Earl Aelfheah

'Hastily abandoned low traffic schemes could cost councils funding' :https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/bike-blog/2021/jul/30/hastily-abandoned-low-traffic-schemes-could-cost-councils-funding

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These guys- > > https://leylandsdm.co.uk/ That?s good, it?s been closed for a while now - glad to see it coming back to life

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is welcome news and about time. > > BBC News - Walking and biking prioritised in new > Highway Code > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450 Agreed. Kinda surprised it wasn?t already the case tbh

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Improving significantly' re: the UK's carbon > position is still not improving fast or far > enough. > > Yes plenty of other greenhouse gasses of concern > and improved modelling is needed wrt them as well; > and also the unintended (toxic) consequences to > the atmosphere of potential moves to a hydrogen > economy etc. > > This is one thread on LTNs which are about the > impact of having/not having them, air pollution, > vehicle use, CO2 and climate change (relative > importance of which depends on your personal > viewpoint perhaps). Perhaps we need others on > reducing carbon in other areas of (local) lives > if people think there's a risk of sidelining other > major CO2 contributors? > > HP Quite. Happy to discuss gas boilers and overseas travel, but not sure they?re relevant to a thread on LTNs. A cynic might feel there is some deflection going on

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.