Tag: ULEZ

I Wouldn’t Buy a Second Hand Car From Quentin Willson, Let Alone a Transport Policy

According to former motoring journalist, now Net Zero lobbyist, Quentin Willson, slow consumer take-up of EVs is due to “myths and misinformation”. Concerns about fires, battery degradation, range, charging and servicing costs are all groundless, the former Top Gear host claims, or easily fixable by policy.

From The Daily Sceptic

BY BEN PILE

According to former motoring journalist, now Net Zero lobbyist, Quentin Willson, slow consumer take-up of EVs is due to “myths and misinformation”. Concerns about fires, battery degradation, range, charging and servicing costs are all groundless, the former Top Gear host claims, or easily fixable by policy. “By 2035, if we enact the right policies and the right information for consumers, it will be achievable,” he claimed, alluding to the ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars by that year. His comments – evidence given to a recent Select Committee on Transport session – appear to be driven by green ideology and funding from the usual Green Blob suspects. 

The session aimed to hear from witnesses speaking about the “health of the EV market”, and the postponment of the ban on petrol and diesel (Internal Combustion Engine or ICE) cars from 2030 to 2035 – known as the ‘ZEV mandate’ (Zero Emission Vehicle). The Committee heard from a handful of industry representatives and journalists, whose mostly pro-ICE ban, pro-EV claims largely consisted of over-confident statements about EV performance, and whinges about there being insufficient “support” for the sector and EV owners by way of “incentives” and charging infrastructure. It is tragic to see representatives of automotive industries apparently completely comfortable with the idea of markets for new products being created by government diktat and subsidy regimes, not the merits of those products. (You can watch the entire session here.)

But it is the comments of journalist-turned-campaigner Willson that epitomise the ocean of nonsense surrounding this policy agenda. The Government has committed to abolishing ICE cars, and the law requires manufacturers and retailers to increase the number of of EVs they sell as a percentage of total sales and reduce the percentage of ICE vehicles. According to the ZEV mandate’s targets, by just 2028, 52% of new cars will have to be EVs, rising to 80% by 2030, before their complete prohibition in 2035. But people just aren’t buying them. As with most climate/Net Zero policies, public buy-in to Westminster’s radical environmentalism turns out to be an afterthought. The wheeling out of a tired motoring celeb, long since eclipsed by former co-host Jeremy Clarkson, to try to counter the looming crisis, represents the political Establishment’s and the Blob’s increasing desperation. 

According to Willson, “Misinformation is really putting people off… They read this torrent of stuff from Right-wing and vested interests… All we hear are the voices from the anti-EV narrative… we don’t hear from the million-plus people who are driving these cars every day about their experiences.”

EV fires account for far fewer car fires than ICE cars, he explains. And battery performance on older cars is far better than expected – battery degradation isn’t as bad as feared.

“As a Government, you need to do something about this,” he told MPs. (Ban the Daily Sceptic?) “Misinformation is destabilising consumer demand, is destabilising industrial policy and is destabilising the industry.” 

Though he may have a point that some fears have been exaggerated, EV car fires are noteworthy because they are uncontrollable once they start, not because EVs are more likely to self-combust. And battery degradation may be less of a problem than previously thought, but cars that need recharging are necessarily far more limited, and therefore have less utility, than ICE cars. 

But Willson’s greatest error is his dependence on the fashionable motif in authoritarian circles: ‘misinformation’. The reason most people aren’t convinced by electric cars isn’t because they’ve been misinformed, but because they have eyes, and ears, and, behind and between them, brains with which to process the simple facts conveyed through them. Those simple facts are: EVs are more expensive than normal cars; EVs are harder to charge than normal cars are to fill with fuel; EVs are more likely to leave you stranded; EVs lose their value rapidly; and EV battery failures can be catastrophic. Put even more simply: petrol and diesel cars are more versatile and enduring than EVs. 

The only way these simple facts haven’t resulted in the collapse of the EV market is an extraordinary subsidy scheme. Though recent headlines have claimed that the EV sector is booming, private purchases account for less than one in five EV sales. The rest are ‘fleet’ sales – company cars. Net Zero tax rules allow employees to write-off the cost of leasing an EV against income tax. Thus, an NHS manager on a salary of £150,000 can, with no deposit, lease a £110,000 Mercedes EQS for £750 per month, to transport them from the commuter belt to Central London. Into the bargain, EVs don’t have to pay the Congestion Charge, resulting in around £3,500 of further subsidy for the 1%. And charging points at workplaces are eligible for £850 of grants. 

“London is now full of them,” Willson pointed out. Well, of course it is. The so-called Salary Sacrifice scheme allows the wealthiest people to obtain subsidised luxury vehicles so that their commutes to the capital are comfortable and guilt-free, while leaving their gas-guzzling SUVs on the drive for weekends, holidays and trips to the grandparents – or for their wives to do the school run to Brighton College. It is the benighted rest of the population that depends on second-hand petrol and diesel cars, the latter being forced off the road by green schemes such as London’s hated Ulez and other CAZs throughout the country. 

