rendelharris

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point is Rendel that wood stoves are killing > more people in London than diesel cars and that > this policy has already been shown to have caused > people to abandon diesel rsulting directly in an > increase in pollution. > > It is misconceived and worse for the environment > than the status quo. Wrong thread I fear.

Jimlad, I think you're making rather broad assumptions there - how do you know it was "a private medical incident, inside a private residence where the person privately received treatment in the privacy of their own home"? There's nothing in the post to imply that; one would think that rather unlikely in fact, the police don't send generally two cars to accompany ambulances attending just for treatment. Surely most likely someone was injured in either an accident on the road or a crime, in either of which cases it's quite understandable for a resident of the street to enquire as to what happened. I understand all the points about curtain twitching and neighbourliness etc, but to go from Bea's fairly innocent enquiry regarding an ambulance and police cars in her street to accusing her of "asking very publically for a medical update on a private citizen, who is being treated in private in the privacy of their own home" isn't really justifiable or fair.

Police reports indicate it was an agent provocateur setting off on a fishing expedition.

Do you understand the feedback relationship between water vapour and manmade CO2 in increasing global temperatures? If not it's easily googled. Briefly, water vapour is not a "pollutant" as it is part of the natural self-regulation of the biosphere. When you inject artificially created CO2 from industry, transport etc, that's where the problems arise (and surely you're not going to keep banging on that tired old trope that because animals emit CO2 then manmade CO2 is no different?). But then as you know better than the National Geographic, perhaps you don't need to bother... P.S. Straight question Penguin, do you accept that manmade global warming exists?

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a greenhouse gas, sure, as is water vapour, > but it's not a pollutant. You'd better write to National Geographic and point out the error of their ways then: Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. Though living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when associated with cars, planes, power plants, and other human activities that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas. In the past 150 years, such activities have pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to raise its levels higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > please remember that CO2 is NOT a pollutant Sure about that? Because there's this thing called global warming...

I'd be up for it!

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel,see here: > > http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1 That article is solely about PM2.5 (particulate) emissions, nothing to do with your (erroneous) claim that woodburners emit more NOx than diesels, which they don't. No comment on your equally erroneous accusation that Mr.Khan "won't contemplate" banning woodburners?

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Banning wood stoves in London would reduce mkre > NOx than this diesel tax but Khan wont contemplate > it for some reason. His green logic is hard to > fathom. A) No it wouldn't and please show any evidence you have to the contrary, because I've searched the first six pages of Google results for anything which supports this statement and there's nothing; B) Mr.Khan wrote to the Environment Secretary in November asking for powers to ban woodburning stoves in areas of high pollution - still awaiting response. How exactly is that not contemplating it?

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Either way, I don't think we need to be told the > bus is about to move off. > After all are we to get a message every time the > bus stops in traffic. ? Although it is deeply irritating and at the moment malfunctioning, apparently visually impaired people are welcoming the warning so it does have some use. Anyway, I don't find it as irritating as the "Please remember to take all your personal belongings with you when leaving the train" warning - gosh thanks, I was just about to leave my bag and wallet here!

OK I'm in!

I agree it's a good idea, just question whether it's workable without a nationwide rollout; if applied solely inside the ULEZ I can certainly see people nipping over the other side of the south circular to fill up.

B+ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is no need to have zones, cameras, a small > army of enforcers and staff. > Just increase the Tax on diesel fuel then those > that do the most mileage with their diesel > vehicles will pay the most, and if the extra > revenue raised is used to fund a diesel vehicle > scrappage scheme then it would be a tax that > phases itself out as diesel vehicles gradually > leave our roads. Great idea, but it'd have to be applied nationwide with an outcry from the rural areas who tend to use diesel a lot - Land Rovers and tractors - otherwise people would just drive out of London to fill up their diesel vehicles, adding to the problem.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Within the North and South circular roads there is > a rush hour level of traffic ALL DAY and most of > it is the unemployed driving around in their old > cars. Any scintilla of evidence for this beyond your personal prejudiced world view?

El Presidente Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your arrogance is astonishing and palpable "most > people, of all incomes, don't need to use cars as > much as they do". Who gives you the right to > decide that? Who gives you the right to decide that you can drive your polluting dangerous machinery around as much as you like without any regards for the suffering it's causing for others? > You also ignore those who CAN'T walk or cycle. > What if you are too old, infirm, unwell, have > kids, can't lift the shopping etc. Ah, the good old people who advocate limiting car use are attacking the elderly and disabled argument (well done for the shouty capital letters). If people need to use cars nobody objects to their using them - if the people who could walk or cycle would do so, rather than selfishly use their cars to go half a mile to the shops, there would be more space on the road for those who need to use them, more parking too. You want to use your car whenever and wherever you wish. Be honest enough to admit that, instead of trying to make the right to pollute the city some sort of crusade for the poor and disabled, it's dishonest. You won't change your tune though, so good day to you, I'm off to walk a mile and a half to the cinema.

El Presidente Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I firmly believe in the science (though it is just > scaremongering to say 'it is choking London to > death'). 10,000 people every year in London die prematurely due to pollution. That's not scaremongering, it's a scientific fact. > And are you saying lower income people don't need > cars? That's just arrogant and out of touch with > reality for working people. Those on lower incomes > (of which i would include people earning beyond > ?25k in London) do have cars, often use them for > work and are more likely to have the old cars > which this will hit. As I said above, 50% of lower income earners neither own nor have access to a car. No I'm not saying lower income people don't need cars (it's a bit much to ask me a question then call me arrogant for the answer you've made up) - most people, of all incomes, don't need to use cars as much as they do. If having to shell out ?12.50 makes someone walk a mile to the supermarket instead of driving that's to the good. One third of all car trips in London are for journeys under two kilometres, journeys that could be walked in twenty minutes or cycled in five - that's a disgrace.

El Presidente Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is an appalling tax on people who through no > fault of their own have cars that don't meet these > standards and just happen to live somewhere. It is > a regressive tax that will hit people on lower > incomes harder. ?12.50 every time you need to > drive your car from outside your home? Even if you > use your car once a week you are talking ?600 a > year. This is just gouging the public for cash. 50% of people on lower incomes (>?25k) neither own nor have access to a car. It's not just gouging the public for cash, it's attempting to reduce the air pollution which is literally choking London to death. Unless you don't believe the scientific evidence about pollution, it's hard to see how driving around in the most polluting vehicles is defensible.

Calsug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the charge supported increased transport links > in south London then I might support but I feel it > won?t... Isn't reducing the pollution which ends the lives of 10,000 Londoners prematurely every single year an aim worth supporting?

Yes, as I said not saying it's right, just speculating that was the designer's thinking (if there was such a thing).

I guess (and not saying this is right or wrong) the idea is that those wanting to go up Calton should cross over at the lights and walk up the left hand side and those wanting to go up Court Lane should continue up the road on the same pavement until they reach a safer crossing point?

Citronella incense sticks and tealights did a good job for us in repelling a recent invasion, they seemed to be getting in from the front garden through airbricks in the porch and coalhole, possibly after breeding in carelessly closed refuse and compost bins (not ours!), but didn't seem so keen when they encountered that scent - rather a pleasant smell too.

They probably get very little profit on a bag of crisps or a packet of Rizlas either but that wouldn't excuse dropping the minimum standard of customer service or simple courtesy to those buying them!

It's some time ago now but I gave my old ones (one surplus to requirements and one that had been in a crash so had to be replaced) to St John's Ambulance in Wimbledon for training purposes, I'm sure there must be a closer branch who might be interested.

The mind boggles...hope these help.

Splendid and well done for helping it!