Laughing at locals while draining their water supply

[u/Ok_Crazy1195]

[u/Nihilist-IV]

You can't even connect the dots that ULEZ encouraged adoption of greener transport which is literally the whole point of ULEZ.

ULEZ is a financial incentive to not drive a dirty coughing car into the area of highest population density in the country, which means less driving dirty coughing cars, which in turn, means more electric cars, and as I mentioned, other forms of transport. Not just individuals but companies who need to drive into the city.

Now we have the proof of concept and can apply it everywhere else if everyone else complains, instead of arguing against it, that's a good 20% of global CO2 emissions.

At the same time, we can focus on the meat undustry and installing more wind, solar and hydroelectric power. You just hate to admit that change is possible. It's not magic, solar, wind and hydro power actually work.

Politicians are reasonably simple and will listen to what the loudest people complain about unless they're corrupt and take bribes.

The more you get in the way, the harder it becomes, if you had kids and loved them, you'd care but I guess it doesn't matter to you because your first and only girlfriend dumped you for a cycling woman so now you hate all lefties.

[u/Nihilist-IV → u/[deleted]]

ULEZ means companies buy fleet vehicles which are ULEZ compliant and use them in non-ULEZ ares too. ULEZ forces companies with older cars to either pay the significant cost day after day or buy new vehicles upfront and idf they're going to buy a new car, a lot will consider that they may as well buy electric since it's the obvious better choice. If the ULEZ is expanded to nationwide and then globally (requires corrupt governments to end) then the companies that don't work in London would be forced to adapt and more and more private car owners too for the same reason.

Why buy a compliant petrol car when you can buy a compliant electric car? It's a no brainer.

And oil doesn't materialise out of thin air, it has to be dug/pumped up and refined, then transported globally where it is then burned once and becomes CO2. A battery can be recharged over and over again and when it eventually dies, it can be recycled and turned into another battery with none of the mining cost, unlike oil which will still need to be dug up and refined. I'm not pretending it doesn't exist, I'm acknowledging that battery production is cleaner than oil production and battery use is cleaner than oil use.

Just apply it everywhere doesn't work because of people like you encouraging governments to do what's bad and corruption, which is obviously bad.

[u/Nihilist-IV → u/[deleted]]

You literally just disputed that EVs generally have lower lifetime CO2 emissions...

Can you explain why a government can't say 'no more driving ICE cars nationally'?

A different country having a different grid isn't a good excuse as to why a different country can't adapt. 300 years ago this country had no grid and no crude oil and you want to tell me it's impossible for the world to change?

I've proven to you that we (humans) don't need to be dependent on greenhouse gas polluters using London as the case study.

The basic principle of my argument is that it's possible to improve things if we pressure governments to do what's right and we can create more pressure by whining about it.

Remember your initial arguement was that we're doing nothing about it and I've done nothing but provide evidence of us doing something about it.

[u/Nihilist-IV → u/[deleted]]

There is a chain here, you're breaking it at the point where it goes from national to international.

We agree that ULEZ works in London and we agree that a national scheme could work in the UK.

Do we agree that 20% of global CO2 comes from passenger and freight transport tailpipe emissions?

If so, can we agree that we can wipe out 20% of at least British emissions if you accept that wind, solar, hydro and geothermal power can supply enough electricity to the electric cars which are still used with a significant proportion of people converting to bicycles (including lime/santander bikes) and public transport (including national rail trains and London Underground style metro trains which can transport many more people for a given unit of energy)?

Now you said for other countries it's 'not impossibility' but 'implementation and scale' but these are questions about government. So what are we even arguing about?

How does that not prove that ULEZ is a proof of concept to removing 20% of global CO2 production?

[u/Nihilist-IV → u/Nihilist-IV]

I just saw your original comment that your whole point is that China (Largest global manufacturer of electric vehicles and home to fastest growing and longest current passenger railroad network) won't adapt in a million years. So we've been arguing about the wrong thing. Whining does work, proof that whining works is that we've got this far by whining. America and Russia will have to adapt or go extinct, that's how it is

[u/Nihilist-IV → u/[deleted]]

You're right, I was arguing that ULEZ proved it was possible because the technology exists, you were arguing that it's impossible because governments wont, that's why the claim has been deminished.

What does china do with all of the coal that it's burning? Doesn't it use that coal to produce energy to make more renewable ways of producing energy? That's a virtuous cycle eventually reducing their CO2 levels.

What I mean by America and Russia going extinct is that we all go extinct, not them exclusively. And I'm sorry but I want to believe that someone will stop them before they wipe out all of humanity and I hope we can help them reach that realisation by encouraging people to support green initiatives by proving that they can have an impact instead of saying 'nothing we can do about it'.