Yet, Willson and his colleagues demand more incentives. “There is no financial incentive for consumers to change their behaviour,” he admits. “They will not change their behaviour for environmental reasons, they will only change their behaviour for fiscal reasons.” And this is why the Net Zero ‘transition’ had to be led by top-down policy, rather than bottom-up choices being offered to consumers through the market. The abolition of the ICE car is authoritarian. It is the result of special interest lobbying, not by consumer or voter demand. And that inevitably leads to irrational absurdities, such as subsidising executives’ commutes from Gerrards Cross to London, to the tune of tens of thousands each year. 

Willson’s new campaigning organisation, FairCharge, aims to “harness the tremendous environmental, economic and social benefits of the electric revolution”. But there is no “electric revolution”. If there was, it would not require Blob outfits as its vanguard and PR front – it would have its own dynamic and growth. And the fact of Willson’s project being merely a Green Blob front organisation is further betrayed by its broader climate policy interventions. “We also want to see… the price of electricity decoupled from gas – urgently,” claims the website. This is a Green Blob false talking point – a factoid – from 2022, which occurred as European natural gas prices spiked at €340 per MWh. Since gas prices determine the price of electricity before renewable subsidies are applied, green campaigners argued that ‘decoupling’ the price of electricity from the price of gas would lead to lower bills. But the gas price today is just a tenth of that spike, meaning that power from gas is again far cheaper than electricity from wind and solar farms. 

And that’s the problem. Willson, whose stock-in-trade was either approvingly or disparagingly reproducing manufacturers’ specifications to a camera, is unable to offer any substantive perspective, merely recycling Green Blob talking points. 

On Twitter, climate sceptics were quick to observe that the same organisation that funds virtually every think tank prmoting Net Zero, coincidentally also fund Willson’s pro-EV outfit. Practically every single green ‘civil society’ organisation is funded by the European Climate Foundation (ECF). Even the ‘think tank’ that produced Rishi Sunak’s election-saving miracle policy of compulsory National Service, Onward, is ECF-funded. From XR, through every Labour, Lib-Dem, Conservative-aligned think tank, trade unions and university research organisations, the ECF pump tens of millions each year into seemingly ‘independent’ organisations to align commentary on the Net Zero agenda as a condition of funding. It’s the same funding that enabled UK100 to lobby for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and Clean Air Zones throughout the country. It’s the same funding that supports the Conservative Environment Network caucus of MPs, of which Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Clair Coutinho, is a member. And it’s the same ECF that funds the CarbonBrief outfit that produced the ridiculous “wind power is nine times cheaper than gas” fib that still animates Westminster Net Zero narratives. ‘Misinformation’ is the Blob’s vernacular for the unauthorised views or debates that occur outside of that sphere. The concept has been developed by the Blob to protect itself from democracy, debate and criticism. When the Green Blob pumps out dubious claims about the benefits of Net Zero, it’s called ‘campaigning’.

None of this would matter, and Willson would remain a D-list s’leb, had the Government and generations of MPs let people decide for themselves how, and how fast, if at all, to get to Net Zero. But the only controversy about the abolition of ICE cars as far as Westminster is concerned is about the date by which new sales are banned – 2030 or 2035 – not what principles govern policymaking in general, and the authoritarian, manifestly anti-car policies, including the ZEV mandate and CAZs in particular. Of course, industry representatives will tell politicians that they can help meet political targets if they and their extremely wealthy customers are subsidised. But where are the representatives of the millions who drive petrol and diesel cars far beyond the lifetimes that any battery manufacturer can provide a warranty for? Where are the representatives of the millions who buy decade-old bangers for the price of a week’s wages, rather than top-of-the-range luxury models? And where is the defence of economic freedom and its relationship with mobility? Not in Westminster. And not from lobbying fronts like Willson’s, that’s for sure. 

Sadiq Khan’s Green Globalist Gang Suggests Daily 44g Meat Allowance and Rations Lower Than Second World War

London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Ulez punch-down on cars and vans owned by the less affluent is just one example of the attacks planned against town dwellers living in modern industrial societies. Khan is the current chairman of C40, a global network of city mayors backed by numerous hard-Left billionaire foundations.

From The Daily Sceptic

BY CHRIS MORRISON

London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Ulez punch-down on cars and vans owned by the less affluent is just one example of the attacks planned against town dwellers living in modern industrial societies. Khan is the current chairman of C40, a global network of city mayors backed by numerous hard-Left billionaire foundations. Removing cars from cities is just one of its aims. In a Headline Report published by the group in 2019 and re-emphasised earlier this year, a “progressive” target for 2030 was set of a daily per person allowance of 44g of meat (enough for two small meatballs), a daily limit of 2,500 calories, (less than the ration in the Second World War), one short haul flight every three years, eight new clothing items a year and private cars available for only one in five people. This “pioneering piece of thought leadership” was said to seek a “radical, and rapid, shift in consumption patterns”.

