I'm afraid I find it hard to take seriously the contrarians from the RCP.

I'd rather read a genuine discussion about the scientific debate than the ramblings of adherents of a discredited ideology.



Why are you be against the rationing and/or taxing of air travel?

I recommend you read the IPCC report summary, which can be found here - http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

I cant read that IPCC report barmyrob, (I only got one O level and a few CSE's )
No really, that's just too much for me.

It was a bit unfortunate that you started off this thread using the word 'contrarians' the way you did though.
(Although they might well be that.)

About taxing air travel, I'd ask how much are you going to have to tax it to make a real difference? Before people realise they can't afford to fly to Pakistan to visit their relatives, and see the country their parents came from? Or before the barmy army can't afford to go Down Under for the Ashes (or out to the Caribbean for the world cup?)
I'm affraid I used to hang about with those contrarians, and thought they were the best political outfit in the UK.

So, not being able to understand the science in that report, and watching this green band wagon really get going, (where the people who are most into it, are also likely to be anti-vivisection and anti-progress), my natural reaction would be to ask: is it ethical to censor climate change deniers?

But joking aside, have a listen to this weeks Moral Maze. Claire Fox (ex RCP) questions George Monbiot, and tells us that he once said flying was akin to child abuse. (And he doesn't deny it )

who is censoring climate change deniers? The RCP people love to go on and on about that - but they are wrong - the climate change contrarian/deniers industry has been well funded for years and often gets it's spurious science printed in the mainstream press - did not Channel 4 just put out their documentary?

Well - I am not anti-vivisection, and I am not anti-progress. You have been listening far too much to these RCP people - they will tell you that HItler was a vegetarian therefore all environmentalists are Nazi's.


As for flying - if we want to avert serious climate change then we are all going to have to cut down, and yes that does mean lesss travel for all. Sorry but if the choice is sea level rises of several metres or giving England fans the opportunity to fly to Australia to watch cricket then I'm afraid I have no qualms in saying they should just watch it on the telly.

And football fans shouldn't go to see their team if they can't walk or ride a bike there I suppose.

My niece is off to Yucatan for a couple of months soon, to do a Spanish course (and to party, no doubt).
Her mum and her sister want to come out and visit when she's there. What should I do? Tell her to cancel, and do a course in England?
And I would like to hear what the procedure for this rationing would be. Ban gap years for young people?
Or just make travel so expensive that only the rich can aford to fly. Just like in the good old days when Whicker's World first came on TV. It seemed so exotic. The 'jet set' could fly down to Franco's spain and have the place to themselves, (before the great unwashed all turned up and ruined it).

How much would you slap on a £500 fight to Australia? Come on, lets hear it.

The thing about 'is it ethical to censor climate change deniers' is just a joke really. (I think it's funny anyway). But there are some people who really have it in for what was the RCP, as you can see if you google their name, or living marxism. (I've noticed the word 'contrarian' used about them by others too).
And as far as I can think of, the only people they ever called Nazi's were people who looked like this.

barmyrob is a bunny killer

I'm all for taxing airfares. I'm a frequent flyer I guess, and that's only because it's the cheapest option available.
As stated before: it's cheaper for me to fly to london, than it is for Beryl, who lives in south england, to go to London by train.

Why's that? Because the airlines can pollute the skies for free. The cost of this pollution is now spread over everybody in the form of climate change. I think it's much farer that the ones polluting should pay for it. Simple as that.

Increasing the plane prices would reduce the amount of trips people make by plane, which is good for the environment.

It would also make the train cheaper, so more people would take the train instead of the plane, another good thing for our environment.

For me personally: I would take the car/boat option to the uk instead of the plane if the prices would rise.

I am taking planes now because for the money, they are more convenient. If that convenience comes with a higher price, I switch.

I personally don't agree with having my choice of how & where I travel limited by a knee-jerk reaction by the airlines and government to tax air travel, when large manufaturing corporation (and countries) are free to polute the atmosphere on a 24x7 basis and get away with it.

Fair enough, so let's tax them too!

In all fairness, in Holland I can't think of an industry that's exempt (sp?) from polluters tax. Car owners pay 18 pence extra 'environment tax' for their fuel (for every liter), most industries pay big bucks for their waste desposal. Only the frequent flyer is not yet taxed so his time has come.

Get the bus? I don't understand your point?



I hope your niece has a nice time.

