Mayor of London wants zero transport emissions by 2050

[UNCjigga]

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/21/london-pollution-free-transport-system-2050/

Interesting article I saw over on Engadget this morning.

To summarize:

• London mayor Sadiq Khan unveils 'Transport Strategy' for public consultation and comment--would make London's entire transport system zero emission by 2050.
• Various intermediate goals: 0-emission taxis and Ubers by 2033, buses by 2037, all remaining road vehicles by 2040 (incl. privately owned?)
• "Incentives" (read: taxes) to promote walking, cycling, public transport use vs. car journeys--every mile driven within city limits may be logged by technology so that you can be billed.

This is all being proposed to combat climate change, improve air quality, and promote "healthier lifestyles".

As interesting as this "moonshot" is, I also find the comments on the original article quite illuminating--it seems a lot of people (and not all Londoners or English citizens) seem to think that the Mayor shouldn't be setting such lofty goals when the threat of terror looms!

I wonder, how many people thought JFK was nuts for going to the moon when faced with the threat of nuclear war?

 

[sandorski]

These goals are not that "lofty". Just look how much progress has been made in the last 17 years, another 16 will only see an acceleration of these changes.

 

[HomerJS]

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/21/london-pollution-free-transport-system-2050/

Interesting article I saw over on Engadget this morning.

To summarize:

• London mayor Sadiq Khan unveils 'Transport Strategy' for public consultation and comment--would make London's entire transport system zero emission by 2050.
• Various intermediate goals: 0-emission taxis and Ubers by 2033, buses by 2037, all remaining road vehicles by 2040 (incl. privately owned?)
• "Incentives" (read: taxes) to promote walking, cycling, public transport use vs. car journeys--every mile driven within city limits may be logged by technology so that you can be billed.

This is all being proposed to combat climate change, improve air quality, and promote "healthier lifestyles".

As interesting as this "moonshot" is, I also find the comments on the original article quite illuminating--it seems a lot of people (and not all Londoners or English citizens) seem to think that the Mayor shouldn't be setting such lofty goals when the threat of terror looms!

I wonder, how many people thought JFK was nuts for going to the moon when faced with the threat of nuclear war?

Leaders set goals. Some here will ignore that

 

[dainthomas]

Sounds like a great idea, and the way humanity needs to move into the future.

Given that, tRump will probably twit something idiotic about it.

 

[J.Wilkins]

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/21/london-pollution-free-transport-system-2050/

Interesting article I saw over on Engadget this morning.

To summarize:

• London mayor Sadiq Khan unveils 'Transport Strategy' for public consultation and comment--would make London's entire transport system zero emission by 2050.
• Various intermediate goals: 0-emission taxis and Ubers by 2033, buses by 2037, all remaining road vehicles by 2040 (incl. privately owned?)
• "Incentives" (read: taxes) to promote walking, cycling, public transport use vs. car journeys--every mile driven within city limits may be logged by technology so that you can be billed.

This is all being proposed to combat climate change, improve air quality, and promote "healthier lifestyles".

As interesting as this "moonshot" is, I also find the comments on the original article quite illuminating--it seems a lot of people (and not all Londoners or English citizens) seem to think that the Mayor shouldn't be setting such lofty goals when the threat of terror looms!

I wonder, how many people thought JFK was nuts for going to the moon when faced with the threat of nuclear war?

This isn't a very lofty goal at all, really. Taxis would make a killing on going electrical today and will probably just shift the dying fleet towards electrical. Same with buses.

People don't really drive more than absolutely necessary in London as it is and for a good reason.

I don't really understand what this has to do with terrorism but some people are just scared all the time and can think of nothing else I suppose.

 

[Roflmouth]

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/21/london-pollution-free-transport-system-2050/

Interesting article I saw over on Engadget this morning.

To summarize:

• London mayor Sadiq Khan unveils 'Transport Strategy' for public consultation and comment--would make London's entire transport system zero emission by 2050.
• Various intermediate goals: 0-emission taxis and Ubers by 2033, buses by 2037, all remaining road vehicles by 2040 (incl. privately owned?)
• "Incentives" (read: taxes) to promote walking, cycling, public transport use vs. car journeys--every mile driven within city limits may be logged by technology so that you can be billed.

This is all being proposed to combat climate change, improve air quality, and promote "healthier lifestyles".

As interesting as this "moonshot" is, I also find the comments on the original article quite illuminating--it seems a lot of people (and not all Londoners or English citizens) seem to think that the Mayor shouldn't be setting such lofty goals when the threat of terror looms!

I wonder, how many people thought JFK was nuts for going to the moon when faced with the threat of nuclear war?

In case you needed any more evidence that the mayor of London is an imbecile.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Going greener shouldn't be a problem as long as security is also a focus for London, so the roadmap looks attainable. However, the mayor should also set a roadmap on working with all of the mosques in London so they begin monitoring for possible extremists that are hiding in their local areas and have them reported as soon as possible.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Too much crabbing about two things unconnected to the other. Environmental goals and policing.