When the report about future urban consumption was first published in 2019, it received little publicity in the media. Some of its proposals looked a bit cranky even for mainstream publications. For instance, under an “ambitious” 2030 target, the mayors looked to ban meat and private vehicles altogether. But groundwork was clearly being laid. Mark Watts, executive director of C40, observed that average consumption-based emissions in the wealthier C40 cities must fall by “two thirds or more” by 2030. It was said that reducing vehicle ownership would lead to significant reclamation of roads and 25,000 kms of cycle lanes. This plan is now well advance since the Covid lockdowns provided cover for mass street closures. Recent years have also seen large increases in cycle lanes, and of course the Ulez war on those driving older vehicles, not necessarily by choice.

Signatory cities are committed to “high impact accelerators”, which include creating low or zero emissions zones along with “implanting vehicle restrictions or financial incentives/disincentives such as road use or parking charges”. An early sighting here, perhaps of Khan’s suspected wish to implement road pricing after his Ulez infrastructure is in place.

There is also an early sighting of unsourced statistics with a claim that eating less meat and more vegetables and fruit could prevent 160,000 annual deaths associated with diseases such as heart attacks, diabetes and strokes in C40 cities. It is not immediately clear if these deaths actually occur in such precise numbers, or whether they are a Ulez-style ‘statistical construct‘.

Over 100 cities around the world are part of the C40 network and they are required to sign up to “performance-based requirements” based on a number of leadership standards. One of these standards specifies that they must innovate and start taking inclusive and resilient action, “to address emissions beyond the direct control of city government, such as associated with goods and services consumed in their city”. The largely unpublicised C40 operation is backed by finance and support from many well-known green foundations including Climate Works, Hewlett, IKEA, Oak, FR and Clinton. Three “strategic funders” are identified including Christopher Hohn’s Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, a major financial contributor to Extinction Rebellion. Another strategic funder is Bloomberg Philanthropies, whose controller Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, is president of the C40 board.

Of course interest is now growing in what all these people have been smoking over the last few years, as the Con/Lab green blob (different countries, different mainstream political combinations) organise to de-industrialise and cut human progress in the name of tackling a supposed ‘climate crisis’. The C40 Headline Report gives clear guidance of the scale of economic and societal change required under a collectivist Net Zero agenda. U.K. Fires is an academic project funded by the British Government, and it also gives a brutal assessment of life under what it terms absolute net zero carbon dioxide emissions. Again it is not discussed much in the public prints, but the Daily Sceptic has reported on its findings. These include no flying and shipping by 2050, drastic cuts in home heating, bans on beef and lamb consumption and a ruthless purge of traditional building materials such as bricks, glass, steel and cement. Such is the admirable honesty on display in their reports that they note these building materials can be replaced with “rammed earth” – mud huts for the lower classes in other words.

Sadiq Khan has been badly shaken by a popular uprising against his hated Ulez scheme. Backing in his own Labour party is wearing thin, not because most senior members are particularly anti-Ulez, but because after the Uxbridge by-election they can see a little more clearly that attacking the cars of the poor is a slam-dunk vote loser. For his part, Khan seems to have become more hysterical attacking those who oppose Ulez as conspiracy theorists. Earlier this year, reports the Daily Mail, Khan said that some of those who opposed the scheme’s growth across all London boroughs were “anti-vaxxers, Covid deniers, conspiracy theorists and Nazis”.

The evidence provide by Khan’s own C40 Headline Report, along with the work of U.K. Fires, shows clearly the actual agenda that is now being ruthlessly deployed. The only conspiracy rabbithole in sight would appear to be that occupied by a freaked Mayor Sadiq Khan.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Ulez Protest Featuring Tractors and Three-Wheel Car Brings Traffic to a Standstill

Protesters halted traffic on the outskirts of London in opposition to Sadiq Khan’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone, ahead of its expansion to cover the whole city.

From The Daily Sceptic

By RICHARD ELDRED

Protesters halted traffic on the outskirts of London in opposition to Sadiq Khan’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone, ahead of its expansion to cover the whole city. The Evening Standard has the story.

Tractors, a taxi and a three-wheel car were seen spiralling around a roundabout at Orpington War Memorial, South East London, while protesters shouted into megaphones and blew whistles.

The Ulez expansion will see drivers in outer London pay a £12.50 daily fee from August 29th if their vehicles do not meet required emissions standards

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last month urged London Mayor Sadiq Khan to “think twice” about Ulez expansion, while on Monday, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer suggested cities should look at other options for tackling air pollution.

Mr. Khan has previously admitted his decision to expand the Ulez was “very difficult” but insisted it would “see five million more Londoners being able to breathe cleaner air”.

Orpington locals Alex Hart, 65, and his wife Cheryl Hart, 61, were among protesters on the edge of London.

The pair are worried they could have to spend up to £40,000 to replace their car.

