imagine if 50% of money that has been spent on climate change propaganda & 50% of the $ spent on unreliable renewables had been spent on the real environmental issue you highlighted?
it kinda highlights the mental part of environmental
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
imagine if 50% of money that has been spent on climate change propaganda & 50% of the $ spent on unreliable renewables had been spent on the real environmental issue you highlighted?
it kinda highlights the mental part of environmental
Imagine if the annual $1 trillion the G20 subsidizes the oil&gas industry had been spent on transition and renewables.
Mayor Khan Pressured Scientists To Support Car-Tax Scheme After Study Showed Little Impact On Pollution
London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s office has been accused of attempting to pressure scientists to back his green agenda anti-car ULEZ scheme after a study found that the tax on motorists had a minimal impact on improving air quality in the capital. [emphasis, links added]
Far-left Sadiq Khan’s deputy for the environment and energy Shirley Rodrigues reportedly demanded Professor Frank Kelly, a leading scientist on the topic of air pollution, [dispute the] characterizations by the media that a study produced by his colleagues at Imperial College London demonstrated that the Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) imposed by the Khan administration in 2019 resulted “in only small improvements in air quality soon after it was implemented.”
Following reports in the media about the study, Rodrigues wrote to Kelly asking him to help the mayor’s office “set the record straight” and that she was “really disappointed” in Imperial College for publicizing its findings about the ineffectiveness of the scheme, according to emails obtained by The Telegraph.
Claiming that the study could not give an accurate picture until the policy had been implemented for a longer period of time, the mayor’s aid continued: “I am deeply concerned about the damage this misleading study is doing, both to our credibility and to low emission zones as a policy instrument.”
The following day, after Professor Kelly had expressed willingness to support the Greater London Authority’s position on the study, Rodrigues wrote:
“I do appreciate that you don’t want to have a ‘fight’ with another part of Imperial but The Times… have also picked up (the report) and (are) repeating the mistake. Is there anything you’d be happy to put on the record now?”
In February of this year, following an article published by the Daily Telegraph, Khan’s deputy once again emailed the professor, asking him to personally write to the newspaper in order to “challenge some of the misunderstandings” in the article.
Kelly is reported to have responded that Imperial College was opposed to expressing a “direct contradiction” of the study, but added, “As always, I’m happy to fight back.”
The revelations come as Mayor Khan is set to expand the ULEZ scheme to the entirety of London, meaning that thousands of motorists will be forced to pay between £12.50 to £27.50 per day if they drive in the city, enraging blue-collar and working-class people who need to commute by car in the city for their jobs.
While there are some exceptions for newer cars that meet emissions standards, as well as for hybrid and electric vehicles, ironically many drivers who were previously encouraged by the government to purchase diesel-powered cars — previously touted as being more environmentally friendly — will fall afoul of the policy.
The planned expansion of the ULEZ scheme has seen widespread pushback, with growing protests throughout the capital and even rogue action taken by some to dismantle or destroy the surveillance cameras used to enforce the tax.
Even Khan’s own Labour Party under Sir Keir Starmer has sought to distance themselves from the scheme, with the party scrapping plans to enact similar policies throughout the country [after] an embarrassing by-election loss to the Tories last month in London over the scheme.
Despite the fearmongering coming from the mayor’s office surrounding air pollution, not only are there questions surrounding the effectiveness of a car tax to make meaningful changes to the environment but also on the actual dangers faced by Londoners.
According to the Office for National Statists, during a two-decade period between 2001 and 2021, there was only one registered death in London attributed to air pollution, and even in that case the government’s statistician noted that they were “unable to determine whether this involved car emissions.”
Top image via YouTube/screencap
Read more at Breitbart
Mayor Khan Pressured Scientists To Support Car-Tax Scheme After Study Showed Little Impact On Pollution - Climate Change Dispatch
London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s office has been accused of attempting to pressure scientists to back his green agenda anti-car ULEZ scheme after a study found that the tax on motorists had a minimal impact on improving air quality in the capital. [emphasis, links added]
Far-left Sadiq Khan’s deputy for the environment and energy Shirley Rodrigues reportedly demanded Professor Frank Kelly, a leading scientist on the topic of air pollution, [dispute the] characterizations by the media that a study produced by his colleagues at Imperial College London demonstrated that the Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) imposed by the Khan administration in 2019 resulted “in only small improvements in air quality soon after it was implemented.”
Following reports in the media about the study, Rodrigues wrote to Kelly asking him to help the mayor’s office “set the record straight” and that she was “really disappointed” in Imperial College for publicizing its findings about the ineffectiveness of the scheme, according to emails obtained by The Telegraph.
Claiming that the study could not give an accurate picture until the policy had been implemented for a longer period of time, the mayor’s aid continued: “I am deeply concerned about the damage this misleading study is doing, both to our credibility and to low emission zones as a policy instrument.”
The following day, after Professor Kelly had expressed willingness to support the Greater London Authority’s position on the study, Rodrigues wrote:
“I do appreciate that you don’t want to have a ‘fight’ with another part of Imperial but The Times… have also picked up (the report) and (are) repeating the mistake. Is there anything you’d be happy to put on the record now?”
