Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
They bounced back from zero flights quite well.MuttleyCAFC said:
The airlines woud probably object.JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.But you’d expect them to object, yes.0 -
By default, China and India will curb their emissions. Their populations, economies and urban air quality aren’t sustainable. They need to either take some drastic action or face increasing unrest.cafcnick1992 said:Our actions are completely irrelevant if China and India don't curb their emissions. Why would anyone ruin their quality of life for zero benefit?3 -
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.valleynick66 said:
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?3 -
Fair. And also to be fair I suppose what you are saying is that we do all need to be doing more.JamesSeed said:
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.valleynick66 said:
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
Definitely needs an exponential tax in my opinion. Maybe you get 2 return flights a year, then it rockets up.
Will mostly be business travellers impacted, who in reality mostly don't need to be traveling. As someone in charge of the finances of a business I would love it if there was something to stop people travelling!!!2 -
Never. Going. To happen.JamesSeed said:
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.valleynick66 said:
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
We live on an island. We trade with the whole world. We need to fill the planes to make it cost effective to travel and to generate taxes.0 -
I was just about to post something similar. 👍Huskaris said:
Fair. And also to be fair I suppose what you are saying is that we do all need to be doing more.JamesSeed said:
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.valleynick66 said:
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
Definitely needs an exponential tax in my opinion. Maybe you get 2 return flights a year, then it rockets up.
Will mostly be business travellers impacted, who in reality mostly don't need to be traveling. As someone in charge of the finances of a business I would love it if there was something to stop people travelling!!!
😂1 -
Unless they find other ways to mitigate climate change (🤞) or the experts are wrong and the climate isn’t really changing, I’m pretty sure these sort restrictions will eventually have to be imposed, but probably won’t be until it’s too late.letthegoodtimesroll said:
Never. Going. To happen.JamesSeed said:
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.valleynick66 said:
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
We live on an island. We trade with the whole world. We need to fill the planes to make it cost effective to travel and to generate taxes.I sometimes wonder if governments already know that, which might account for some of the strange behaviour and pocket lining that seems to be going on.I know for sure that the Tories will never take serious action to prevent climate change. They’re too influenced by the Tufton St ‘think tanks’, many of whom are apparently funded by the oil industry.1 -
I agree to an extent and I don't support the more extreme methods of JSO.Huskaris said:Also very briefly on destroying the cameras.
There's 2 particular groups of idiots here.
1) the group of people that condemn Just Stop Oil's actions but approve of the destruction of cameras.
2) the group of people that approve of Just Stop Oil's actions but condemn the destruction of cameras.
"You don't understand how important this issue is therefore I can [insert stupid action here]" is an incredibly slippery slope in a democracy... If you view things in a black and white manner, you aren't using your brain and you're probably in a dangerous echo chamber.
However, I would add that in the case of the ULEZ cameras, it is 10% of drivers vandalising for the benefit of that 10%, while for JSO everybody is affected by climate change.2 -
Have they?JamesSeed said:
They bounced back from zero flights quite well.MuttleyCAFC said:
The airlines woud probably object.JamesSeed said:
Would anyone object if we were limited two two flight a year for holidays? Assuming it was shown that that policy would help? And possibly assuming that at least some other countries did the same?kentaddick said:
as i said, much harsher penalties on all carbon emitting machines. We're basically passed the tipping point on global warming, we'll need to act much harder and faster to counter act it. Otherwise our children and grandchildren are going to be dealing with a global mass migration and disastrous event on a larger level than the bronze age collapse and the dark ages (and guess who the history books will blame).valleynick66 said:
What do you predict will happen then?kentaddick said:
Well, exactly. If you think ULEZ is infringing on your life then you’ve seen nothing yet.Siv_in_Norfolk said:It's not just boomers.... pretty much everybody in the "developed world" and of adult age now is likely to be judged by history as part of an age of excess and over indulgence that led to the suffering of future humans....
Radical changes are needed to avoid it...and ULEZ ain't that radical, lol
Personally I think I’d be ok with it. It might usher in a new golden age of train travel for one thing.But you’d expect them to object, yes.
Their debt pile and the countless people that no longer work in the industry suggests otherwise.1 -
I think the biggest difference to the average person and how some may justify their opinion is that the JSO protests directly affect/disrupt their working day whereas putting tape over a camera doesn’t.Arthur_Trudgill said:
I agree to an extent and I don't support the more extreme methods of JSO.Huskaris said:Also very briefly on destroying the cameras.
There's 2 particular groups of idiots here.
1) the group of people that condemn Just Stop Oil's actions but approve of the destruction of cameras.
2) the group of people that approve of Just Stop Oil's actions but condemn the destruction of cameras.