Mr. Hart said: “I have never protested about anything until this. I have got a car which is a Volvo C30. It’s diesel because I was told by my Government that diesel was the environmentally friendly thing to do. I now have to get rid of it.”

Worth reading in full.

Put Net Zero to a Referendum, Red Wall MPs Tell Sunak

MPs from the Red Wall are advocating for a public referendum to assess the level of support for the U.K.’s 2050 Net Zero emission goal and to clarify its details to the public. The Telegraph has the story.

From The Daily Sceptic

By RICHARD ELDRED

Rishi Sunak has committed to achieving net zero in a ‘proportionate and pragmatic’ manner CREDIT: Simon Walker/Number 10 Downing Street

MPs from the Red Wall are advocating for a public referendum to assess the level of support for the U.K.’s 2050 Net Zero emission goal and to clarify its details to the public. The Telegraph has the story.

Britain is legally obliged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 100% over the next 27 years, an objective signed into law by Theresa May. 

Mr. Sunak has committed to achieving it in a “proportionate and pragmatic” manner, but backbenchers in traditionally Labour-voting seats won by the Conservatives at the last election have urged him to give the public a say on the 2050 date.

It comes amid a wider debate about Net Zero following a surprise Tory victory in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election last month, which both main parties attributed to the backlash against Sadiq Khan expanding London’s ultra-low emission zone (Ulez).

Marco Longhi, the MP for Dudley North, said: “Given the complexity of this issue and its far-reaching consequences, I believe that involving the public through a referendum is right.

“A proper debate has never been had, and it should be. A referendum would require the Government to communicate the intricacies of the 2050 Net Zero target to the public, fostering a better understanding of the challenges and benefits.”

Karl McCartney, the Lincoln MP, agreed that Mr. Sunak should “rethink the headlong rush for Net Zero”, saying: “The establishment was solely focused on chasing approval from London’s woke eco-zealot crowd who have no clue what happens in the real world.

“Just like Brexit, the Government needs to make sure the public are on board with such radical changes, and that they hear the arguments and can make an informed decision.”

Worth reading in full.

Revealed: Ulez Expansion Predicted to Cut Air Pollution by Just 1.5%

The Ulez ‘discussion’ has all of the same elements, with modelled health benefits calculated by Imperial College and Mayor Khan’s justification that he is “saving lives”, implying that opponents are wannabe murderers. Of course, this time around, the public is thankfully much more sceptical.

From The Daily Sceptic

By ALEX KRIEL

Listening to the discussion over Ulez expansion feels like an action replay of the way in which many were convinced to overreact to Covid, leading to policy responses which caused significantly more harm than good. The Ulez ‘discussion’ has all of the same elements, with modelled health benefits calculated by Imperial College and Mayor Khan’s justification that he is “saving lives”, implying that opponents are wannabe murderers. Of course, this time around, the public is thankfully much more sceptical.

In this short note, we wanted to set out how those ‘lives saved’ numbers are derived and to demonstrate that at best the numbers are seriously misrepresented and at worst completely wrong. In fact, applying the Government and Imperial’s own logic, there is a very strong case to say that the expansion of Ulez will, on balance, harm Londoner’s health when considering the downstream economic consequences of this policy.

The major flaw in Imperial’s model is the one-dimensional nature of its assumption that air pollution drives health and life expectancy. In the real world health is driven by a number of interacting factors with income being the primary driver. There are many assumptions one could dispute that (perhaps unsurprisingly) work towards inflating the claimed health benefits of reducing air pollution, but we focus only on the flaw of largely ignoring policy consequences.

The Imperial team presents several numbers, including: attributable deaths (3,600 to 4,100), improved life expectancy (five to six months) and life-years saved (6.1 million). We wanted to focus on the claimed benefits of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in terms of life expectancy and life-years saved.

Before leaving attributable deaths, it is important to note that these are not in any sense deaths that can be avoided, nor are they deaths that are subject to reduction by the Transport Strategy. The figure appears to compare current death rates with death rates if all human emissions had been removed for all prior periods. It is a theoretical construct (similar to an unmitigated pandemic) and only a small fraction of this number would be theoretically impacted by road transport (around 15%). Only the going-forward numbers (life-years saved) relate to the Transport Strategy and there the benefits are relatively low at 0.4%. It is important to note that there has only ever been one death, of a young and chronically unwell girl ever recorded in England (56 million population) where the death certificate mentions air pollution. Tragic as this death clearly is, it again highlights the disconnect between the theoretical attribution number and actual deaths recorded; we suggest ignoring the attributable deaths figure.

Looking at the claimed benefits of implementing the Transport Strategy, it is possible for a layman to understand the main assumptions on which these health benefits are based. In summary, it is assumed that reducing 10 µg m-3 achieves roughly a 6% reduction in all cause mortality. Note however 10 µg m-3 is more than all anthropogenic PM 2.5 emissions as estimated for England as a whole, so any benefits are scaled down from 6%. So a 1 µg m-3 reduction generates roughly a 0.6% improvement in life expectancy (i.e., ten times less).