As far as rationing flying goes, I simply say that we have to reduce our emissions of CO2. If we do not the consequences are are potentially devastating. Climate models indicate that if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, by the middle of the century the world could reach a level of warmth not seen since the peak of the last interglacial period, around 125,000 years ago. At that time, sea levels were around 4 – 6m greater than today. It this were to happen I think your niece's children will experience a very different one to the life that she took for granted.

We all have to think about the consequences of our actions. Unfortunately I can't see that consciousness of the consequences is going to be enough to stop many people so cost is going to have to be the determining factor.

When I took my gap year I went interrailing rather than a round-the-world trip. Maybe today's kids would look at that option if the cost of flying were to increase.



One of the things about air travel which is most annoying the gross distortion of the travel market. Unlike other transportation methods airlines pay no tax on their fuel. Frankly they should. And they should also be prevented from being able to subsidise flights from tax-payers money - many regional development organisations, for example, pay airlines to fly to their areas - this is one of the ways that have allowed budget airlines to flourish - it is a distortion of the market!

So just a level playing field would be a start.



I don't think anyone is saying we should censor climate change deniers. As for the RCP - no I don't like them - they are a bunch of wankers.

And in Durkin's documentary Against Nature (the first documentary Ch4 was ever forced to issue an apology about) Durkin explicitly linked environmentalism with Nazism. It is well known that the RCP hate the green movement but there criticisms are based on ideology not on evidence - they are idiots.



I have no idea what you mean by this - are you calling me a cunt?

I object to this claim that environmentalists are anti-vivisection (a term I'd like to replace with 'pro-disease') and anti-progress. Perhaps it's just because half the people I know are scientists, but the people I know who are in favour of serious moves to tackle global warming are rational scientists who base their opinions on the fact that it's happening, and the fact that it will have serious consequences.

It's a great shame that you, and no doubt many others, lump all environmentalists and environmental issues together just because some "new age" morons in the environmentalist movement base their entire ethical system on the naturalistic fallacy, live in the woods, and treat things like animal rights and genetic engineering as black and white issues.

Is it anti-progress to want better tele-communication technologies to enable e-conferences and reduce the need for travel? Or to be favour of the development of better small scale renewable generators? We spend so much money each year maintaining sewage systems and on sewage treatment; perhaps it was "anti-progress" to ban people from throwing their sewage in the streets?

You treat the idea of asking people to cycle to football matches is absurd. Take a couple more absurd situations: (1) Driving your vehicle has zero long term consequences (2) Driving your vehicle will kill 500 people within ten years and require government intervention to control the consequences, requiring spending of public money. In situation 1 it would be absurd to force you to ride your bike. In situation 2 it would be absurd not to. The real situation lies somewhere in between, sufficiently towards situation 2 to question whether your right to drive that vehicle (or to see a live game of cricket) outweighs the rights of those it affects.

We tend to believe that we should try to control ourselves when our actions affect others, and intervening when we can't do that is pretty much the point of governments and legal systems.

Call you a c**t? Why would I do that?
I should perhaps leave my little (lame) 'jokes' out of it, as it's easy to get misread on here.
It was you saying you were not against vivisection that that was a reference to. A subject the forum has probably discussed on here in the past, and I would imagine it would have been a very contentious issue.

I've said the science is difficult to understand, and I'd probably go along with mainstream opinion on global warming, but it's not a bad thing to keep an open mind on things. But I can't see that much difference being made if a few western countries make travel so expensive that the number of flights from Britain (for example) fell by 10%. To even keep world co2 output the same would be next to impossible, unless technology can come to the rescue and we find a different sort of fuel. And maybe the klf had a point when he said that immigration into the USA had the effect of pushing up carbon levels. In the States they now have exurbs, which are suburbs beyond the suburbs. The urban sprawl has be astounding. And it's all based around the car. The population of the states went up 30 million between the 1990 census and the one in 2000, from 251 to 281 million, and now it's at 300 million. And people who emigrate go home to see their families regularly. I would have thought the future of travel was for it to just keep increasing.

I'd like to hear what the possibilites for development of the third world are. How can they have their living standards raised and not increase their carbon output? Or will the likes of Uganda and Tanzania be given a more generous 'quota' as they have so much catching up to do?

As for your opinions on the RCP, that's fair enough. They were always very unpopular with the rest of the left. And I can see why an article like this would wind some people up.
But going out on the street during the Falklands war, and selling their papers with ''Victory to Argentina'' on them, was I think a pretty principled position to take. (That was some years before I knew of them).