"You don't understand how important this issue is therefore I can [insert stupid action here]" is an incredibly slippery slope in a democracy... If you view things in a black and white manner, you aren't using your brain and you're probably in a dangerous echo chamber.
However, I would add that in the case of the ULEZ cameras, it is 10% of drivers vandalising for the benefit of that 10%, while for JSO everybody is affected by climate change.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Tbh - I wouldn't object so much to JSO vandalising things for their cause, as long as it was completely relevant to the cause and didn't impact on other lives. For example - giving BP 's IT system a virus, or welding the gates to a refinery closed.
Not saying I agree with it, but at least taking out ULEZ camaras is completely relevant to the cause and doesn't effect anyone else as such.2 -
Stick not carrot approach.JamesSeed said:
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.valleynick66 said:
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?My observation remains that you (as could I) just do it anyway. But you have told us you don’t and seemingly won’t unless enforced.If more did the right thing it would not need punitive measures.2 -
The ULEZ scheme is (probably clumsy, maybe flawed) a combination of carrot and stick isn’t it?1
-
I work in international sales and periodically finance get to live out their wet dream of curbing travel. Each time, sales have gone down and they’ve been told to ease off (3 times so far).Huskaris said:
Fair. And also to be fair I suppose what you are saying is that we do all need to be doing more.JamesSeed said:
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.valleynick66 said:
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
Definitely needs an exponential tax in my opinion. Maybe you get 2 return flights a year, then it rockets up.
Will mostly be business travellers impacted, who in reality mostly don't need to be traveling. As someone in charge of the finances of a business I would love it if there was something to stop people travelling!!!That being said, most business travellers I know have reduced travel post covid, due to the sudden improvement in video conferencing.
Though biggest traveller I know at the moment is a CFO.1 -
You take two flights a year and 'occasionally fly' for which you seem to think that you're entitled to some sort of familial exemption.JamesSeed said:
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.valleynick66 said:
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
When you talk of, 'We'll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing.' you do realise that you are one of those 'people'.
Why do you need to be further infantalised and have your hand held whilst the Government tells you what to do when it's blindingly obvious that you could eschew travelling by plane with immediate effect all by yourself.
You can reach Hague by train in less than seven hours, but obviously reaching more exotic locations will prove more taxing, altough you might take some comfort from the old adage, To travel is better than to arrive.
I'm aware that this will appear to be a personal attack, JS, but that genuinely isn't my intention; it just smacks of the double standards that many people afford themselves when getting all sanctimonious when criticising 'those people'.
Are we polluting the planet and abusing its natural resources, rare earth materials, forests and oceans? Absolutely, and with grim, determined avarice. But we need smartphones; cars; Mcdonald's; Ryanair; affordable heating etc, but without oil & coal, rare earth materials etc...
Here's George Carlings take on 'Saving the Planet' 15 years ago for some light relief. It kicks in around the 2' mark.
https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c?
5 -
4 flights. 2 Holidays a year. There, back, there, back. Then the trips to hague which if I'd have left home at 10 this morning I'd have been there before 4pm on the train yet drastic action is needed.Redskin said:
You take two flights a year and 'occasionally fly' for which you seem to think that you're entitled to some sort of familial exemption.JamesSeed said:
The whole point of my original post is that it probably does. We’ll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing. That’s why I said I’d be ok with a government imposing an across the board limit on air travel. It seems to me that without this sort of action we’re f*cked.valleynick66 said:
You could choose to lead by example. It need not be enforced.JamesSeed said:
Good points, but are you suggesting we shouldn’t take more drastic action if things get much worse. I think we’re going to have to.SporadicAddick said:Would anyone object to being limited to one product (an item of food, a household good etc) that is produced in whole or on part abroad given that will have been transported by air freight or by ship?
where would you stop in fundamentally collapsing the global economy and plunging millions into poverty.And climate change is likely to plunge billions in to poverty if something isn’t done. It could certainly collapse the global economy.PS I’ll hold my hand up and say we have two holidays a year where we fly, and occasionally fly to The Hague to see my daughter and grandson.I just feel that if it was decided that reducing air travel as part of a global effort to ‘save the planet’ was necessary I wouldn’t be too unhappy if restrictions were put in place, at least temporarily. Don’t think that’s asking too much. It just seems like we’ve given up. If you have kids and grandkids that’s a pretty horrific thought.Nick, is your antipathy because you think climate change is a hoax, or do you think it won’t affect you because it won’t get really bad in your time?
When you talk of, 'We'll get nowhere waiting for people to do the right thing.' you do realise that you are one of those 'people'.
Why do you need to be further infantalised and have your hand held whilst the Government tells you what to do when it's blindingly obvious that you could eschew travelling by plane with immediate effect all by yourself.
