Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2023 9:16:40 GMT
That's not Greta's Twitter account, is it. Although the link is worthy of comment, the tweet is not hers. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 1, 2023 13:22:32 GMT
The problem with the ULEZ extension is that it has nothing to do with emissions.
The figure of "4000 deaths per year" is a blatant falsehood and there has been just one proven death due to emissions in the last 20 years.
Also Khan's own figures show that it will make less than 1% difference to air quality in outer London.
The sole purpose of ULEZ is to fill the huge hole in TFLs finances.
On the flip side it will disproportionately affect Khan's core voters, so perhaps it's not all bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 1, 2023 14:47:50 GMT
That's not Greta's Twitter account, is it. Although the link is worthy of comment, the tweet is not hers. I never claimed it was her tweet , did I? I assume that ‘ Greta Thunberg’ news is directly linked with Greta Thunberg and that Greta Thunberg thought that the tweet reflected her views . Otherwise it wouldn’t of been posted , would it? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 4, 2023 11:41:21 GMT
The facts are that there are two major sources of pollution in London and they're diesel vehicles and the Underground. And the pollution from the Underground is blown (by fans) into London. No attempt has ever been made to clean it up. I used to go into London 5 days a week on the Tube (from Finchley) and - after one day - if I blew my nose it would come out black. Petrol cars and vans driving through London don't worsen the air quality. And even new diesels (unless they use Adblue and have a particulate filter) are dangerous. The "thousands" of people in London dying of air pollution (as Khan claims) are mainly suffering from asthma, which is an allergic condition. The likelihood is that those who die of lung conditions in London have been killed by the massive pollution on the undergound. Which Khan has done NOTHING about.
Sadiq Khan's sole purpose is to destroy London. That's been obvious from the start.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Aug 4, 2023 12:21:11 GMT
People that can will move out, London is becoming a foreign city.
Don't think Khan is trying to destroy London yet he hates the community that does not support him or his pet projects. Of course his projects will harm London.
Just perhaps his presence is acting as a recruitment tool for the Tories in the outlying boroughs as he has such a chip on his shoulder making look such a vindictive person.
On diesel I was told in 2005 by a Russian health therapist, that you cannot get diesel toxicity out of the lungs.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 4, 2023 16:22:50 GMT
The facts are that there are two major sources of pollution in London and they're diesel vehicles and the Underground. And the pollution from the Underground is blown (by fans) into London. No attempt has ever been made to clean it up. I used to go into London 5 days a week on the Tube (from Finchley) and - after one day - if I blew my nose it would come out black. Petrol cars and vans driving through London don't worsen the air quality. And even new diesels (unless they use Adblue and have a particulate filter) are dangerous. The "thousands" of people in London dying of air pollution (as Khan claims) are mainly suffering from asthma, which is an allergic condition. The likelihood is that those who die of lung conditions in London have been killed by the massive pollution on the undergound. Which Khan has done NOTHING about. Sadiq Khan's sole purpose is to destroy London. That's been obvious from the start. The underground is electric. What's causing the pollution? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 5, 2023 7:34:07 GMT
The mode of propulsion is not important, zany. You're brainwashed. Most modern ICE vehicles do NOT emit pollution. That's why London's air is fairly clean now apart from NOx produced by diesels - which, BTW, were demanded by eco-zealots like you.
The main pollution now is particles which just accumulate in the underground.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 5, 2023 7:51:37 GMT
The mode of propulsion is not important, zany. You're brainwashed. Most modern ICE vehicles do NOT emit pollution. That's why London's air is fairly clean now apart from NOx produced by diesels - which, BTW, were demanded by eco-zealots like you. The main pollution now is particles which just accumulate in the underground. I promise I never demanded the use of diesels. As for modern ICE vehicles not emitting pollution. What do you think comes out of there exhaust pipes? Now please tell me what pollution comes from the underground. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 6, 2023 6:56:45 GMT
The mode of propulsion is not important, zany. You're brainwashed. Most modern ICE vehicles do NOT emit pollution. That's why London's air is fairly clean now apart from NOx produced by diesels - which, BTW, were demanded by eco-zealots like you. The main pollution now is particles which just accumulate in the underground. I promise I never demanded the use of diesels. As for modern ICE vehicles not emitting pollution. What do you think comes out of there exhaust pipes? Now please tell me what pollution comes from the underground.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 6, 2023 7:54:17 GMT
I promise I never demanded the use of diesels. As for modern ICE vehicles not emitting pollution. What do you think comes out of there exhaust pipes? Now please tell me what pollution comes from the underground.
