Business & Finance45 mins ago
Is this plausible anyway?
Delighted as I am that we now seem to have the gumption to tell the EU where to go, surely this is not plausible anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12879566
Can you imagine all the cities of Europe adhering to this? I can just see the politicians making themselves exempt! Is this further evidence that the EU is building what amounts to a new Soviet Union with an elite set of rulers lording it over the masses who are getting ever more skint paying for workshy scum, immigrants and of course all the snout in trough politicians and leviathan public sectors? At what point do we throw in the towel and sign on ourselves?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12879566
Can you imagine all the cities of Europe adhering to this? I can just see the politicians making themselves exempt! Is this further evidence that the EU is building what amounts to a new Soviet Union with an elite set of rulers lording it over the masses who are getting ever more skint paying for workshy scum, immigrants and of course all the snout in trough politicians and leviathan public sectors? At what point do we throw in the towel and sign on ourselves?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Red_John. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
yes I do Gromit but burning fossil fuels to make electricity is 400% worse than using it directly in a car. Electric vehicles do far more environmental damage than is often realised. Also in reality there'll be exemptions for officials etc that'll defeat the object. We will be reliant on oil until it runs out or some other source of energy becomes viable. Tinkering about makes little difference.
The commission says the objective is to lower emissions from transport by 60%, not reduce powerstation emissions.
This is presumably on health grounds. Hundreds of thousands of people live in cities, breathing in pollution from cars that has a detrimental affect on their health. If the emissions are far away from the city from a power station in a low populated area, then less people will be affected.
It is claimed 50,000 people die prematurely in the UK due to air pollution. Are we to do nothing and accept that annual death toll? Banning highly polluting vehicles from densely populated areas is worth a try.
http://www.guardian.c.../air-pollution-deaths
This is presumably on health grounds. Hundreds of thousands of people live in cities, breathing in pollution from cars that has a detrimental affect on their health. If the emissions are far away from the city from a power station in a low populated area, then less people will be affected.
It is claimed 50,000 people die prematurely in the UK due to air pollution. Are we to do nothing and accept that annual death toll? Banning highly polluting vehicles from densely populated areas is worth a try.
http://www.guardian.c.../air-pollution-deaths
2050!?!
Enacting legislation that will come in to effect in 39 years time is an exercise in wishful thinking. No one can possibly predict the technological innovations over this sort of time-frame, nor can they predict the geopolitical situation. It's entirely possible that the entity known as the EU will not exist in 2050.
Enacting legislation that will come in to effect in 39 years time is an exercise in wishful thinking. No one can possibly predict the technological innovations over this sort of time-frame, nor can they predict the geopolitical situation. It's entirely possible that the entity known as the EU will not exist in 2050.
Legislation is not the same as long-term strategy.
I can see the need to strive and strategically plan to make our cities cleaner but to legislate 39 years into the future shows a quite remarkable foresight. The people who make these laws must be truly gifted. Maybe they could tell me next week's Euro lottery numbers?
I can see the need to strive and strategically plan to make our cities cleaner but to legislate 39 years into the future shows a quite remarkable foresight. The people who make these laws must be truly gifted. Maybe they could tell me next week's Euro lottery numbers?
The 'laws' are not drafted for 2050, they are drafted for now. The objective, is to make cities cleaner, and the target, or measure to see if this has been successful, is set for 2050.
Are we to get data that tells us 50,000 people die prematurely from the affects of pollution, and conclude we cannot, or don't want to do anything about it?
Maybe a solution which won't impede your access to Marks & Spencer's would be to issue those unfortunate to be pedestrians and old with face masks like we see in Tokyo.
Are we to get data that tells us 50,000 people die prematurely from the affects of pollution, and conclude we cannot, or don't want to do anything about it?
Maybe a solution which won't impede your access to Marks & Spencer's would be to issue those unfortunate to be pedestrians and old with face masks like we see in Tokyo.
By 2050 it is highly unlikely that fossil fuel driven car will be around so this debate is rather academic.
As an asthma sufferer I cant wait for it to happen. I love my cars and motorbike but there are down sides. We need to shift the anti car lobby, accept that personal cars are here to stay and work out a way to get on with it.
An additional benefit of course will be to stick the Arabs back in theri tents. Should be much more peaceful for all.
As for Bruxelles doing this = its highly unlikely. It is still a perk to have a company car here, most are. You even get your fuel paid for (40K km) and no heavy tax burden.
As an asthma sufferer I cant wait for it to happen. I love my cars and motorbike but there are down sides. We need to shift the anti car lobby, accept that personal cars are here to stay and work out a way to get on with it.
An additional benefit of course will be to stick the Arabs back in theri tents. Should be much more peaceful for all.
As for Bruxelles doing this = its highly unlikely. It is still a perk to have a company car here, most are. You even get your fuel paid for (40K km) and no heavy tax burden.
All new buses have low entrances, kneeling suspension, wheelchair spaces and visual/audible stopping signs. Such improvemnts are expensive and bus companies would not voluntarily pay extra money. It took laws from the EU, 20 years ago, to make all new buses accessible. And the improvemnts benefit all passengers, and partonage went up.
The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000, which specified that ALL NEW public service vehicles over 22 seats should be low floor from 31 December 2000.
The Regulations were not retrospective, so buses manufactures before 2000 did not have to be low floor. If the buses where you are, are not low floor, they are running a very old fleet.
The Regulations were not retrospective, so buses manufactures before 2000 did not have to be low floor. If the buses where you are, are not low floor, they are running a very old fleet.
Why did those measures take "EU Laws" to make them happen, Gromit?
There is a strong likliehood that such measures would have originated from Westminster anyway. The difference would have been that only the people whom the UK electorate voted for would have had a say. Of course EU laws are conceived and implemented by unelected EU Commissioners, as has this scheme.
There is a strong likliehood that such measures would have originated from Westminster anyway. The difference would have been that only the people whom the UK electorate voted for would have had a say. Of course EU laws are conceived and implemented by unelected EU Commissioners, as has this scheme.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Business & Finance45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Met Officer Threatened To Arrest A...
News89 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles93 mins ago
Two Yellow Cards But Not Sent Off
Football105 mins ago