Looking at life-years saved and extended life expectancy, the key assumptions are poorly explained. For those in a hurry, the detail shows that all of the Transport Strategy initiatives to 2050 combined will deliver a projected 0.4% reduction in life-years lost to air pollution using projections to 2154. There is a claimed five to six month extension in life expectancy, so the life expectancy of a London male of around 80 years would be extended to around 80.4 years.

These gains are stated relative to a baseline and for some inexplicable reason the Imperial team has decided to use 2013 pollution levels to establish the baseline and in the process to ignore the available data for 2019. This serves to inflate the baseline.

The acid test is: are the results of modelling compatible with observed reality? And on that basis the Imperial Ulez modelling falls flat. The model covers the impact of the entire Transport Strategy to 2050 which covers many more steps than Ulez. The Imperial document is somewhat vague about what those steps are – they are cryptically referred to as 2025 LES, 2030 LES and 2050 LES. It is enough to note that the goal of Mayor Khan’s 2018 Transport Strategy is to “aim for 80% of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041”. So the first thing to clarify is that the claimed 6.1 million saving of life years relates to a significant number of measures, well beyond Ulez expansion. In effect these combined steps will largely eliminate private car traffic.

The chart below is constructed from the Imperial material and shows that PM 2.5 µg m-3 population weighted (PWAC) pollution falls over a number of steps and Ulez on a standalone basis has a near zero impact. Also, you can also see that a fair chunk of gains have already been banked between 2013 and 2019.

The failure of Ulez to achieve any meaningful reduction in pollution is very clearly shown in a separate document prepared by Jacobs which looks at the impacts of Ulez only. The table below shows the impact of Ulez expansion on PM 2.5 µg m-3 concentration, with an estimated improvement of less than 2%.

There is a slightly better outcome for NOx pollutants which are reduced by 5.4% across Greater London. This feeds in to the health impact assessment which unsurprisingly shows near zero benefit from Ulez for PM 2.5 reductions, for most health-related metrics.

Looking at life expectancy, the report does acknowledge that due to the large population (around 8.9 million) and the extraordinary long time period over which these benefits are expected to crystalise (up to 2154) then there are around 1.5 billion life-years involved (years × population). For any stated benefit to be meaningful, it needs to referenced to the base case value. The 6.1 million life-years saved is then within the context of a total of around 1.5 billion life-years; this saving is around 0.4%. Correspondingly, the impact on life expectancy from all of the pollution schemes (not just Ulez) adds up to around 22 to 27 weeks additional life expectancy. In the context of male life expectancy of 80 years (roughly) this would improve to 80.4 years as a consequence of 30 years’ worth of restrictive climate policies (ignoring any economic consequences).

The core flaw in the calculation is the one-dimensional thinking that underpins this (and all similar calculations) in that all reductions in PM 2.5 concentrations lead to a reduction in the mortality rate. This thinking ignores any link between people’s incomes and health outcomes, which is the primary driver of health. This is the same dishonest cop out that Professor Ferguson made in his infamous Covid paper. This facilitates a myopic focus on ‘safety’ and generates solutions that do far more harm than good.

In setting out the methodology that states that health outcomes will improve with a reduction in air pollution on a more or less linear basis, the Government’s own figures show that real world data prove that this assumption is not correct (or at least over-simplified). Its own data for the regions of the U.K. show that (if anything) this relationship is reversed.

Life expectancy in Scotland is much lower despite having far and away the lowest concentration of anthropogenic PM 2.5 pollutants. Many studies with and between countries show this clearly (e.g. life expectancies by national deprivation deciles, England: 2018 to 2020).

In order to get a handle on how much more significant factors other than PM 2.5 can be, we looked at a recent paper that considers the impact of changes in different factors on life expectancy across 29 European countries (the paper also looks at each factor in isolation using multivariate analysis). The chart below shows the life expectancy impact of a 1% change in the listed factors. There are of course some caveats, but you can immediately see that economic activity dominates the outcomes with a 13-month gain in life expectancy for a 1% gain in GDP versus say a 2.7 month gain for a 1% change in PM 10-2.5. Also note there is no statistically significant relationship between CO2 and life expectancy.

In another section of the same paper the author states: “France and Sweden, some of the countries closest to their potential LE (life expectancies), are also amongst those with the highest NOx level.” The real message, though, is that if you dent people’s income by narrowly pursuing PM 2.5 reduction, you will, on balance, shorten life expectancy and not increase it. The Jacobs’ report confirms that there will be multiple negative impacts on business and economic activity. We guess that on balance Ulez will lower life expectancy when factoring in the impacts on business and family incomes, as well as quality of life considerations.

