Search results

I’ll be sure to stop breathing out. I wouldn’t want to be accused of being a hypocrite. I actually said it was about balance. That means that you can have it both ways.

Hardly. We all have a carbon footprint by simply being alive. Do literally anything you do to remain alive and you’re a hypocrite if you want to be pedantic about it. The issue is we’re out of balance. I don’t eat meat and consume barely any dairy as I still eat the odd chocolate bar. Don’t...

Careful. Grendull will be along in a moment to accuse you of sounding like an 18 year old Marxist. It’s good to see you making the case for being world leading in achieving net zero though, given that will mean that energy providers charging at the highest cost of production will mean that...

Of course we should be world leaders. It’s moronic to not want that. We have cheaper zero carbon electricity now. The price to the consumer is skewed by the energy price cap and the effect of fossil fuel generated energy on it. The sooner we phase out fossil fuel energy the more we’ll feel the...

So you accept that we’re not doing it in isolation then so there is a point.

All different commitments so it’s difficult to give you a definitive answer but basically the biggest polluters are looking to achieve it by 2050 or 2060. The information is out there, you can educate yourself should you choose instead of listening to the moronic drivel from the right and...

You’ll be pleased to know that we aren’t leading the way. Many European countries are on target to hit net zero long before us. In answer to as why we should do it the answer is simple. It’s economically illiterate not to. The countries driving the industry will be the ones to benefit...

Just checked. It’s over 140 countries that have committed to achieving net zero. Including China, USA and India.

But the UK is not doing it in isolation. There’s other 100 countries aiming to hit net zero in a little over a decade. It’s part of something much bigger.

That’s why we need checks and balances such as the ECHR. You take the checks and balances away it’s the start of sleepwalking into being governed by megalomaniacs.

Apparently the Sunday Times has endorsed Labour today. So either the Sunday Times has turned into a socialist rag or Labour under Starmer really isn’t that socialists after all.

But that’s the direction of travel that’s interests you.

You do know it’s not an accident that the numbers went up exponentially when we left the EU. We left the Dublin agreement, that was the deterrent. Brexit waved the green flag by taking us out of the Dublin agreement. Plus, why do you hate Churchill so much that you want to take a huge shit on...

The boats don’t even have anything to do with it, that’s just the bogey man. They don’t like the plebs having too many rights. That’s the real reason they wanted Brexit and that’s why they want this. They just need an angle to trick the plebs.

He’s such a snowflake. Sue these people, sack that person. It’s cancel culture gone mad.

Would they have to print money? Can’t they just issue government bonds?

Well the last London Mayoral election was only in May and the person who inconvenienced them with this “tax” won by a landslide so I guess the answer is yes. Most people accept the necessity of ULEZ to get the gains in air quality and health benefits that brings. A few noisy frothers, aside the...

And it backfired in your face instantly. First page of google and I found out that any equivalent car made by anyone else almost certainly had been compliant. No wonder you brought German. Actually you should be able to answer this. How did JLR so spectacularly fail to future proof their cars...

They should have bought a Volvo, BMW etc etc equivalent in the first place. All the self proclaimed JLR executive has demonstrated is that JLR didn’t future proof their cars while their competitors were. Not sure how ULEZ can be blamed for JLR’s competitors keeping up with the pace while JLR didn’t.

Mate, you’re the one misrepresenting already flawed data made on presumption's. I googled what you said and it took me straight to the RAC report where it instantly said “could” lead to 700K non compliant vehicles not 100% will be 700K as you tried to represent it and within the first paragraph...