Cut motorway speed limit to 64mph to drive net zero goals, No 10 told
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
The Government should consider cutting motorway speed limits to 64mph to reduce transport emissions and dependence on oil imports, MPs have said.
The measure is among many that the Commons environmental audit select committee, in its report out on Thursday about reducing the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels, has said that Westminster should consider.
The report got under way shortly after the war in Ukraine and addressed both the UK’s energy independence and the net zero transition.
It said that solar panels should be installed on new developments and the Government should set an end date for oil and gas licensing.
MPs on the committee criticised a lack of plans by ministers to reduce pollution from transport, which accounts for 23 per cent of Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The committee added that the Government should consult on measures, such as those listed in the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) 10-point plan to cut oil use, which was drafted in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion.
The IEA’s plan also included the introduction of car-free Sundays in cities, working from home three days a week and alternating car access to roads depending on licence plate numbers.
“The rapid growth in electric car sales is encouraging, but it will take many years to replace petrol and diesel vehicles,” the report said.
“More must be done to improve the energy efficiency of our transport system and reduce its contribution to climate change in the meantime.”
MPs on the committee also called for a national “war effort” on energy efficiency, including potentially lowering stamp duty for homes that installed energy efficiency measures.
The committee was divided on whether the Government should continue to grant new oil and gas licenses, but acknowledged that doing so was not incompatible with the UK’s goals to reach net zero by 2050.
It said that domestic oil and gas would be necessary to power the economy through the green transition, but called for an end date for new licenses to be set by the Government “well before 2050”.
Writing for The Telegraph, below, Philip Dunne, a Tory MP and the chairman of the environmental audit committee, said: “Decisions need to be made now that will secure our energy supplies, resilient enough so that we are never again so vulnerable to the whims of brutal and autocratic regimes.”
I don’t remember any of this being proposed in any party’s manifesto at the last election.
And to claim, as Dunne does, that this will protect us all from Putin’s whims is utterly fraudulent. Imports of gas from Russia only amount to 6% of total imports, which could easily be replaced by new North Sea gas developments.
Oil imports from Russia are also not significant at 12%, with plenty of alternative sources around the world.
No, it is not about Putin, but climate change.
If he was really concerned about energy security, he would be pushing to make full use of UK coal, gas and oil resources.
One by one our individual freedoms will be whittled away these green totalitarians.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Is anyone else becoming increasingly depressed by all this? Plans are being made – and, presumably, decisions are being taken – that are set to alter our daily lives dramatically, and yet we’ve had no say in any of it. The feeling of powerlessness gnaws away at me relentlessly…
Yes of course. Because the Tories are driving us off a green cliff, but the people trying to wrest the steering wheel from their hands (Labour) only want to push the accelerator harder.
I have always been optimistic, but it is beginning to look as if it’s going to take a hell of a wake-up call before we, er, wake up.
It is not credible that Sunak does not understand where he is “leading” us. The only conclusion I can reach is that he is not powerful enough to bring about a course change.
The conclusion I reach is that he is happy with the course he has set. As is most of Parliament.
The problem is, a lot of very gullible people who find it impossible not to agree with the “elite opinion” are being led by the nose by some much less pleasant people who have very political agendas. I put many Greens in the this category too – they have been manipulated by first the USSR and now Russia for decades around various issues such as nuclear power. Most politicians think Net Zero is “right” and believe those who tell them it can be done without any problems.
Labour’s green cliff is higher
Of course Sunak does not have the power to create change. That is vested in the unelected civil service, who have domination in setting policy to a defined direction of travel, and will easily resist any opposition to that course. Parliamentarians revolve so rapidly in appointments that they lost their ability to influence matters. Maybe that revolving door is also kept moving by the civil servants, to avoid any potential opposition to their status quo.
As to who sets the civil service pathway is obviously not a loyal national of ours.
Yep, pretty depressing. I have been fighting against the global warming nonsense for close to 20 years now. I made my first presentation on it to a local Probus club in 2004. I constantly email my MP pointing out the flaws, the problems, the absurdities, the lies, the untruths and the lack of solid science.
Deaf ears.
Have seriously thought about where else in the world you could live away from all this curtailment of freedoms. Hard to find anywhere. Namibia or Botswana look quite attractive for retirement quite frankly.