In February of this year, following an article published by the Daily Telegraph, Khan’s deputy once again emailed the professor, asking him to personally write to the newspaper in order to “challenge some of the misunderstandings” in the article.
Kelly is reported to have responded that Imperial College was opposed to expressing a “direct contradiction” of the study, but added, “As always, I’m happy to fight back.”
The revelations come as Mayor Khan is set to expand the ULEZ scheme to the entirety of London, meaning that thousands of motorists will be forced to pay between £12.50 to £27.50 per day if they drive in the city, enraging blue-collar and working-class people who need to commute by car in the city for their jobs.
While there are some exceptions for newer cars that meet emissions standards, as well as for hybrid and electric vehicles, ironically many drivers who were previously encouraged by the government to purchase diesel-powered cars — previously touted as being more environmentally friendly — will fall afoul of the policy.
The planned expansion of the ULEZ scheme has seen widespread pushback, with growing protests throughout the capital and even rogue action taken by some to dismantle or destroy the surveillance cameras used to enforce the tax.
Even Khan’s own Labour Party under Sir Keir Starmer has sought to distance themselves from the scheme, with the party scrapping plans to enact similar policies throughout the country [after] an embarrassing by-election loss to the Tories last month in London over the scheme.
Despite the fearmongering coming from the mayor’s office surrounding air pollution, not only are there questions surrounding the effectiveness of a car tax to make meaningful changes to the environment but also on the actual dangers faced by Londoners.
According to the Office for National Statists, during a two-decade period between 2001 and 2021, there was only one registered death in London attributed to air pollution, and even in that case the government’s statistician noted that they were “unable to determine whether this involved car emissions.”
Top image via YouTube/screencap
Read more at Breitbart
Mayor Khan Pressured Scientists To Support Car-Tax Scheme After Study Showed Little Impact On Pollution - Climate Change Dispatch
I know enough to spot propaganda when I see it. Its not rocket science. We are seeing warming at about 0.15°C per decade from the proper observation of the satellite record. Not from temperature stations located on airport tarmacs and city rooftops.You keep posting bullshit opinions as if you know something.
You don't, you haven't read anything and are just totally bullshitting.
Read this study by Harvard researchers on what Exxon's scientists knew and reported on internally to their board.
Study:
summary:
A Harvard-led team of researchers found in a study published earlier this month that internal ExxonMobil projections accurately predicted human-caused climate change even as the company downplayed its risks in public statements.
The study, published in Science Magazine on Jan. 13, found that 63 to 83 percent of ExxonMobil scientists’ climate models accurately projected subsequent global warming, including estimated levels of carbon dioxide that would cause “dangerous warming” and detectable human-caused climate change by approximately 2000.
Researchers analyzed internal global warming projections by ExxonMobil scientists between 1977 and 2003 as well as peer-reviewed published studies by the company’s scientists from 1982 to 2014, testing the company’s predictions against climate observations as well as independent academic and government models.
Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s
Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heatingwww.theguardian.com
Here's one of Exxon's own charts from the 70's with observed temperatures superimposed.
We'd be experiencing rolling blackouts and far more climate related deaths. No thanks.
Instead we're living through the Sixth Great Extinction event and headed towards a thermal maximum that will make your kids lives miserable, if you had any.
You are an easy mark.
That's why you post numbers that first show global warming is happening and second, are still bait and switch troposphere temperatures instead of surface temperatures.
Yet you're not smart enough to notice or understand the difference or what your post means.
The concept of saying "do nothing because it's not a perfect plan" is entirely analogous.
As to your second point:
Doing nothing has its advantage if doing something to combat
climate change could lead to worsening climate change. Trudeau
has been doing something since 2016 and see how Canada has
fared in terms of its contribution to global carbon emission level.
Do not underestimate the power of numbers. Millions of poor can create havoc under extreme conditions. Militarized police will anyhow join them.
A bit like the current looters of stores in the US. Group of poor people get together and storm specific stores together. They don't it for fun. They don't do it by choice. They do it because they are freaking poor...
Now put that phenomenon on a global scale of millions...
Except it will also empower the populists who will yell endlessly about the 'hordes' coming their way.
More worrisome will be dealing with the mass crop failures we're already seeing in India, Spain, Florida, California, BC, China...
they do it because they know (right now) they can get away with it without repercussion's
you are really messed up if you think you can justify theft by claiming poverty
how many iphones does a poor person require?
I'm infinitely smarter than you are that I definitely do know. You completely choose to ignore climate history and are duped by twitter alarmists and the IPCC, which is a corrupt organization with an agenda that was set out even before CO2 became the bogeyman.
They don’t use 12 iphones.. They sell them to pay rent and bring food to their kids.
i don’t justify theft. I’m saying some will fight harder not to end up in the street. If society can’t provide a decent roof with a low wage salary they make adjustments to make ends meet. You would do the same.
You clearly don't understand what the phrase "burying one's head in the sand" means.
There are none so blind as to those who refuse to see.
