Ditch cars to meet climate targets, say MPs

Posted: August 22, 2019 by oldbrew in climate, pollution, propaganda, Travel
Tags: ,

‘You first’ might be one response. Once again the BBC, like a lot of the media, tries to frame ‘greenhouses gases’ and ‘pollution’ as the same thing, which confuses the reporting even more. Note the capital letters: ‘Zero Carbon’. All part of the make-believe future they are trying to sell to the public, but now exposed as unrealistic.

MPs say people will have to stop driving if the UK is to meet its Zero Carbon goals by 2050, reports BBC News.

The Science and Technology Select Committee says technology alone cannot solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions from transport.

It says the government cannot achieve sufficient emissions cuts by swapping existing vehicles for cleaner versions.

The government said it would consider the committee’s findings.

In its report, the committee said: “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation.”

It echoes a report from an Oxford-based group of academics who warned that even electric cars produce pollution through their tyres and brakes.

The AA said the committee had underestimated the power of new technology to solve pollution in cars.

But the MPs are demanding improvements in public transport, walking and cycling, which benefit health as well as the climate.

They also criticise the government’s recent policies on the costs of transport.

They point out that most of the increase in average new car emissions in 2017 was caused by consumers choosing more polluting models because financial incentives to buy cleaner cars are insufficient.

Improving public transport
A government strategy should aim to reduce the overall number of vehicles required, the report says.

This would be achieved by:

— Promoting and improving public transport
— Reducing the cost of public transport relative to driving
— Encouraging vehicle usership in place of ownership (car sharing, car hire and taxis)
— And boosting walking and cycling.

Ministers have held down fuel duty increases in recent years following lobbying from motoring groups.

But the MPs say they should ensure that the annual increase in fuel duty is never lower than the average increase in rail or bus fares.

For drivers investing in electric vehicles there should be a better network of charging points.

But there’s a warning that more research is needed on the environmental impact of the batteries of electric vehicles.

The report warns: “Hydrogen technology may prove to be cheaper and less environmentally damaging than battery-powered electric vehicles. The government should not rely on a single technology.”

Full report here.

  1. ivan says:

    It would appear that MPs and the BBC are attempting to see just who are the most stupid. The MPs are showing their stupidity by following the UN Church of Climatology CO2 scam. It is almost as if they are being paid to spout the garbage they do, after all no one can be that stupid – maybe they can if they are politicians. The BBC, on the other hand, went off the rails sometime in the 70s and hasn’t improved since.

    It is time that those that can make life miserable for everybody stopped listening to ivory tower academics that think they know it all just because they are academics and started listening to real engineers ans scientists that are out in the real world, not some la la land that only exists in the warped imaginations of those that have fallen for the CO2 scam.

    The only way out of this stupidity is for the repeal of the CCA 2008 and all green legislation and taxes since then – it won’t happen because we seem to be in C. M. Kornbluth’s ‘Marching Morons’ world.

  2. ilma630 says:

    “The government said it would consider the committee’s findings.”, i.e. “on your bike”! No rational person can believe that we can ever eliminate personal motorised transport – it’s here to stay (and won;t be EVs). What’s worrying though is, as you say, the conflation of CO2 and pollution.

    You also have to ask whether CO2 is actually a Greenhouse gas, if the definition of said gas is “absorb and trap infrared energy” which many online definitions say, then as CO2 cannot ‘trap’ it but re-radiates it spontaneously, it can’t be a GHG. OTOH, water vapour *can* store latent heat, so can be described as a GHG.

  3. Roger says:

    Do the arithmetic. Earth is big: 8000 miles diameter. Atmospheric pressure 15 lb/sq in, ergo weighs 5.4 thousand million million tons. Ergo, 1 ppm (mass) is 5.4 thousand million tons. How many SUVs need to circumnavigate to add 1 ppm CO2? (Spoiler: more than 400 million.) Finally, 1 ppm (mass) is about 0.6 ppmV.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Delingpole: Britain Has Been Brainwashed by the New Green Religion

    How, in heaven’s name, did a sensible, down-to-earth people like the British fall for this nonsense?
    . . .
    Let’s just remind ourselves once more:

    There is no evidence — beyond repeatedly debunked and falsified computer models — to suggest that recent global warming is catastrophic, unprecedented or significantly man-made.

    Even if we could decide what the world’s ideal temperature is, there is no evidence that mankind has access to a knob that can control it — nor one that wouldn’t end up doing more harm than good.

    Not a cent of the $1.5 trillion (plus) per annum currently being spent funding the Climate Industrial Complex is having any measurable effect on combating climate change.