The problem is Groupthink and Westminster is full of it where Climate Change is concerned. Nobody needs to discuss it as all parties are within the Group. Any alternative view is instantly disregarded as it comes from people outside the Group so they must be mad, ignorant or just plain wrong. It doesn’t matter how much evidence, data or opinion you present you are a non-person to this Group and not worthy of being listened to or even acknowledged apart from being thought worthy of psychological help even though you are not the ones gluing themselves to tarmac.
I understand Rwanda is quite nice.
After the 1970’s debauching of Climatology, with the fight in the Press between Snowball Earth or being fried, I was surprised to hear a menacing weather report on Radio 4 in 2001, and thought ‘Oh dear! If I hear another within a year, it’s serious.”
I did, and when they started calling it Climate ‘Science’, I knew it was even more serious.
It’s not about the Science at all.
There’s an Agenda, classified as a Need to Know Agenda, and we don’t need to know.
Alas this alarmist religion is a Global virus. Parroted from the UN down through EU, WEF etc etc. Our Polis just want to be on the train with the global groupthink. Even China, Russia and India pay lip service to this religion (although their actions seem to show they dont believe the jibberish at all) to stop them being bullied by G20 and UN etc . India is looking very appealing. I expect we’ll soon see the South Asian migrants who flocked to UK packing up and returning to their more sane homelands. Crimea might be nice, once the threat from the West is annihilated.
Well look at it this way Chris, if I suggested that the entire UK electricity grid could be made to collapse by enough people simultaneously taking perfectly legal actions*, would you be up for joining in? It could be done and it would have massive knock on effects. I personally believe things have to get much worse before enough people would be willing to take such revolutionary action.
{*there possibly might be conspiracy charges against the organisers so I better not explain too much about how to do it!}
Tell me more, Ray!
“we’ve had no say in any of it.” Wake up, it is only for your own good. Science and Enlightened Elites know best 🙂
I find this depressing also.
I am epressed and also bewildered by the apparent lack of basic mathematical, logistical and economic skills in our political and regulatory – and also legal – governors. My only interpretation that squares the circle for me is that the words from all these public speaking individuals is purely ASPIRATIONAL, and ALWYS WAS. Trouble is the doifuses have been given power these days to put into practice the dumb things they hear in speeches.
The big tell for me is that no proposed change inconveniences the public speaker’s lifestyle. No fine for driving across Oxford. No higher petrol cost, solar panels that cost a fortune and work only 22% of the year. Demand he eat mealyworms instead of steak (as if!). The inconveniences might even become tax deductions (like solar panels). The calls are full profit (aspirations get applause) with zero cost (kids still are driven to private schools).
Well Chris, essentially the grid is managed under the expectation of predictable demand. More electricity use in winter, in the dark, colder weather, on weekdays rather than weekends/holidays etc, etc. It also protects itself against known demand surges (typically TV pickup) by anticipating them and having standby in place (mostly pumped storage hydro). It also protects against the sudden unexpected loss of a generator(s) known as the “Infrequent Infeed Loss Limit” such as happened when both the (now defunct) Longannet coal fired unit in Scotland tripped offline shortly followed, purely coincidentally, by Sizewell B tripping offline. A large part of the grid suffered then. Worth noting the level of security provision varies all the time dependent on various anticipations.
What the grid is however susceptible to, is completely unpredicted and random demand surges followed by equally unpredicted and random sudden drop offs in that demand…a roller coaster effect.
Most homes are fused at 100amps meaning you can theoretically draw up to 24kW power at any given time. Now if enough people, in the right locations, and at the right time could be “instructed” to suddenly and unpredictedly apply maximum demand in unison, the grid managers may initially be able to cope using emergency measures but once a switch on/off wave effect starts they would have serious problems. It is more complex than this simple description as it needs concerted efforts in different places at marginally different times to stop grid controllers just shutting down “offending areas”. It also needs specific types of load applied/removed to cause specific “Reactive Power” imbalances.
This article by Drax helps explain that issue.
https://www.drax.com/power-generation/silent-force-moves-electricity/
Some things worth noting are that all the major UK blackouts this century did NOT occur in winter (higher demand) but in May and August (lower demand) of late spring and summer. The last major event was in August 2019 when both solar and wind were simultaneously supplying a very large proportion. Neither of these sources provide spinning inertia to maintain grid frequency and hence the grid is in a very weak and potentially unstable state and getting worse all the time as more and more synchronous, high inertia power plants are shut down.