In the post Covid world, we have understood that politicians of all stripes will shamelessly use emotional manipulation in order to get reasonable people to comply with their unreasonable edicts. That is why understanding how reliable, or otherwise, attributable deaths, life-years saved and life expectancy figures are is so important. You can almost guarantee that these estimates will be manipulated and potentially used to rationalise illogical and damaging policies.With opaque models it is relatively easy to produce results to order.

The political process assumes that the individuals involved are able to understand competing objectives and arrive at a sensible compromise. However, we saw in the case of Covid that many politicians have limited scientific understanding and will tend to pursue unachievable safety, at any cost.

The State seems to be redefining its role with a narrow group of ideologically-driven technocrats setting somewhat arbitrary targets. Achieving those targets requires wholesale changes to people’s lives. Very often economic, mental health and other impacts are barely considered and historically established constitutional boundaries between the State and the citizen are often ignored.

In the case of Ulez expansion, the 59% of respondents to the public consultation who clearly opposed the expansion were simply ignored.

Various sops will no doubt be offered to voters, but is it important that readers realise that there is a direction of travel to these various steps. Finally, remember Albert Camus’s wise warning that, “The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.”

Alex Kriel is by training a physicist and was an early critic of the Imperial Covid model. He is a founder of the Thinking Coalition, which comprises a group of citizens who are concerned about Government overreach. This article was first published on the Thinking Coalition website. Sign up for updates here.

High Court Ruling Sparks Labour Civil War as Sadiq Khan’s Ulez Scheme Given Go Ahead

Five Tory-led councils’ High Court challenge against London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Ulez expansion plan has been rejected, giving the green light for the scheme’s extension. The legal setback adds fuel to the already raging civil war within the Labour Party amid a pressing cost of living crisis. Motorists across Greater London can expect to pay a £12.50 daily fee to use their cars if they don’t meet emission standards from August 29th.

The expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) is due to come into force on August 29

From The Daily Sceptic

By RICHARD ELDRED

Five Tory-led councils’ High Court challenge against London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Ulez expansion plan has been rejected, giving the green light for the scheme’s extension. The legal setback adds fuel to the already raging civil war within the Labour Party amid a pressing cost of living crisis. Motorists across Greater London can expect to pay a £12.50 daily fee to use their cars if they don’t meet emission standards from August 29th.

The Mail has the story:

The ruling by Mr. Justice Swift also follows last week’s Uxbridge and South Ruislip parliamentary by-election, where Labour’s failure to win former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s seat was blamed on concerns from voters around the expansion of Ulez.

Mr. Khan confirmed today that he would now “proceed” with the expansion in 32 days’ time as planned – in defiance of senior Labour figures fearful of the political impact.

The court has not yet said whether there will be grounds to appeal for the councils – with Ulez now set to reach Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, and Surrey.

Giving a summary of his ruling, Mr. Justice Swift said: “I am satisfied that the Mayor’s decision to expand the Ulez area by amendment of the present road charging scheme, rather than by making an entirely new… scheme, was within his powers.”

The judge added that, having “carefully considered” the consultation process, he was satisfied that enough information was given for people who wished to respond to provide “informed responses”.

He also said the consultation on the scrappage scheme was “not in depth”, but was “lawful”.

At a hearing earlier this month, the local authorities’ lawyers argued Mr. Khan lacked the legal power to order the expansion of the zone by varying existing regulations.

Craig Howell Williams KC, for the councils, said there was an “unfair and unlawful” approach to collecting views on the plans and that “key information… was not disclosed” during previous consultations.

The barrister added that plans for a £110 million scheme to provide grants supporting the scrapping of non-Ulez compliant vehicles were also unlawful because a “buffer zone” for “non-Londoners” affected by the extended charging zone was not considered.

But the Mayor’s legal team rejected the bid to quash his November 2022 decision to extend Ulez to all of London’s boroughs, arguing the move was “entirely lawful” and that “ample information” was provided for a “fair consultation”.

Ben Jaffey KC, representing the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) – an interested party in the case – said the “primary objective” of the Ulez expansion was “to improve London’s air quality, in particular reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates”.

The barrister said Mr. Khan’s decisions “will help to get London’s air quality closer to legal limits, where they are exceeded, and World Health Organisation guideline levels everywhere”.

Reacting to his victory, Mr. Khan said today: “This landmark decision is good news as it means we can proceed with cleaning up the air in outer London on August 29th.

“The decision to expand the Ulez was very difficult and not something I took lightly, and I continue to do everything possible to address any concerns Londoners may have.

“The Ulez has already reduced toxic nitrogen dioxide air pollution by nearly half in Central London and a fifth in Inner London. The coming expansion will see five million more Londoners being able to breathe cleaner air.

“I’ve been listening to Londoners throughout the Ulez rollout, which is why from next week I am expanding the scrappage scheme to nearly a million families who receive child benefit and all small businesses with up to 50 employees. I will continue to look at new ideas to support Londoners.

“Nine out of 10 cars seen driving in outer London on an average day are already compliant so won’t pay a penny – yet will still see the benefits of cleaner air. Air pollution is an urgent public health crisis – our children are growing up with stunted lungs and it is linked to a host of serious conditions, from heart disease to cancer and dementia.

