Earl Aelfheah

The idea that because any one thing doesn?t make ?climate change history?, it?s not worth doing, is a manifesto of inaction and dispair. May as well burn tyres as to stop doing so doesn?t ?solve? climate change.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We should probably ignore the contribution local > car journeys make to the climate crisis as they?re > not the *only* contributor. > > No no, we must focus only on the use of private > vehicles locally, solve that and climate change is > history. > This is a thread about LTNs. They don?t have any impact on boilers or planes. They do reduce the number of cars driving around. But we mustn?t make small, positive steps forward unless we can 100% solve the problem of climate change. In fact, best to reverse policies that help the environment.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Maybe the person who criss-crossed the globe on > > aeroplanes has no or only one child, is > vegetarian > > or vegan, doesn't have a car, cycles most > places, > > gives to charity and meticulously recycles or > > reuses stuff? It isn't a good idea to demonise > one > > single thing when, in fact, air travel isn't > > anywhere near as big as a bad-boy as others > are, > > and is making headway in lighter aircraft, > greener > > fuels, more efficient use of aircrat, etc. > > Agreed. It probably is wise for us to pursue > policies that generally reduce air travel, cut car > usage etc though. ...or simply not campaign to reverse policies that reduce car use and increase active travel.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe the person who criss-crossed the globe on > aeroplanes has no or only one child, is vegetarian > or vegan, doesn't have a car, cycles most places, > gives to charity and meticulously recycles or > reuses stuff? It isn't a good idea to demonise one > single thing when, in fact, air travel isn't > anywhere near as big as a bad-boy as others are, > and is making headway in lighter aircraft, greener > fuels, more efficient use of aircrat, etc. Agreed. It probably is wise for us to pursue policies that generally reduce air travel, cut car usage etc though.

I'm absolutely sure Rockets will have an argument for why cars don't contribute to climate change and the evidence is fake, but: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200317-climate-change-cut-carbon-emissions-from-your-commute

We should probably ignore the contribution local car journeys make to the climate crisis as they?re not the *only* contributor. It makes sense, because it?s been well established that the most effective way we can tackle the climate crisis is through whataboutery, deflection and rhetorical device, rather than action on the sources of pollution.

Extreme weather to become the norm: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/extreme-weather-will-be-the-norm-and-uk-is-not-prepared-report-warns If we're not happy with measures which reduce car use, we could swap the SUVs out for kayaks in time?

Saw this https://twitter.com/rm_leeming/status/1420504470492958724?s=21 It makes you think that we might need to start ditching the SUVs for local journeys, even if it is slightly more convenient than walking. Or we could continue as we are, swapping them out for kayaks come 2050.

Apparently they're opening it to taxis too.

I hadn?t heard about it before now tbh. Very sad though. Thoughts go out to friends and family.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There has never been an answer to why the > Dulwich > > LTNs were positioned to benefit the wealthiest. > > flurry of responses cannot answer the question. They weren?t ?positioned to benefit the wealthiest?. That?s the answer

Isn't there a council estate on East Dulwich Grove which is in an LTN? Mostly it's wealthier households who own cars. Many of those displaying 'clean air for all' (the most objectively ridiculous double speak btw), banners along Dulwich Village Road and EDG have big driveways with 2 or 3 cars in the drive. It doesn't really feel like those against LTNS are the less well off, fighting the more affluent.

Must admit I've never been before, but will try and get along there.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We're back in ''That's not my Brexit'' land > again... Yep - it would have been great, they just implemented it wrong.

I second that on Au Ciel - they're good.

Thanks Bonaome, that's a helpful clarification. I had assumed the two were linked.

Because they weren't?

.

The exchange between him and David Gauke (who I don't agree with on much, but is at least calm and thoughtful), is really revealing. It's amazing that Cummings managed to get into such a position of power.

Cummings latest Twitter pontifications on the NI protocol are pretty breathtaking. Apparently it would all have been alright had we just refused to any customs checks. The EU wouldn't have forced a border on the Island of Island and Macron (?) would have insisted on checks between the RI and the EU, effectively pushing them out of the single market?! So that was the masterplan that would have made everything fine? Honestly, he's deranged.

It's going to become less exceptional as time goes on. The paving over front gardens doesn't help.

At one point they ran 6 an hour. Then it went to 4. Now 2. Pretty rubbish.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > One of the early pre-pandemic suggestions from > a > > cycling lobby rep was that unless you worked > > locally/ could cycle, walk or use PT to get to > > work, you should really consider moving out of > the > > area! > > Cool story Just not sure what your point is. Apparently someone said something stupid a long time ago. They support LTNs. So?? Are you inviting us to make a general attribution error?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But rahrahrah - isn't that a problem with the > Landlord who was willing to negotiate and kick out > their long standing tenant? > > Gails commercial team will have specs for suitable > sites, but it would have been 'unusual' that the > team were just speculatively contacting the > landlords of existing successful businesses and > just happened to contact Parkhill (I think but > might be wrong on that) just at the point of the > lease extension? > > I too would much rather have Brick House than > Gails btw but my judgement here is 100% with the > landlord of the property. Chains can always > afford to pay more and weather the storm. Lots of > independents still to support though so you know > what to do people! I suspect though that Gail's > will be very successful on that site - hopefully > there is room for all. The landlord is certainly at fault. But my issue was that Gails forced a profitable independent out and then left the space empty for? how long is it now? Maybe I?m being unfair, but it felt shoddy to me. The fact that the owner is also a bit of a knob just makes me feel less than warm towards them. I?m not calling for a boycott or anything. Just not a fan myself so won?t be using them.

No LTNs they ?create more traffic on lordship Lane?. More parking on Lordship Lane, we want people to drive there! I wonder whether at some point we?ll make the link between cars and traffic?