So how do you get people to act in unison? Well I have been trying (for a very long time!) to write a novel about this very scenario i.e. a group of disaffected people (rather like most of us posting on here!) organising a system to do this very thing.
Problem is the “boys in blue” may well be knocking on my door if it all got taken too seriously….or would they even suspect?
The novel starts with reference to a poem.
https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/i-have-changed-the-numbers-on-my-watch/
I too am becoming frustrated and depressed by what’s going on.
The motorist is under constant threat. The powers that be seem to be hell-bent on stopping us from driving. We must never let them take our ‘fossil-fuel’ cars away. Right from the word go – a long time ago now – when I got my first car, the independence and amount of things I’ve been able to do because of being able to drive, has been fantastic. I enjoy driving and I’m interested in classic cars. There are thousands of people who own and enjoy classic cars – all petrol or diesel. As a woman, I feel my personal safety is better because I can drive door-to-door rather than rely on public transport, or walking, especially at night.
I have never bought a new car. I look after my cars – yes, I have more than one! I drive very few miles a year (probably 5,000 miles) – yet the tax I pay on a well-serviced petrol car is extortionate. All these big SUVs that people drive around town in these days – I call them ‘Stupid Ugly Vehicles’ – why do most people need them for a start? Secondly, they are probably smashing up the roads more than my little cars and still polluting the atmosphere with brake and tyre particulates. Plus they’ve used up more raw materials in the first place. They should all pay taxes…
As for electric cars…fine in some circumstances. My friend who’s a plumber has one and it’s ideal – if he wants to drive to Scotland it’s useless.
In our city, the amount being spent on unnecessary cycle lanes and additional twenty-mile speed limits is a ridiculous waste of our money. One main road has been given cycle lanes on both sides and you hardly ever see them being used. There is also a lot of parking for residents zones being put in – people objected by a majority to some areas, yet they are still going ahead!
64 miles an hour on a motorway – where did that figure come from? We all know it’s an excuse for gaining more revenue from the poor motorist…
Phew – it’s great to have a rant sometimes!
You’re right, Anne… having a rant every now and then can be a comfort. Unfortunately, the benefits are only transitory and, of course, no matter how satisfying your rant, the fundamental problems always remain unchanged. I’ve found it comforting to read the replies to my original post and it’s certainly reassuring to know that others have similar worries. However, I can’t help feeling that we’re scattered individuals ‘shouting in the dark’. That set me thinking; does anyone know of any groups/online communities where sensible, realistic and down-to-earth people can gather to chew the fat? In this social media-driven world, there must surely be a few options for those not prepared to roll over and accept all the mainstream BS…
More undeclared intentions by the political elite being surreptitiously entered into main stream governance. Al based upon a premise, AGW/CC, that has been denied challenge and debate. The dystopia of such as Animal Farm approaches.
It was always about the car in the UK.
Perhaps it is about curbing the ability to travel. Much easier to keep tabs on you if you cannot go anywhere……
I remember seeing clips from Beijing during the 80’s with a sea of bicycles and no cars. Hard to go very far…..
Limiting mobility is a prime goal of the left.
Yes that certainly appears to be on the agenda – limit the ability for people to travel.
Watch “WEF now promoting ’15-minute cities’ globally – Paris, Milan, Melbourne” on YouTube
It’s no longer the goal of the left. Many ‘right’ wingers think its a good idea.
There are solutions to traffic congestion and the use of cars beginning with restoring law and order by enabling kids to walk to and from school in safety like you and I did. No school run Mum’s for a start.
Three tiered driving qualifications: Pass the basic test you get to drive a puddle jumper, Second test you get to drive a family saloon, Third test you can drive what you want.
Learn to change a tyre instead of calling out breakdown services!
Retested every 5 years for competence.
Mandatory testing, regulation, and insurance for cyclist’s.
Road safety lessons for children instead of LGBTQ and CRT sh*t.
Speeding to be abolished, drive at what speed you want (training teaches you not to speed in town/near schools etc.) but punish drivers severely who drive dangerously irrespective of speed.