 

[Atreus21]

Reminds me of Mitch Landrieu.

We may have had more murders in New Orleans in a year than the whole of South America in that time, but dammit we got those civil war monuments taken down. So at least some people will be slightly less offended when they pop a cap in an ass.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Reminds me of Mitch Landrieu.

We may have had more murders in New Orleans in a year than the whole of South America in that time, but dammit we got those civil war monuments taken down. So at least some people will be slightly less offended when they pop a cap in an ass.

Needs more tears and whining.

 

[Atreus21]

Needs more tears and whining.

Well you can go to the Georgia special election thread if you like.

 

[Triloby]

Those goals aren't exactly "lofty" to meet. He's talking about reducing transport emissions within London down to zero by 2050. That's actually a reasonable goal to set, considering they have at least 30 years or more to get there. And this is the City of London we're talking about. The majority of people who live or work there get around by bus, cycling, walking, taxis, or by using the London Metro.

Also, if people are going to complain about the terrorism problem in London, then maybe they should yell at Theresa May for cutting down the police force by about 20,000 officers. But they're probably never going to admit to that.

 

[K1052]

Reminds me of Mitch Landrieu.

We may have had more murders in New Orleans in a year than the whole of South America in that time, but dammit we got those civil war monuments taken down. So at least some people will be slightly less offended when they pop a cap in an ass.

IIRC, something like 10k annual deaths are attributed to transport pollution in London.

Polllution kills people, just not as dramatically as murder.

 

[sandorski]

Reminds me of Mitch Landrieu.

We may have had more murders in New Orleans in a year than the whole of South America in that time, but dammit we got those civil war monuments taken down. So at least some people will be slightly less offended when they pop a cap in an ass.

Gun Control.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Well you can go to the Georgia special election thread if you like.

Are you whining and crying there as well?

 

[Commodus]

Reminds me of Mitch Landrieu.

We may have had more murders in New Orleans in a year than the whole of South America in that time, but dammit we got those civil war monuments taken down. So at least some people will be slightly less offended when they pop a cap in an ass.

You're exhibiting the same problem as the commenters in that news story: that strange notion that somehow government can only ever do one thing at a time. You can fight crime and take down monuments, just as you can reduce emissions and fight terrorism; those actions are not mutually exclusive.

 

[WelshBloke]

IIRC, something like 10k annual deaths are attributed to transport pollution in London.

Polllution kills people, just not as dramatically as murder.

Yup. Not seeing how people are missing this.

 

[WelshBloke]

In case you needed any more evidence that the mayor of London is an imbecile.

Nice argument there you constructed about why it's bad to aim for low pollution levels in a major city.

 

[Blackjack200]

I wonder, how many people thought JFK was nuts for going to the moon when faced with the threat of nuclear war?

Wasn't the whole point of the space program to develop rocket technology for ICBMs?

 

[UNCjigga]

Wasn't the whole point of the space program to develop rocket technology for ICBMs?

They definitely went hand in hand, but ICBMs had nothing to do with launching people into lunar orbit.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Wasn't the whole point of the space program to develop rocket technology for ICBMs?

No, the apollo program was for prestige, to beat the russians to the moon.

Would be interesting to see what could be achieved with similar r&d spending these days, but not going to happen in the current political climate.

 

[theeedude]

Meanwhile, Trump is chasing coal power.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Meanwhile, Trump is chasing coal power.

Coal powered rockets?

 

[J.Wilkins]

Going greener shouldn't be a problem as long as security is also a focus for London, so the roadmap looks attainable. However, the mayor should also set a roadmap on working with all of the mosques in London so they begin monitoring for possible extremists that are hiding in their local areas and have them reported as soon as possible.

The Mosques have been monitored for years and it's not the Mayor who makes the calls on those things at all.

Again, what the hell does terrorism have to do with this? Is it OK to talk about other things than terrorism or do we need to be scared shitless 24/7 and only talk about terrorism? It's not going to happen in England, we refuse to bow to the terrorists and give them what they wanted to accomplish.

 

[DrunkenSano]

The Mosques have been monitored for years and it's not the Mayor who makes the calls on those things at all.

I'm not talking about monitoring. I'm talking about interacting directly and getting those in the Mosques involved. That is the only way we can make headway against the extremists, is to bring in those that believe in Islam the way it is supposed to be represented, not warped and twisted by those who wish to inspire terror and massacre innocents. The moderates have to actively work with the authorities so prevent extremists from striking. The mayor is involved because this has to start on a local level and the mayor is probably the best representative to initiate talks with the Muslims in their respective communities.

As for terrorism not involved in what the mayor announced, it wasn't but it is involved with the case that the OP brought forth. It looks like the people are more concerned about short term issues like extremists and terrorism than long term issues. My post was supporting the fact that the long term goals are just as valid but so are short term goals. Both should be at the forefront, not just one.