Yes Joe I take your points. And I don't have a problem with any of it.
I was being flipant or dumb saying that enviromentalists were more likely to be anti-vivisection.
It's just that people who are anti-vivisection seem to think it's a progressive cause when it isn't.
There was a guy on Andrew Neil's programme last week who was talking about public protests.
He said that these days, the people you see protesting about things are as likely to be white guys with drealocks who turn up with juggling skittles, as left wing people. Maybe I had that picture in my mind when I wrote that.

One last thing, I agree with Clive James and I think even George Monbiot who wrote in the Guardian yesterday, moving the Olympics to a new city every time is wasteful. Stuff the London Olympics I say.

There are said to be 7,000 England football fans going to Tel Aviv this week.
Celtic brought about 60,000 to Seville a couple of years ago. Tell them they can't go and they won't be happy.

I think that just about sums them up - victory to the fascist military junta!!!!!

Bizarre people!!!!

I agree the problem is not just Britain's - but that doesn't give us an excuse to do nothing. Indeed - I'd be extremely proud if we'd take a lead - but I see no evidence of it - Brown's budget today did very little. A wasted opportunity.

Yes we do need new technology - much of it already exists - what we need is the political will to stand up to the car manufacturers, airlines and oil companies etc and tell them enough is enough.

People that emigrated to the US in the 19th Century left behind their old world for a new, without much chance of returning - maybe's today's immigrants will have to learn to do the same - although with modern communications technology they can easily remain in contact.



Well under Kyoto they aren't included. Sustainable development is the answer.

With out getting side tracked too much, I believe this is a pretty sound leftist position to take when YOUR (imperialist) country is at war with a weaker country. It's not so much as supporting the other country, but being against your own. Just like Americans should have not concerned themselves with Ireland for all these years, but been against the US stance to Cuba. Whether it was led by Castro or not.
I was watching a bit of the Woodstock CD last night. Country Joe McDonald had the right mood. When he sang ''1, 2, 3 - what are we fighting for'' he was being very subversive, and young guys in the crowd were getting it, and stood up and sang it too. Chanting the name of Ho Chi Minh on marches in the US was the right thing to do.

And if Durkin used the term enviro-Nazi's or something, that's nothing to do with the RCP lot.

What should petrol cost in the UK? If it was £1 a litre and it was to be the same in the USA, I work it out that a US gallon (3.79 litres) would cost about $7.40 a gallon. (Plus whack them with the eqivelent of our congestion charge, another $15 a day just to get in your car).
I'm not being contrarian here, just trying to put some numbers on it.
To deter travelling football fans from flying, you'd have to tripple the prices. Celtic fans were paying hundreds of quid to get match tickets in Seville.

I find that a bizarre view. The Falkland Islands (and more importantly the islanders themselves) were/are British.

My recollection is that Argentina, ruled by a fascist military junta, invaded them.

Now whilst I think the war was unneccesary, nay wrong - I find that supporting the fascists to be a rather peculiar decision. Especially for suppossed communists.





Really?

Eve Kaye, was one of the principal coordinators of the RCP was a producer on the programme.

Frank Furedi, previously known as Frank Richards, a regular LM columnist and John Gillott, who was LM's science correspondent, were both given on-screen interviews billed as independent experts!

I don't know what the numbers would be. But I do know that we need to cut CO2 emissions by 60-80% in the next 20 years or so. And that will only prevent catastrophic global warming - it wont mitigate the warming that has already happened and that will continue to happen while the reductions are made.

And that probably isn't even enough. I believe the idea of personal carbon allowances to be a good one - that we should be able to have personal carbon trading. So if that Celtic fan is desperate to go and watch the match they can go - but they will either have to buy extra carbon allowances or reduce carbon use somewhere else. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_carbon_trading)

There are also a lot of simple fixes that would work to reduce personal carbon emissions - for instance if the 70mph limit on motorways was properly enforced then that would reduce UK carbon emissions by 3.5 million tonnes of Carbon per year! And if the limit was actually reduced to 60mph that would be doubled to 7 mtC! (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article609588.ece).

Why not go the whole hog & make someone talk in front of every car with a red flag. My answer sounds as though I'm being silly but all I'm doing is taking the argument to it's logical conclusion. Mankind has invented the car which is a very good way of getting about. What we have to do is find away of replacing the car with another method of transport that's better. One way could be to find a more 'eco friendly' form of propultion ... & I don't mean batteries which obviously aren't the answer.