Restore and build new canals (UK and some of Europe) to get commercial traffic off the roads. Our canal network was built by Victorians with not a single backhoe between them and it was extensive.
Revitalise rail networks for commercial goods transport with modern termination distribution shuttles.
That’s for starters.
Hotscot, what a load of rubbish!
Abolish speed limits? Training will mean people won’t speed near schools? What planet are you on?
Mandatory testing, regulation & insurance for cyclists? Starting at what age? Sounds like you’re one of these drivers who hates cyclists passing you when you’re stuck in a traffic jam, or force your way past rather than waiting until it’s safe to do so.
Canals? Get real. Canals were rendered obsolete by railways.
Cyclists often ignore RED traffic lights, one-way streets, don’t always have _any_ light. Do any of that in a car and you get a ticket instantly, but cyclists seem to be immune from prosecution.
And don’t forget cyclists have no insurance.
Strange choice of 64 mph/103 kph. Why not 60 mph or 55mph and so on. Select committee could be mistaken for a nasty little faction of obsessives. My guess is that the progress so far on the electrification of light motor transport has much to do with low hanging fruit — the momentum will fade when those with less disposable income come into the frame. When those with living in terrace houses and blocks of flats and alert to the disparity in charging fees come into the reckoning.
“Strange choice of 64 mph/103 kph” Not at all Thomas, the use of such an unrounded number implies they considered serious data rather than the reality that they just made a number up.
Ray. Brilliantly and obviously correct!
Well put. Classic ‘silo’ manifestation. The comfort of shared ignorance in an echo chamber. . I listened towards the end in expectation of Julian …..? chairing this one.
My guess is that the plan was for 100 kph to cheer up the remoaners and Eufans.
But when it was pointed out that this was a bit blatant they just hitched it up a bit.
The other gem is the MPs agonising about the slow pace of reduction of “pollution”.
All their magic schemes for reducing “pollution” (whirligigs, EVs, Drax, Moonbeam catchers) have actually increased “pollution”, whether or not you completely incorrectly include CO2 as a “pollutant”.
Will no-one rid us of these turbulent dipsticks?
But apparently didn’t consider that I can’t possibly know where 64mph is on my rather old Clio! 65 is marked but 64 is not.
To make a major saving in travel-related CO2, convert all road transport to CNG’
I think it is so with the 10% leeway, the maximum speed before ticket would be 70mph.
To Phoenix44: That sounds like a clever wheeze to simultaneously collect speeding ticket revenue on the way to Net Zero.
To David Ashton: there is no 10% leeway. There never was – it was just a guidance of 10% + 2mph. The leeway is definitely gone now as my “adjustment councilor” told us all attending my recent speeding re-education course.
I was “re-educated” for doing 34 mph in a 30 mph zone….
I was amazed by the choice of 64mph. As a driver you can glance at your speedo and judge when it is around the 70mph mark, but how the hell can you refine that down to 64mp without taking yoir eyes off the road?
” Strange choice of 64 mph/103 kph. Why not 60 mph or 55mph and so on ”
There needs to be a substantial speed differential between the lorries at 56mph(ish) and smaller vehicles. Otherwise, the lorries tailgate the snaller vehicles.
Some posters will recall the halcyon days of a steady 100mph+ on various motorways / dual carriageways, perhaps up the A1 on summer evenings in the 1980s, slowing only where plod in his Rover V8 SD1 might be lurking on the slip road.
Yeah, those were the days when as long as you were below 80 mph under the bridges at motorway junctions you were fine at almost any speed up to 100 mph
The usual nonsense to solve a nonexistent problem
Move your business to South Carolina while the best sites are still available.
https://www.sccommerce.com/buildings-sites
‘The Government should consider cutting motorway speed limits to 64mph’
If they really cared, they’d make in 19mph.
‘MPs on the committee criticised a lack of plans by ministers to reduce pollution from transport, which accounts for 23 per cent of Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions.’
Are these the same MPs who emit pollution (sic) with every breath? Plotting your demise, while not even knowing WTF they are talking about?
I’d thank you for taking one for the team, but completely eliminating ’23 per cent of Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions’ will eliminate 0.00009 of the world’s ‘greenhouse gas emissions.’
Thanks for ε → 0.
“King’s/s’ (insert a name or names of your choice) new clothes” – on a tape loop; reminds me of “The Prisoner”….