“This unambiguous decision today in the High Court allows us to press on with the difficult but vital task of cleaning up London’s air and tackling the climate crisis.”

Worth reading in full.

Climate Shock: An anti ULEZ Candidate Just Won a London Election

But obvious green cost of living hits like ULEZ cannot be hidden behind the Ukraine war smokescreen, so are fair game for courageous politicians who are prepared to take a few risks.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

David Hawgood / Sign for London ultra low emission zone

More proof ordinary people push back when green policies start to bite, regardless of what they say on climate surveys.

Britain’s next election could be a climate change culture war

Published: July 27, 2023 1.03am AEST
Ed Atkins
Senior Lecturer, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol

A byelection in a London suburb has placed environmental policy at the centre of political debate in the UK, and could make it a key battleground in the next general election.

The Conservative party narrowly held former prime minister Boris Johnson’s seat in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, vacated after his resignation from parliament. The win has been cast as a victory driven by popular anger against climate policy, particularly London’s ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) – an area where drivers of the highest-polluting vehicles must pay a fee.

The winning candidate positioned himself as the anti-Ulez choice, tapping into local anger at the policy. But as comments from media and politicians show, the Uxbridge story signals a new stage of national politics that demonises environmental policies. And my research suggests this could develop into an important new front in the culture war, with the power to help determine the next election.

The opposition to Ulez is highly partisan. Nationally, 59% of Conservatives oppose Ulez schemes compared to 23% of Labour voters. In London, 72% of those who voted Leave in the 2016 Brexit referendum opposed the Ulez expansion. Former Remain voters are evenly split, with 44% in support and 44% against the policy.

The Conservative prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has now distanced the government from green policies that could contribute to household expenses. Labour leader Keir Starmer acknowledged the role that Ulez played in the loss, saying that “policy matters” in elections. He also called on Khan to “reflect” on the Ulez expansion.

Read more: 

https://theconversation.com/britains-next-election-could-be-a-climate-change-culture-war-210351

The BBC interviewed residents after anti-ULEZ candidate Steve Tuckwell’s victory;

Residents of Uxbridge react to narrow Tory by-election victory

By Yasmin Rufo
BBC News

Asked why they think the Conservatives held on to the seat, there is one clear and overarching explanation from voters here: the expansion of the ULEZ.

Mr Rolt, 50, supports the expansion of the ULEZ, saying he is “amazed that people in Uxbridge are happy living with dirty air“.

Another local resident told the BBC that he “never usually votes”, but felt “forced to vote for anyone that would stop ULEZ” as he was worried about how much he would have to pay to replace his non-compliant car.

Despite this apparent rejection of the scheme in Uxbridge, the mayor of London’s office says expanding the zone is “a really difficult decision but necessary to save lives”.

The clean air-zone is set to expand on 29 August, and anyone driving a non-compliant vehicle will be charged a daily rate of £12.50.

Polling conducted by JLP showed the ULEZ expansion was the second most important issue for people after the cost of living. 

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66267672

The pushback against ULEZ is encouraging, but there is a bigger question: Why aren’t British people pushing back harder against other green policies, like green energy?

Green energy is not cheaper and better for the environment, it is hideously expensive, and peppers the landscape with ugly, heavily subsidised mechanical monstrosities.

I believe the explanation for the lack of opposition is that most Britons are not aware of the true source of their cost of living pain.

People I know in Britain don’t blame green energy policies for their cost of living pain, they blame energy company greed. The BBC has been using their enormous, coercively subsidised media reach to push the corporate greed narrative, publishing numerous stories hilighting energy company profits, blaming the Ukraine war, and demanding the government do something about greedy energy company wartime profiteering.

But obvious green cost of living hits like ULEZ cannot be hidden behind the Ukraine war smokescreen, so are fair game for courageous politicians who are prepared to take a few risks.

There will be a day of reckoning, when everyone wakes up to how badly the BBC has let them down with their defective coverage of cost of living issues. The wildly popular upstart media company GBNews has provided politicians like Nigel Farage a high profile platform, which he uses to call out BBC green energy mistruths.

I believe some mainstream British politicians can already see the writing on the wall. A handful of politicians appear to be positioning themselves, quietly cautioning others about Net Zero, announcing reforms, creating a public record of concern which may save some of their necks when more British people start to ask the right questions.

For more information about the disastrous cost of living and economic impact of the global Net Zero push click here.

Government Told to Scrap Unaffordable Green Policies After By-Election Ulez Revolt

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called for Rishi Sunak to ditch “high-cost green policies” in the wake of the surprise Conservative win at the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election.

From The Daily Sceptic

By WILL JONES

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has called for Rishi Sunak to ditch “high-cost green policies” in the wake of the surprise Conservative win at the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election.