You can reach Hague by train in less than seven hours, but obviously reaching more exotic locations will prove more taxing, altough you might take some comfort from the old adage, To travel is better than to arrive.
I'm aware that this will appear to be a personal attack, JS, but that genuinely isn't my intention; it just slightly smacks of the double standards that many people afford themselves when getting all sanctimonious when criticising 'those people'.
Are we polluting the planet and abusing its natural resources, rare earth materials, forests and oceans? Absolutely, and with grim, determined avarice. But we need smartphones; cars; Mcdonald's; Ryanair; affordable heating etc, but without oil & coal, rare earth materials etc...
Here's George Carlings take on 'Saving the Planet' 15 years ago for some light relief. It kicks in around the 2' mark.https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c?1 -
Air travel shouldn't be anywhere near as cheap and it is and rail travel should be much much cheaper. Taxes should be used as a means to adjust this.11
-
I take it your hardly flying at the moment but using the trains quite a bit?cantersaddick said:Air travel shouldn't be anywhere near as cheap and it is and rail travel should be much much cheaper. Taxes should be used as a means to adjust this.
Joke by the way.
By put prices up would that not just affect those less fortunate?
0 -
Who on earth wants expensive air farescantersaddick said:Air travel shouldn't be anywhere near as cheap and it is and rail travel should be much much cheaper. Taxes should be used as a means to adjust this.0 -
It's a ridiculous situation where you can get return flights to Malaga four or five times over for the cost of a train to Manchester. The environmental impact of them aren't comparable.
Everyone wants cheap flights for their holidays but we have to accept that passengers don't even pay a tenth of the environmental impact of flying (I'm talking budget airlines short haul here). We should be taxing air travel much more to make the passenger pay for their pollution. Its the polluter pays principle again. If it incentivises people to fly less then that is a good thing. Flying is a luxury that is incredibly harmful to the environment we have to accept it and tax it. Rail travel should be much much cheaper to encourage that as a viable option to driving.5 - Sponsored links:
-
And before anyone calls me a hypocrite or anything before this year (which is exceptional for various reasons) I had taken one return flight in 5 years (actually I've re-counted and its 7 years). I've taken the train to Europe 3 times in that time. Once to Amsterdam for a stag, once to go interrailing, and once I took the ski train to the alps. I've done what I can to make personal choices to shift mode. If flights were taxed more I would accept it as a necessary evil.1
-
It's all to do with competition.cantersaddick said:Air travel shouldn't be anywhere near as cheap and it is and rail travel should be much much cheaper. Taxes should be used as a means to adjust this.
If you increase air tax people will find loop holes (like flying to and from Jersey)
Nationalising the rail or moving to Shoeburyness could be the answer.
0 -
There is something you could tax, which hasn’t seen an increase in 13 years, when the cost of public transport has gone up by more then inflation, and that’s petrol, billions left uncollected because politicians are scared of the right wing media. Not like the country isn’t short of cash1
-
As I’ve mentioned several times drastic action is being taken, I see it everyday and the AQI readings are definitely improving. Unfortunately giant backwards steps are also being taken too.letthegoodtimesroll said:
By default, China and India will curb their emissions. Their populations, economies and urban air quality aren’t sustainable. They need to either take some drastic action or face increasing unrest.cafcnick1992 said:Our actions are completely irrelevant if China and India don't curb their emissions. Why would anyone ruin their quality of life for zero benefit?1 -
Taxes on flights should be reduced to encourage more travel and economic growth.
private businesses (airlines) should be free to charge a competitive price. Let the free market drive behaviour.0 -
It would appear they plan on ripping the arse out of Gambia in order to extract copper.
0 -
And water companies should be allowed to dump as much shit as they like in the sea. Free market.SporadicAddick said:Taxes on flights should be reduced to encourage more travel and economic growth.
private businesses (airlines) should be free to charge a competitive price. Let the free market drive behaviour.3 -
No they shouldn’t. Free market economics doesn’t encompass illegal behaviour. What a silly comment.stevexreeve said:
And water companies should be allowed to dump as much shit as they like in the sea. Free market.SporadicAddick said:Taxes on flights should be reduced to encourage more travel and economic growth.
private businesses (airlines) should be free to charge a competitive price. Let the free market drive behaviour.0 -
Rothko said:There is something you could tax, which hasn’t seen an increase in 13 years, when the cost of public transport has gone up by more then inflation, and that’s petrol, billions left uncollected because politicians are scared of the right wing media. Not like the country isn’t short of cash
Maybe the tax was already exceptionally high - why does it need to increase even more ?
0 -
Pretty sure a lot of the destination cities subsidise the budget air lines to bring people in.cantersaddick said:Air travel shouldn't be anywhere near as cheap and it is and rail travel should be much much cheaper. Taxes should be used as a means to adjust this.0
