen when it’s in the interests of the majority. I suppose this is why it’s the young that are at the forefront on climate change protest. They’re the ones who will suffer if we don’t fix it.

Norman_Castle

Scrapit wrote: »

Until public transport goes from where I am to where I want to be when I want to go it will always be inconvenient.

Public transport is an option for many people but they choose not to use it often because there is no financial incentive.

Supersonos

onwards&upwards wrote: »

It’s not me pointing the finger, it’s scientific data, I just posted it on here.

That you clearly agree with and are choosing to share.

onwards&upwards wrote: »

I suppose this is why it’s the young that are at the forefront on climate change protest. They’re the ones who will suffer if we don’t fix it.

The young care now. But they won't care when they've grown up and have a job, a house to pay for and children of their own to look after. Then they'll forget all about it as they drive their kids 10 miles each day to school because "it's better than the local one", fly off on family holidays to Disney World, buy cheap imported meat because they can't afford to feed all three kids on locally produced organic meat, but cheap, mass-produced clothes from Primark and H&M, buy plastic toys made in China and buy mass-produced furniture from Ikea.

All while driving an SUV because "it's safer".

unholyangel

onwards&upwards wrote: »

It’s not me pointing the finger, it’s scientific [STRIKE]data[/STRIKE] guesstimation, I just posted it on here.

Fixed that for you

As I said in a previous post, they have no real way of measuring how much each vehicle is actually contributing. They don't know how many miles each of those vehicles were driven for and at what speeds.

If they really wanted to punish those contributing the most emissions, they'd increase the price at the pump. "Cleaner" vehicles would use less fuel for the same mileage as the more polluting ones and it would actually be a fairer system as the more fuel you use (whether that be because of distance travelled or fuel efficiency of your vehicle), the more you're going to be contributing to emissions.

Commerce is by far the driving factor behind all causes of environmental harm. To actually have an impact would have negative consequences for commerce. So they instead bring in policies that make it sound like they're trying without actually having an impact. Even better if they can increase revenue while doing so (such as ved bands, ulez/lez etc) - more funding with less resistance from the public because its "for the environment".

onwards&upwards

unholyangel wrote: »

Fixed that for you

As I said in a previous post, they have no real way of measuring how much each vehicle is actually contributing. They don't know how many miles each of those vehicles were driven for and at what speeds.

If they really wanted to punish those contributing the most emissions, they'd increase the price at the pump. "Cleaner" vehicles would use less fuel for the same mileage as the more polluting ones and it would actually be a fairer system as the more fuel you use (whether that be because of distance travelled or fuel efficiency of your vehicle), the more you're going to be contributing to emissions.

Ebands, ulez/lez etc) - more funding with less resistance from the public because its "for the environment".

Do you not think increasing fuel prices would just allow the well off to carry on doing harm with impunity?

unholyangel

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Do you not think increasing fuel prices would just allow the well off to carry on doing harm with impunity?

If the extra they're charged is used in a positive way to offset their carbon footprint rather than just providing more general revenue for the government, what would the issue be?

What alternatives would there be that would accurately target based on actual contributions?

Kim_kim

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Obviously public transport needs huge investment.

I’m Surrey, we are adjacent to London.
The public transport outside of the main towns is abysmal.
The trains run in and out of London, north and south. You can’t travel across the county.
The last bus into my village is about 7pm, nothing on sundays and bank holidays. I know lots of places are like that, but I’m just a bit south of the M25!

onwards&upwards

unholyangel wrote: »

If the extra they're charged is used in a positive way to offset their carbon footprint rather than just providing more general revenue for the government, what would the issue be?

What alternatives would there be that would accurately target based on actual contributions?

The issue is that offsetting isn’t a good solution.

I suppose what we might really need is electric cars to be better, cheaper and easier to use (greener production, longer range, quicker charging, more charging spots etc) so that people can still have the advantage of convenience without doing so much damage.

I’m in the market for a used car in the next few months, I would love to buy an electric but they ones that would be practical are out of my price range.

onwards&upwards

Kim_kim wrote: »

I’m Surrey, we are adjacent to London.
The public transport outside of the main towns is abysmal.
The trains run in and out of London, north and south. You can’t travel across the county.
The last bus into my village is about 7pm, nothing on sundays and bank holidays. I know lots of places are like that, but I’m just a bit south of the M25!

I hear you.

I live in a suburb of Manchester, you’d expect reasonable public transport but the only well served route is in and out of the city centre, which I only ever do for evenings out and not that often. The nearest tram stop is too far to walk and has no car park.

Jackmydad

Norman_Castle wrote: »

As previously said, varying rates based on vehicle footprint.

I've got a better idea.
Should be fairly easy to do with modern tech.

Big car, big engine, drive like a tw** = 50% of annual income VED going up to 90% for those prone to accidents and convictions.
Small car, drive sensibly = No VED.

Win win.