While the Tories suffered substantial defeats in the ‘safe’ seats of Selby and Ainsty and Somerton and Frome, their win in Boris Johnson’s former constituency was credited to a campaign centred on opposing Sadiq Khan’s expansion of London’s Ultra-low Emissions Zone (Ulez). Under the policy around 10% of London’s drivers will be charged £12.50 per day in a bid to lower air pollution.

Sir Jacob, the former Business Secretary, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

You should learn from where the Government has done surprisingly well against the form book, and learn there that high-cost green policies are not popular.

I think the Government should take away the power for these Ulezes which is provided for by legislation… You should go with the grain of what voters are doing anyway. Voters are year in, year out buying cleaner cars with cleaner engines. The development of engines in recent decades have been phenomenal.

Sir John Redwood, Margaret Thatcher’s one-time policy chief, added: “Will Mayor Khan cancel Ulez now voters have told him how unpopular it is? After winning Uxbridge by speaking out against Ulez, will the Government now act to stop so many attacks on motorists?”

Lord Frost, Boris Johnson’s Brexit negotiator, wrote on Twitter: “The lesson is surely that green policies are very unpopular when there’s a direct cost to people – as indeed all the polling says. This time that hit Labour. But soon it could be us unless we rethink heat pumps and the 2030 electric car deadline.”

Even Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer admitted there was “no denying that Ulez was the reason we didn’t win in Uxbridge”, and said both he and Mr Khan “need to reflect on that”. This followed Deputy Leader Angela Rayner saying Labour has not listened to voters as she acknowledged Londoners cannot afford Ulez. She called for a rethink on the green scheme, which she argued was “at the cost of working families who have basically had enough”.

Nonetheless, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has insisted he is “determined” to press ahead with the punitive tax on many of London’s poorer motorists.

Janet Daley in the Telegraph is on the money, as usual.

Everybody got something last night. Keir Starmer will no doubt claim that the Labour win in Selby, overturning a huge Tory majority, means that they are on an invincible march to victory. The Lib Dems will make their usual claims to inevitable national triumph on the basis of a by-election result. 

But the Tories – whose success in Uxbridge was the most minimal squeak – have produced what is probably a more politically interesting result. In what was a marginal seat and so should have been the most readily lost, they actually won. And the reason for this is what should be an invaluable lesson for all three parties. 

It was Sadiq Khan’s extension of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) to outer London that won it for the Tories. This diabolical scheme to penalise drivers of older cars and van-owning tradesmen in the outer suburbs has aroused a level of rage which must now be a lesson to all serious contenders in the general election. The ramifications go far beyond this single, apparently anomalous, success for the Conservatives.

Could there be a more explicit illustration of the limits to the electorate’s tolerance of supposed green measures, Janet asks. People “are not prepared to sacrifice their entire way of life”. Indeed.

Of course, Ulez is ostensibly not about Net Zero at all but about air quality. But everyone knows when they’re being lied to and that it’s really about the war on the motorist. Besides, as we never tire of pointing out, London’s air quality has never been better.

Stop Press: Rishi Sunak has been advised to scrap the ban on the sale of new petrol- and diesel-driven cars from 2030 in response to the by-election result in Uxbridge. Meanwhile, Ross Clark says in the Telegraph the Ulez revolt could doom Labour at the next General Election.

Glasgow Low Emission Zone Bans Older Cars From City Centre – and Penalties Are HUGE

Enforcement of Scotland’s first Low Emission Zone (LEZ) begins tomorrow and will see drivers of older vehicles entering the forbidden zone with huge fines that double with each subsequent breach. The Mail has more.

From The Daily Sceptic

By TOBY YOUNG

Enforcement of Scotland’s first Low Emission Zone (LEZ) begins tomorrow and will see drivers of older vehicles entering the forbidden zone with huge fines that double with each subsequent breach. The Mail has more.

The scheme is far stricter than London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and Birmingham’s Clean Air Zone (CAZ), both of which have daily charges for drivers who enter in non-compliant vehicles.

Instead, the first Scottish LEZ introduced in Glasgow from Thursday is a blanket ban on older cars that’s operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year – and with harsh punishments for those who fail to adhere to the restrictions.

A driver entering the LEZ in a non-compliant older car will be hit with a £60 penalty charge notice – and if they break the rules again, the PCN amount doubles each time.

Despite enforcement due to start in less than 24 hours, the city council is facing a late bid to have it delayed…

Glasgow is the first of Scotland’s four biggest cities to enforce the LEZ scheme.

While signage and automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) cameras have also been installed in preparation for similar zones in Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh since last May, Glasgow City Council is the first to set them live from June 1st 2023.

Dundee’s won’t be enforced for another year from May 30th 2024, and in Aberdeen and Edinburgh from June 1st 2024.

The extended delay between installation and enforcement of the zones is intended to give drivers and businesses time to prepare and replace their older – non-compliant – motors.

However, time is due to run out for those living and commuting into Glasgow from tomorrow.

Worth reading in full.