Our MP is a knowingly “shill” supporter of the WHO/UN/WEF charade, with a very key role in demonstrably unethical, mendacious and immoral fact check trolling of professional people with counter narrative knowledge. Said MP will undoubtedly be rewarded post next election regardless if seat retained…very very disappointing that some constituents fallen for the tripe said MP parrots daily on many issues.
Basic question… I’ve always felt this must really be to do with oil and the Middle East. But if that is so, why are the Americans so keen on this nonsense when they have their own oil sources?
Evs excluded, right?
You will be required to drive behind a Tesla brandishing a Uniparty red flag in limp home mode.
As as railway enthusiast I deplore the self harm being done by the railway unions . Their position of strength as they see it justifies a full exercising of muscles when it comes to salary increases and the retention of some near obsolete practices. This negotiating strength is less compelling than in the past.
The decline in passenger numbers may have ceased for the time being: about 11% are said to rely on the railway for travel-to-work and about another 4% are leisure users. That 4% is discretionary and is time rich with the alternative of using more dependable coach services as we heard just before Christmas….or staying put.
The point worth making is that in a democracy persistent abuse of a majority tends to ensure a change of government. The majority who need and /or enjoy the convenience of private transport have yet to become a coherent threat to ‘virtuous’ governments. Will that continue?
Interesting question. I note that the likes of the AA are reasonably successful in mobilising opinion on petrol/diesel prices and get them reduced whilst other pressure groups have little effect on other energy prices i.e. gas. Oil products (excluding taxes) are now significantly cheaper per kWh than mains gas despite much higher production and supply costs.
Perhaps when more local authorities try copying the Oxford and Canterbury zoning limitation examples, people will start working in unison.
Green Nazis
Having experienced motorway speed restrictions during the “petro crisis” in 1970’s South Africa, all I can say about it is that (a) it saves very little fuel, and
(b) any long-ish drive (say the 55 Km between Johannesburg and Pretoria) becomes EXTREMELY boring! Since this was all on company time (and petrol), and I had a collection of tapes, it was little problem to me.
The Radio 4 presentation Rethink Climate by Amal Rajan at 9am every morning this week for 45 minutes on Climate Change, has been just a one sided nonsense with not a single alternative view so far, from a different panel of “believers” every day. Repeated at 9.30pm every night….. That is seven and a half hours of biased propaganda from one programme in one week. I will list the nonsense statements when the last programme finishes tomorrow and see if a complaint to the BBC is appropriate. Examples: “All Co2 in the sky is bad” : “Most of the Co2 in the atmosphere has come from rich countries” : ” We know that Solar, Wind and Electric Vehicles really work” etc etc etc
Gave up listening the the B*****it Broadcasting mob ages ago, as it does my blood pressure no good at all. My missus listens all day, so there’s sometimes no escape, and as far as I can tell, every programme manages to fit in some climate propaganda angle in the dialogue. It’s no good telling them they’re one-sided and biased – contrary to their Charter – they know, and they don’t care – it’s their stated policy not to allow dissenting voices any airtime….esp. after they allowed the sainted Lord Lawson in once by mistake.
Long live GB News and (a few) others!
” Long live GB News and (a few) others! ”
TalkRadio, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Mike Graham, although typical media types and therefore incapable of pursuing a logical argument to a logical conclusion: where is the proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change?
Stopped listening to the BBC several years ago. Even my wife can’t take the BBC climate BS anymore. She watches it for Eastenders and Strictly, otherwise no BBC in our house.
GB News for news. I do pick up on YouTube clips of Julia Hartley-Brewer occasionally – she is magnificent. It would be good for her to get slot on GB News methinks.
That really does require a complaint, on the obvious grounds that the solutions being discussed are not science but politics, and the BBC has a duty to present a wide variety of political opinion. In my view, this is the point we should crystallise around because to date, the BBC has got away with calling blatantly political choices “science”. But the basic choice of whether to do anything about climate change is political. If a proper campaign could force the BBC to stop its endless one-sided political propaganda, that would make a real difference.
Complaining will not have the slightest effect at best you will get a patronising reply.
It has all become an unchallengeable religious dogma which is drummed into children from all sides through schools and media we are into second generation of it now.