If I want to go from a to b why shouldn't I. Oh I forgot we've got to save the world. ... but no one mentions this when production of HP sauce is moved to Holland or shoes are imported from China.

One good idea could be to provide Britain with a cheap & reliable publiuc transport system. The current standard return fare from Manchester to London is over £200 (Two HUNDRED). The railways are thinking of stopping people using 'cheap' fares immediately after 9:00 because the tains are so crowded. Since Maggie altered the busses there's a very poor service after 6. I lived in the Socialist Republic Of South Yorks in the 70's when the busses got cheaper & cheaper as busfares weren't raised when inflation was rampant. The result was that busses were packed. The downside was that the rateswere high to pare for the low fares. The Tory government decided this waswrong. As a result traffic in Sheffield increased by above 20% overnight.

Sorry if thishas been a rant, but the eco-warriors want to go backwards where human kind has to go forward if it isn't to fade away.

That's the fuel price over here more or less. It's a lot, but in order to combat the adverse environmental effects of driving (not just the co2, but over here there's a big focus on air quality that is really poor due to exhaust fumes), that money is needed.
They use it to subsidize low emission cars. You get a 1000 euro subsidy on a prius, or any other car that's below a certain emission. I think that's great.

Well yes - as you say public transport is one way (I personally think there should be a Europe-wide fast rail network for passengers and freight - if we can go from London-Paris in under 3 hours why isn't it being extended to all European capitals?).

And there are already different methods of propulsion - hydrogen works just fine - as long as you produce it in a sustaianable way there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to move towards a hydrogen economy.



Well there are some tree huggers out there who want to see an end to progress but they are in a tiny minority even among environmentalists.

Most environmentalists have been talking about technological fixes that can solve many of our problems but unfortunately the oil economy has had too powerful a lobby - although that might just be changiing.

Most of the fixes already exist - from zero carbon homes to carbon sequestration - all it needs is political will.

I know who those three people you mentioned are barmyrob, even though I had to look one of them up on sourcewatch, as she had a different name back then. They were all members of the RCP, which only used the word 'Nazi' to describe that particular political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945.
If they have used it more widely since, I don't know. I certainly wouldn't.
Taking an anti-British stance might not have been right in your eyes, but at the time, the rallying to the flag, and jingoism for war (which was also rife in Argentina) was the worst thing that could be happening at the time. Those were the days of the ''GOTCHA'' Sun headlines, and the crowds of 'patriots' waving the ships off to battle from Portsmouth. How much harm came from that victory?
(And oddly enough, it was the defeat of Argentianian nationalism that lead to the downfall of the fascist junta).
Don't support your own side is a general left position as far as I'm aware, (unless of course, it is really fighting the good fight.)

And if £1 a litre equals about US$7.40 a gallon, why not stick on an extra 25% green tax, so that you get the All American $10 gallon?
I'm not joking too much, it's only an extra 25%. How would you like that people in the States?
I would imagine that that is the kind of tax needed to make a difference. And maybe reintroducing the 55mph speed limit.

Err... actually I think you'll find that is EXACTLY what people complain about or are you completely out of touch with the environmental movement? Things don't fit into nice little boxes - a great deal of environmentalists are big supporters of the labour/anti-sweatshop movement and vice versa.

So you want to get from "a to b" - well guess what? The whole world isn't here just so you get to do that - how about you get off your arse occasionally and walk rather than use your car? Its really not that hard.

fuck the forum, it ate my reply

I am not saying you would. But I am saying that the 1997 Against Nature documentary did - and ex RCP and RCP/LM contributors and sympathisers were very much a part of that project.



It is perfectly possible to be disgusted by jingoism, to disagree with the war AND still not find it necessary to support a fascist military junta.

As for the left not supporting your own side - that might be true of the RCP, but not part of what I know of English socialism - George Orwell was, long before the political mainstream, a virulent anti-Nazi and the Labour Party was a solid part of the War government under Churchill.



Sounds good to me

''Keep politics out of science - and vice versa'' says this article. Barmyrob has no time for these people, but I think they say some good things on all kinds of issues. (Although this particular subject is so complex that it's not so easy.)

But this article in the Times today, (by the former Spiked editor) is much more straight foreward.
Green-eyed fools should buzz off it says.

