News EU plan to ban cars in cities

[MYstIC G]

Personally i think they should ban all private cars from the centers of towns & cities.

Park and ride for all people and a massive increase in public transport instead.

Cycling lanes and pedestrianize every road except the major access roads. Allow access for trucks etc for deliveries to shops at stupid o'clock only.

Pretty sure they did this in Oxford a few years ago and worked a treat.

How about you cycle and I'll take my car and I won't get your shit banned and you don't get my shit banned and we both get on with more important things?

Oh wait, it's because we joined the EU... I forgot.

 

[tierk]

How about you cycle and I'll take my car and I won't get your shit banned and you don't get my shit banned and we both get on with more important things?

Oh wait, it's because we joined the EU... I forgot.

When i hit London summer time i actually walk most places, as i can safely say i am not in good enough shape to cycle anywhere.

First year i came back i did actually cycle a bit but i had a sore arse for the remainder of the holiday

Journeys outside of London i rent a car though.

Anyway as another poster has pointed out, by 2050 i am pretty sure cars will ahve either evolved so far beyond what they are today or they will ahve become a completely outdated mode of transport.

 

[MYstIC G]

That was more a crack at the EU than a serious point amigo.

Personally I hate driving in the centre of London as it's full of impatient and frankly awful drivers. It's much easier to catch the tube, the only problem is they keep messing with the tube. Just as an example I went to pay some money in this morning, decided to take the underground and "bam" line isn't running.

 

[Huntingtons]

Dinna why they even bother looking at emissions tbh, they'd be better off trying to work out how to cut the emissions plants and volcanos make rather than an insignificant number that vehicles produce in comparison.

untill you show actual proof about those numbers youre just sprouting rainbows

 

[Ch3tan]

Driving in London is pretty bad - but ban it? No. Let people get on with their lives without twats telling them what to do.

 

[Ch3tan]

untill you show actual proof about those numbers youre just sprouting rainbows

His point was that anything we do to contribute to co2 levels is dwarfed by what nature can do itself. You don't need figures to realise the self importance we place on ourselves and our actions. Humanity needs to get over itself. The world will outlive us and forget us long before we can do any lasting damage to anything but ourselves.

 

[DaGaffer]

The day I see all elected EU officials banned from using cars on work business and forced to use public transport (and that doesn't include taxis) is the day I'll start to believe in this bullshit.

 

[Genedril]

They are yes but would you bother spending several thousand on a new battery on a 6-7 year old car which is worth half that? All it will do is force more people to buy new cars and scrap cars which, if they had a traditional engine would last several years longer, thus cutting down on manufacturing emissions.

From what I can tell most EV's are going to be sold and then the batteries 'rented' to the buyer by the supplier - thereby meaning that the battery would never be your problem. Think Renault are going to charge 40gbp a month for their offering.

Where this stands with regards to the whole 'swap out your battery at some place to get further' is a question that neither the car manufacturer nor the people that think these swap stations are a great idea have answered.

Either way cars aren't as polluting as some think and batteries are as bad if not worse. The real issue, in my mind, isn't the environment but the ever decreasing amount of oil.

 

[Job]

Yeah, yeah ,whatever.
File this under achieve world peace, eliminate aids and every child matters.

If this is the best they can come up with, they are being beaten daily by
bored sixth formers on ideas day.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah, world peace, pfft. They haven't even been able to make a world war in the past 60+ years.

 

[BloodOmen]

untill you show actual proof about those numbers youre just sprouting rainbows

i'm not spouting rainbows tho? feel free to dig around yourself and find the figures, you'll find they're very accurate. Human beings and everything we're using only makes up for 3-4% of the entire Co2 emissions.

 

[Will]

i'm not spouting rainbows tho? feel free to dig around yourself and find the figures, you'll find they're very accurate. Human beings and everything we're using only makes up for 3-4% of the entire Co2 emissions.

Not really accurate.

 

[Scouse]

Not really accurate.

Nice. I was going to have a pop about it being additional CO2 but you made my point quite nicely

 

[Job]

OK then, how's about this.
1 dog is the equivalent of a large 4x4 in co2 emissions.
So if you have 2 dogs you're like 2 Jags McCarbon.
Yes a dog in a year will generate or cause to be generated more c02 than a normal car.
How come no-one mentions this on 'save the planet' websites..maybe because
dogs are all like cuddly and 'natural'.

 

[Will]

Or because its total nonsense.

Dogs make CO2 from breaking down carbohydrates. Which come from (couple of steps removed) photosynthesis of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

 

[BloodOmen]

Not really accurate.

Erm, did you even read it properly?

quoted from your link


"so...

Thu Aug 09 14:39:19 BST 2007 by Dan

I had heard that Humans only contribute roughly 4% of all CO2 emissions... but with your 770 Gt from natural sources versus 29.4 Gt from humans ha sopened my eyes to how wrong those right wing websites are... wait... that's still 4%. What was the point of your claim then?

so...

Thu Aug 23 18:32:41 BST 2007 by Michael Marshall, online editorial assistant

Hi Dan, thanks for your comment. Yes, you're correct that humans only contribute 4% of CO2 emissions, but the thing is, it's a straw-breaking-the-camel's-back situation. Basically the natural CO2 emissions are balanced out by natural mechanisms for absorbing the CO2. However, these mechanisms can't cope with the extra CO2 we're putting out, and consequently it's accumulating in the atmosphere - hence the steep rise in CO2 levels."




3-4%, which was my point I said nowt about it not causing any adverse effects, I merely said they should spend time trying to work out how to cut natural Co2 emissions because there is simply no way they'll stop humans from using things that create it.

 

[Job]

What you have to remember is that C02 by itself is utterly incapable of creating global climate change, it is such a minor 'greenhouse' gas (though the term is totally inaccurate with respect to heating in the atmosphere,but that's another argument).
Also any minuscule effect it has reached saturation point anyway, so doubling C02 wouldn't make any more difference than it already has(n't).
The whole theory is based on C02 being a trigger for much larger processes to
produce warming, NONE of these processes have been seen outside computer simulation.

You may think I'm talking crap,just look it up.
Climate sceptics like myself aren't just sticking our fingers in our ears and ignoring the science,we are just pointing out how shaky it actually is...I mean real shaky, making the belief in it a semi religion.

 

[Will]

I wrote a reply, but really, what's the point?