    Regardless of what we do in the West, India and China are committed to increasing their carbon dioxide emissions rapidly in a way that will dwarf any puny decarbonisation measures adopted unilaterally by Western economies.
    And those Western economies that do decarbonise won’t include Trump’s U.S. or Bolsonaro’s Brazil, which will make gestures like Britain’s net zero carbon promise even more pointless and self-defeating.


  5. dennisambler says:

    The constant refrain from Government is that we are setting an example for the Rest Of The World.

    With UK emissions at 1% of global emissions compared to China at 28% and rising, Asia in total 48% of global emissions and rising, they are laughing at us and moving on.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Delingpole: How, in heaven’s name, did a sensible, down-to-earth people like the British fall for this nonsense?
    – – –
    Because of relentless misinformation in the so-called ‘mainstream’ media, possibly?

  7. A C Osborn says:

    UN Agenda 21, 2030 and Sustainability in action.
    The US EPA ensured that CO2 was classed as Pollution and calling it Carbon is also a lie intended to get the public thinking it is.

  8. hunterson7 says:

    “Setting an example”….
    Suicide is setting an example as well.

  9. Graeme No.3 says:

    All BBC reporters/announcers etc. should be preceded by a person carrying a red flag.
    There you are
    Increased employment
    Reduced CO2 emissions (no overseas trips as no people with red flags )
    Population warned about “BS coming”.

    Indeed I feel that others e.g. David, Elton, Harry etc. should also demonstrate their sincerity this way.

  10. Interesting article in the Independent of planning a journey in an EV, doesn’t bode well.

  11. oldbrew says:

    technology alone cannot solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions from transport

    As the ‘problem’ is imaginary – no worries 🙂

  12. C777 says:

    Maybe these MP’s should take a look at Australia, where a Socialist Green government was voted out of office, for that very reason.
    But then again that would require a Brain…

  13. stpaulchuck says:

    one more attempt to take away freedom of movement. You can go where the government says you can go, but it’ll take ages to get there and you’d better not complain.

    It’s all meaningless in the face of China and India building huge numbers of coal fired power plants.

    The Satanic Gas is plant food!

  14. Gamecock says:

    Picking at the edges. You are doomed to 30 years of this crap, your government shackled by a false reality.

    Make no mistake: Zero Carbon by 2050 requires Pol Pot’s Super Great Leap Forward. An extreme agrarian society for the survivors, with 60,000,000 of you dead.

    ‘Ditch cars to meet climate targets’

    Ridiculous. 60,000,000 OF YOU WILL BE DEAD. Cars will be nobody’s worry.

  15. ‘But they complained that its chair, Lord Deben, should have declared the interest of his consultancy firm in Drax power station, the largest recipient of renewable energy subsidies in the country, and Johnson Matthey, which is about to make a huge investment in electric vehicles.’

    Nuff said….

  16. Phoenix44 says:

    When did “the environment ” become this god we have to worship above all others? When did we elect priests instead of politicians?

    I honestly feel we are moving rapidly towards a bizarre pseudo-theocracy, ruled by children and zealots who communicate what Gaia wants to willing fools.

  17. BLACK PEARL says:

    30 years of climate scaremongering.
    i only hope Brexit doesn’t last as long …. just cant take much more of this Scat
    The only recent true statement thats come in current times that I can relate to, is FAKE NEWS !
    So many so-called intelligent people (+ MPS) running around like crazed chimpanzees for a non problem.

  18. Bob Greene says:

    I assume that those proposing and supporting preventing the little people from owning automobiles expect to do their travel in autos supplied by the common folk at no cost to the riders. I’m all for doing all my riding in a car provided and maintained by someone else.

    BTW: If you folks pay the price to meet the 2050 CO2 emissions goals, just how much will your decrease global temperature rise? I’m sure the Chinese will be more than happy with your move back to the 6th century and will soon follow you.

    Does a majority of the UK believe that divesting themselves of the benefits of the 21st century is a positive idea?

    Gamecock, 60 million is a low estimate.

  19. Russ Wood says:

    From being a child in UK in the 1950’s, when there was any amount of public transport, to re-visiting as an ex-pat in the 1990’s, I have seen a HUGE loss of public transport. Returning to the UK in 1994 to clear up family business, I was told that if I needed to get into the centre of Liverpool from the outskirts, there was only one bus an hour. And to return, the last bus out was about 6 p.m. So, just what are these guys dreaming of, when they talk about ‘public transport’? London and its TfL are not everywhere!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s