Edited to add: no barmyrob, I'm not calling you a green-eyed fool (before you ask) - but that figure of 3,000 children dying every day from malaria is not something to make politics about. If DDT works, then it should be used.

And, a ''Victory to Argentina'' headline on some poxy little leftie paper in Britain back then, was aimed at British people coming out of Sainsbury's on a saturday morning, rather than giving succour to fascists in Argentina.

Actually thanks for this Damon. I think this article proves my point exactly. The (ex)RCP are inherently anti-green. Hume cant even find a green group that has come out against GM mosquitos, but he manages to say they are anyway.

"Anti-malarial GM mosquitoes remain a distant prospect. Yet already The Times has to report that any such innovation “would prove controversial with environmental groups”." - Total supposition.

original times article here - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...icle1539891.ece.

Keep politics out of science... sure. Vice-versa... Science "in" politics can mean at least two things:
1. Science being abused to push a partisan issue that isn't relevant, or isn't supported by the science in question.
2. Science (alongside economics, and all the other issues involved) informing law makers as to the problems that need solving and the best solutions available.

If the issue in the article linked to was of the first sort I would have no problem with it. But as far as I can see, the article is arguing that climate change is something that we should sit back and allow scientists to study, not a problem that needs solving. The article is just bizarre. It's saying: yes, we're altering the climate, and yes, it may well be catastrophic, but that's no excuse for politicians to do something about it!

As for the "help, help, I'm being oppressed" section of the article, I hardly think the proposals currently on the table can be described as "illiberal and repressive political measures." Generally, laws prohibiting things are not illiberal and repressive because the point of them is to prevent people wilfully harming or burdening others. And most of the proposals aren't even about prohibiting things, they're merely asking people who choose to harm/burdon others by contributing more than necessary to climate change to pay a slightly more proportionate amount of money for that luxuary.

It may be a bad thing that we have to cut down on foreign travel, but as far as I'm concerned it's no more illiberal to force such behaviour* through taxation and rationing than it is illiberal that law abiding people drinking in healthy moderation have to pay a tax on alcohol that is justified by the fact that alcohol leads some people to be a burden on the police and the NHS.

* I haven't seen the data, so I'm not willing to make a judgement in the argument about whether foreign travel is a major issue. I'm skeptical of the claim because there are plenty of scientific illiterates in the environmental movement who don't have a clue what they're talking about, but I'm skeptical of the skeptics, simply because there is a far more obvious vested interest on that side.

I have no problem with the Spiked people being slagged off, that's what debate is. I only put their stuff in to show that there are different opinions on this kind of thing. If there weren't any counter arguments to anything it would be a dull old world.

How much new transport infrastructure would have to be built to make a big dent in the number of car journeys being made?
Renewing the West Coast main line cost a fortune. How many new lines like that would be needed to reduce car journeys on the motorways by a third? And how many trains would have to be on those lines?
A London to Manchester train every five minutes. Would that do it?

In the States taking busses across the big suburban sprawl of cities is a bit of an expedition. It can take ages to get anywhere, and you soon realise that alot of the people who take busses are to poor to run a car.

Even in a relatively linier conorbation like the one in Wasington state that runs north/south 60 miles from Tacoma to Everett (with Seattle in the middle) it would be a real challenge to get cars off the interstate.
Because even though the Seattle area gets congested in the rush hours, the I-5 interstate works.
Usually you can speed down it for 30 miles, then get off on some main east/west road for a while, a left and a right and you're home. Using public transport would make a lot of these complicated journeys very difficult.

The very problem with the Spiked/LM/RCP people is that they are NOT interested in debate, only in their own twisted libertarian ideology.



You are looking at the problem in the wrong way. The answer is not to try and travel as much as we have been - passenger miles are increasing year on year - using technology to make it less damaging. The answer is to travel LESS.

We need to stop building out-of-town shopping centres and start rejuvenating town centres. With so many jobs relying on IT and with broadband technology - more and more people can spend at least some of their working week working from home. As already discussed we need to stop believing it is our right to be able to jump on a cheap flight to spend a weekend a thousand miles from home - let's invest in local tourism. All ofthese things reduce the need for new infrastructure.

It will be good if people don't HAVE to travel so much for work, because of technology and better planned cities. I'm sure most of the people stuck in traffic would rather be doing something else.
But I don't think a video conference Thanksgiving dinner is going to beat the real thing - when family members all meet up for a special day, having travelled by all means of transport to get there.