Thanks Pacifico. That's what I was trying to get Steppenwolf to look up. So its particulates from wear and tear. There seems to be some confusion between different types of pollution and their effect on climate change calculations. I've had people state that EV's are worse than ICE because they are heavier and must produce more tyre wear. That's a reasonable assumption, but tyre wear has very little effect on Co2 levels and AGW. So I was hoping to get Steppenwolf to recognise the difference between ULEZ claims that they are trying to reduce carbon emissions as compared to pollution in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 6, 2023 10:07:17 GMT
the study by Cambridge academics in December 2022 outlines how pollution levels, measured as particulate matter (PM), are much higher on the London Underground than they are in the general outside environment in the city.
I've had people state that EV's are worse than ICE because they are heavier and must produce more tyre wear. That's a reasonable assumption, but tyre wear has very little effect on Co2 levels and AGW. Sure. However, you are then switching between a 'clean air' argument for ULEZ and a co2 emission argument. I see some imaginatively ludicrous death figures are being publicised to support the former. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 6, 2023 10:16:54 GMT
the study by Cambridge academics in December 2022 outlines how pollution levels, measured as particulate matter (PM), are much higher on the London Underground than they are in the general outside environment in the city.
Thanks Pacifico. That's what I was trying to get Steppenwolf to look up. So its particulates from wear and tear. There seems to be some confusion between different types of pollution and their effect on climate change calculations. I've had people state that EV's are worse than ICE because they are heavier and must produce more tyre wear. That's a reasonable assumption, but tyre wear has very little effect on Co2 levels and AGW. So I was hoping to get Steppenwolf to recognise the difference between ULEZ claims that they are trying to reduce carbon emissions as compared to pollution in general.
Well if you are worried purely about carbon emissions you wouldnt have a scrappage scheme for old cars - you would be encouraging people to hang onto their cars for as long as possible. Save the planet - drive an old car. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 6, 2023 15:24:38 GMT
I've had people state that EV's are worse than ICE because they are heavier and must produce more tyre wear. That's a reasonable assumption, but tyre wear has very little effect on Co2 levels and AGW. Sure. However, you are then switching between a 'clean air' argument for ULEZ and a co2 emission argument. I see some imaginatively ludicrous death figures are being publicised to support the former. No. I'm not. The problem is the exact opposite, I keep trying to separate them, others keep muddling them. I stated ULEZ has little to do with climate change and much about local pollution. Only to have someone post that Sadiq Khan is claiming exactly that. I set out my position and get back a thing about the underground being more polluted. Sigh. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 6, 2023 15:29:08 GMT
Sure. However, you are then switching between a 'clean air' argument for ULEZ and a co2 emission argument. I see some imaginatively ludicrous death figures are being publicised to support the former. No. I'm not. The problem is the exact opposite, I keep trying to separate them, others keep muddling them. I stated ULEZ has little to do with climate change and much about local pollution. Only to have someone post that Sadiq Khan is claiming exactly that. I set out my position and get back a thing about the underground being more polluted. Sigh. Right - but then we have the underpopulated and its particulate pollution |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Aug 6, 2023 15:29:28 GMT
Thanks Pacifico. That's what I was trying to get Steppenwolf to look up. So its particulates from wear and tear. There seems to be some confusion between different types of pollution and their effect on climate change calculations. I've had people state that EV's are worse than ICE because they are heavier and must produce more tyre wear. That's a reasonable assumption, but tyre wear has very little effect on Co2 levels and AGW. So I was hoping to get Steppenwolf to recognise the difference between ULEZ claims that they are trying to reduce carbon emissions as compared to pollution in general.
Well if you are worried purely about carbon emissions you wouldnt have a scrappage scheme for old cars - you would be encouraging people to hang onto their cars for as long as possible. Save the planet - drive an old car. I'm not worried purely about Carbon emissions, I just want people to recognise they are separate things. As for keeping cars as long as possible, there are very many variables defining that calculation. I assume you are one of those saying we should not foist EV's on people. How do you feel about telling them they aren't allowed to replace their car at all? |
|
