No New Petrol Or Diesel Cars After 2030-Will There Be A U Turn?

[hackey lad]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Including OG :

 

That was my point, you can't even joke about stuff like that anymore.

You can and he did .

[Chekhov]

16 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Carry on then.  You'll learn from your mistakes, the government will learn from theirs and,  it'll be an expensive lesson for all of you.

Enjoy it because you'll not be doing it in a few years time.    Unless, that is, they find a brilliant new source of motive power and then all will be fine.

Either way, it doesn't matter to me as I don't share your obsessions.

I am obsessed with people being able to keep their freedoms.

Everything from being able to run a car and go where they want when they want to, being able to fly away to make their lives more pleasurable and fulfilling, not being forced to stay at home get vaccinated and wear masks (censored), being able to take pics of their kids doing significant stuff in their lives, being able to call a woman a woman, etc etc etc

You don't give a toss about any of that, as you repeatedly make clear, because, apparently, you are such a caring and empathetic person.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Chekhov

[Guest]

Chekhov  I am not responding to any post which goes back to Covid and it's attendant problems.  You have still written it whether you have crossed through it or not.

We are discussing Petrol & Diesel cars and not your favourite rants.

[S35_2o21]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

I am obsessed with people being able to keep their freedoms.

Everything from being able to run a car and go where they want when they want to, being able to fly away to make their lives more pleasurable and fulfilling,

Every 'freedom' has a cost though.

 

For years, drivers and airline passengers haven't paid the true cost of making these choices. For example, the damaging effects of particulates from diesel engines has only recently become a mainstream topic of debate and discussion. The NHS is now bearing these costs in more and more people presenting with asthma in built up areas. The individuals themselves who's lives are shortened by air pollution are bearing the costs. 

 

Similarly with air traffic. It is one of the least taxed forms of travel. Expansion of airports is seen as the economic miracle (the years of debate over another runway at Heathrow.. Johnson's ridiculous idea to build another airport for London v rail expenditure in the north of England..), at the same time as the climate is warming. 

 

So, yes, happy for people to make these choices. As long as the implications of those choices is understood and paid by the polluter.

 

Only then will people switch to transport methods which have less impact. 

 

Yes, I am in a 2 car household. Both quite modern engines, one is a petrol hybrid. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, S35_2o21 said:

Every 'freedom' has a cost though.

 

For years, drivers and airline passengers haven't paid the true cost of making these choices. For example, the damaging effects of particulates from diesel engines has only recently become a mainstream topic of debate and discussion. The NHS is now bearing these costs in more and more people presenting with asthma in built up areas. The individuals themselves who's lives are shortened by air pollution are bearing the costs. 

 

Similarly with air traffic. It is one of the least taxed forms of travel. Expansion of airports is seen as the economic miracle (the years of debate over another runway at Heathrow.. Johnson's ridiculous idea to build another airport for London v rail expenditure in the north of England..), at the same time as the climate is warming. 

 

So, yes, happy for people to make these choices. As long as the implications of those choices is understood and paid by the polluter.

 

Only then will people switch to transport methods which have less impact. 

 

Yes, I am in a 2 car household. Both quite modern engines, one is a petrol hybrid. 

Very well said mate.  You have hit the nail on the head with this post.  A lot of people want their freedoms but don't see why they should have to pay for them.

The days of letting people pay the price in bad health and,  the NHS pay the price in treatment costs,   are coming to an end. Those who want to ruin the planet should pick up the tab.

 

 

[Chekhov]

21 minutes ago, S35_2o21 said:

Every 'freedom' has a cost though.

 

For years, drivers and airline passengers haven't paid the true cost of making these choices. For example, the damaging effects of particulates from diesel engines has only recently become a mainstream topic of debate and discussion. The NHS is now bearing these costs in more and more people presenting with asthma in built up areas. The individuals themselves who's lives are shortened by air pollution are bearing the costs. 

 

Similarly with air traffic. It is one of the least taxed forms of travel. Expansion of airports is seen as the economic miracle (the years of debate over another runway at Heathrow.. Johnson's ridiculous idea to build another airport for London v rail expenditure in the north of England..), at the same time as the climate is warming. 

 

So, yes, happy for people to make these choices. As long as the implications of those choices is understood and paid by the polluter.

 

Only then will people switch to transport methods which have less impact. 

 

Yes, I am in a 2 car household. Both quite modern engines, one is a petrol hybrid. 

The air in this country has never been cleaner, that's just a fact.

 

>>Every 'freedom' has a cost though.<<

 

In "cost(s)" broadest sense you are undoubtedly correct, e.g. the fact people are allowed to have stairs in their houses maims thousands every year, in fact it actually kills over 500 every year. And the NHS (and the state) picks up the bill for that.

 

Conversely, every regulation / ban / restriction also has a cost.

 

But the default position in a free country should be peopel's freedoms.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Chekhov

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

The air in this country has never been cleaner, that's just a fact.

 

>>Every 'freedom' has a cost though.<<

 

In "cost(s)" broadest sense you are undoubtedly correct, e.g. the fact people are allowed to have stairs in their houses maims thousands every year, in fact it actually kills over 500 every year. And the NHS (and the state) picks up the bill for that.

 

Conversely, every regulation / ban / restriction also has a cost.

 

But the default position in a free country should be peopel's freedoms.

"Cleaner" isn't good enough   -   you would settle for a partial solution and that's not what we need.

We are not discussing house stairs so don't try to change the subject.

Of course every regulation or ban has a cost.  That is exactly what we are saying.   It's only right that the people responsible for this cost should be the ones who pay. 

The default position in any country is decided by the government of that country and not you.     If people want the freedom to pollute,  just ask if they are willing to pay the price.

 

[RollingJ]

2 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

"Cleaner" isn't good enough   -   you would settle for a partial solution and that's not what we need.

We are not discussing house stairs so don't try to change the subject.

Of course every regulation or ban has a cost.  That is exactly what we are saying.   It's only right that the people responsible for this cost should be the ones who pay. 

The default position in any country is decided by the government of that country and not you.     If people want the freedom to pollute,  just ask if they are willing to pay the price.

 

So what do you think is 'good' enough?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

So what do you think is 'good' enough?

Ensuring that we stay on course to comply with our targets.

At the end of the day,  It makes no difference what I think.  I'm not the government and don't have a say in policy.

 

[RollingJ]

2 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

Ensuring that we stay on course to comply with our targets.

At the end of the day,  It makes no difference what I think.  I'm not the government and don't have a say in policy.

 

That does not answer my question in any way. What are these 'targets' - that are changed on an almost daily basis - anyway?

 

So you are just arguing for the sake of arguing - thought so.

Edited July 28, 2023 by RollingJ