As one of my former Sales Managers once said…”giving a good service in this trade is like pi**ing yourself when wearing a dark suit – you get a nice warm feeling and n0-one else even notices” That to my mind sums up making formal complaints to The BBC…..
Not saying that we shouldn’t do it, mind – just saying…
Earlier in 2022 a Petition was started to suggest we needed a Referendum about Net Zero. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602. I am mightily reassured (NOT) by the Government Response…….. “Transitioning to net zero is not about telling people what to do or stopping people doing things;
it’s about giving them the support they need to do the same things they do now but in a more sustainable way.”
Correct, 4wd. Facts are useless against sanctimony. They stand on the moral mountaintop, in their minds.
bbc had an article ‘European weather: winter heat records smashed all over continent’, and a have your say section. Numerous scientists and zoologists were castigated for being CC deniers, I wrote in a reply ‘Susan Crockford is actually an expert regarding polar bears and has comprehensively debunked disinformation re their decline pushed by so called scientists, check out the purveyors of lies re polar bear decline and its not Susan Crockford’. they have removed my comment as it ‘apparently’ broke their house rules.
Dissent, Denial and alternate views will NOT be allowed.
We are in a very strange place indeed. Never mind stopping the privatisation of Channel 4, the BBC should be buried. Charter, what charter, its criminal.
It is going ever deeper. Lots of (probably most) will regularly refer to Wikipedia for basic/initial guide information. Next you do (if you do) look at the links section and see how a remarkably high number refer to articles that appeared in The Guardian.
Now why would that be?
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jimmy-wales
Now try amending a Wikipedia article to take out a Guardian reference…impossible.
Ray, any sort of worthwhile push-back against the mainstream BS requires sensible discussion, organisation, a marshalling of resources etc etc. Any thoughts on that? Surely there must be well-reasoned, right-thinking groups/communities out there wishing to make a stand…
I have just listened to the last 45 minute episode of Rethink: The Climate on Radio 4 this morning at 9am, repeated tonight at 9.30pm. Lord Biden Chair of the CCC repeated the misinformation that the floods in Pakistan, (caused by rich countries….) covered one third of the country. This was not questioned by the interviewer. I thought that the BBC had already officially apologised for this same statement being made previously after complaints..??
How far into the episode is that clip?
Hi Paul The Lord Biden comment that “poor Pakistan had one third of it’s Nation underwater…..” is at exactly 16 minutes into the programme. He starts talking at 13min 44 secs. Available on BBC Sounds. “Rethink Climate:Leadership” recorded from Friday 6th January. There are many very interesting and I would think incorrect statements made by the entire politically correct list of Guests over the four programmes which started on Monday. More from Lord Biden too I would suggest.
What a load of nonsense from the climate death cult… when all the people breath in 400 ppm and breath out 40,000 ppm…. surely if CO2 is warming the planet then we should be celebrating the end of ice ages…. times running out for this inter-glacial….
I have spoken with Susan… she is a star and they have been hounding her and trying to end her career.
“resilient enough so that we are never again so vulnerable to the whims of brutal and autocratic regimes.”
Classic deflection! What you really mean is autocratic and brutal ideologgs like the Gween Party and all the rest of the bad actors who conspired to bring us to this ridiculous own goal!
Scratch a liberal and you’ll find a fascist.
I thought at first this was another joke, then I realised it has a serious purpose.
Raise revenue from speeding fines
Get everyone used to not being mobile by rendering cars useless for anything but short journeys
Don’t complain because it is all to save the leetle cheeldren of the future.
Next thing we will need aman with a red flag and sbell to walk in front
I despair, we clearly have a bunch of wets in this committee with no idea how the Uk’s economy works. We need the climate Change Committee to be disbanded and the climate change act repealed before the UK Economy is destroyed by these clowns.
“23% of Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions”. Now which ones would they be ?
Note how the Commons environmental audit select committee make a recommendation, while the government implement policy?
Government will say ‘we’re following guidance from the CEASC’.
The select committee will say ‘we just make recommendations, it’s up to government to implement policy.’
Each will hide behind the other as an ‘authority’ to avoid being directly held to account.
Life in our country is being immiserated by these idiotic eco-clowns.
Cut motorway speed limit to 64mph
And struggle to overtake HGVs, causing endless tailbacks. Brilliant 🙄
There is a term in economics “perverse incentives”, this green infestation of political policy has a large dose of it.
Most of the media creates a false narrative.
The European snow season is far from being a climate disaster, and anyway the snow will return to the lower level runs with recent warm weather, very rapidly in all probability.
It’s like when the media reports from a mountain in Scotland to show the snow and reports -15C in a snowy highland glen, everyone in Oz, USA etc. gets a completely false idea of how the UK winter is really going.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-11602363/The-ski-resorts-world-snow.html
If you lower the speed limit, the length of time is longer for any trip, that will mean more cars will be closer together, this will increase congestion, slowing the traffic down even more and stop and go will increase, deceleration and acceleration will increase, accidents will increase, the result will be much more fuel spent going nowhere, electric car charging stations will be overwhelmed, the power grid, to power charging stations will fail.
Give this madness a try. I recall the 55 limit in the US during the fuel shortages in the 70s, that was a very unpleasant time to travel. Many people get really mean when they must drive slower than reasonable.
Idiotic suggestion to cut speed limit. It would be a lot more useful to INCREASE the motorway speed limits to more than the current half the design speed. Even better, restore “unrestricted”. That would go a long way to removing the congestion on motorways.
Herewith list of participants attending the BBC in 2006 to decide that the climate “science”is “settled” and that it will not accept anybody onto their programmes who refute this bogus science.
http://omnologos.com/2012/11/12/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/
Greta video of David Kurten, Leader of the Heritage Party, in an earlier comment posted by Douglas Dragonfly on what the N a zi outfit, the WEF, has in store for us and espoused by the Global Parliament of Mayors. Democracy in the process of being sidelined and all but destroyed. Pitch forks to the fore!
Their utopia is our nightmare.
Here in Wales, Mr Drakeford has already imposed 50mph speed limits on the M4 and other major roads to cut down pollution.
We haven’t imported any gas from Russia since last March. Our last substantive import of oil was 106,000 tonnes of diesel in June.
DUKES 2021 spreadsheet puts total petroleum imports from Russia as 8,806K tonnes
out of a total of 66,405K
That’s about 13%
Higher than I expected
Why 64 — go for 55!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Can't_Drive_55
Surely if we cut motorway speed limit to 63.5mph, the savings will be even greater?
I vote we all go backwards
This is just some guff from the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) made up of a group of very Green-leaning MPs. The committee was created (including the misused word ‘audit’ in the title), presumably at the request of ‘Big Green UK’, as part of a promise to do so in Labour’s 1997 General election manifesto.
Bishop Hill once said of the EAC back in 2013:
“The Environmental Audit Committee is rather like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, being entirely uninterested in auditing anything. It’s an environmentalist talking shop with greens taking “evidence” from greens and concluding that more greenery is required to green the planet.”
I’ve always thought myself that this committee is a consequence of the UK’s FPTP (first past the post) voting system. The sort of MPs that are going to join the EAC would probably join the Green party if we had PR (proportional representation) voting, but because of FPTP they infiltrate the main political parties.
Most car speedometers over read by about 10%. 64 mph miraculously becomes an indicated 70 so it’s not actually that hard to adhere. As enforcement begins at 10% + 3, more recently 2, no one doing an indicated 70 even with a perfectly accurate speedo would ever be penalised. That’s why they picked 64.
The 10% + 2 mph is no longer the basis of speeding or giving a benefit of the doubt margin.
See my comment upthread. I was sent to a re-education course for 34 in a 30 mph zone. We were told police will take action even at 1 mph over and the old adage of 10%+2 has not been guidance for many years.
What saves most people is the approx 10% over read as you note.
They will do it for one KILOMETRE per hour. I know many people with tickets for 91 kph in a 90 kph zone.
Speed limits outside traditional 30 mph zones / 50 kph zones have always been about revenue raising.
>>police will take action even at 1 mph
With the quality of thinking behind this report in mind one can but despair. Not a single query about the Stupidity of “NET ZERO EMISSIONS “ to be found.
What about last year’s PAC study which said that Net Zero is impossible and neither the civil service nor the private sector have the skills to deliver it?
This whole climate cult nonsense needs to stop… its not science its fantasy of the brainwashed and mentally challenged.
” … its fantasy of the brainwashed and mentally challenged.”
That’s a description of a religion.