Also, you're not going to unmake urban sprawl any time soon. Those exurbs in the US (and Canada and Australia), are facts on the ground. Being coppied by China and India right now. Taking long walks in Bangkok shows how the future of Asia is being shaped.

Have a listen to this weeks 'from our own correspondant' on radio 4. The woman on it tells how Luanda in Angola has become a traffic snarled nightmare, with brand new 4x4's and even Hummers clogging the roads.
When she used to walk to her appointments, people thought she was nuts. ''Why do you walk?'' people would ask her amazed.
That has been my experience in Asia too. I'd be the only person walking more han 100 yards it would seem.

And about spiked/rcp and debate:
You could say similar things about a lot of political parties and movements.
What you've said about them so far barmyrob, hasn't been that enlightening - for people who don't really know who we're talking about. I think that many of their ideas, because they are outside of the main safe left/green parameters, attract unthinking criticism.
For example: this article (that I linked to elsewhere): compared to much of the (rather confused) talk I've listened to this weekend about the bicentinary of the abolition of slavery, that is a clear and concise piece.

Sarah, for the last few years I've driven many thousands of miles. Why, because I got made redudant & ended up working miles fromn where I live. Unlike Greater London the only bloody way I could get to work was to drive (1 hour each way against 3). I couldn't move as the jobs were contract, that's until I got a permi job 35 miles from home. 2 years later they shut the office down. I'm now reduced to contracts wherever I can get them. Again this results in long distance driving on a Monday & Friday. That's unless I want to pay £20 taxi fair to the station & then something horrendus to get to anywhere I'm working. Of course I could just get a job stacking selves at Tesco & waste any talent I have.


I moved to where I live now to be near work so I now live miles away from my family. My mother & sister also live miles appart. The ONLY way I can get to see then is by car. On Sunday I've tak my mother to see my sister. The dog legged journey is about 90 miles, 2 hours each way by car, impossible by public transport.

It makes me sick when people who live & work near their families get all self ritcheous. Some of us have to live in the real world.

As for walk I do. I enjoy a pint or 3 so have to walk or use public transport if I wish to see friends for a drink. Unfortunately one of our favourite bus routes was recently discontinued so it now takes 2 hoursrather than 55 mins to get where we want.

That was quite funny really. ''Get off your arse and walk occasionally rather than use your car'' It shows no understanding of where people might actually live. In Milton Keynes or Peterbourough; Seattle or Detroit.
Or even in the country
I'm sure that even people who live in isolated places do walk occasionally, maybe just for a walk, or to a near enough shop - but where getting any place else (like to work for example - or to visit family and friends) is very difficult witout a car.

Good Monbiot article in today's Guardian here

Redstar - in your original post you asked "If I want to go from a to b in my car, why shouldn't I?" but in your second post you talk about this being something you have to do. It might be semantics but it does change things and I'm not saying you shouldn't drive to work if you actually have to.

You do contradict yourself in your above post in that you talk about having to drive miles to get to work but having moved to where you live in order to be close to work. Don't really understand how it can be one and the same.

It isn't about being self rightious - I don't live anywhere near any of my family (my parents are in Wales for starters) and work is an hour away on public transport. I can assure you I live in the "real" world - mine just doesn't need a car in it.

I know you've got some attitude that I'm "london centric" but that's bullshit.
I grew up in the countryside in Hampshire, went to Uni in a remote Welsh town and have only lived in South London for 5 years (although, yes, my family are from London originally). I'm fully aware of what life is like outside the M25.

The difference is I'm not CAR centric. I don't drive, don't even have a provisional licence. When I moved back home after university I had a job that meant I travelled about 40 miles everyday, getting a bus at 7.15 every morning, the idea of getting a car never even occurred to me and still doesn't.

The fact you responded quite so defensively says more about you than it does about me.

I love the fact you'll now only "pick" on me when someone else does it first - its like you're standing behind the school bully shouting "go on, hit 'em". Quite pathetic really.

For starters, if you knew anything about Milton Keynes (where my sisiter lives) you'd know they have a big walking scheme with the red route pathways thoughout the town.

And if I'm not mistaken you live in Streatham - I grew up in Hampshire and I used to walk (or take the bus) everywhere and last time I looked, it was definitely in the country.

My point, Damon, is that you can live without a car, it isn't a birth rite.

I've hesitated to become too involved in this thread as attempting to reduce the number of cars on the road through the provision of public transportation is what I do for a living (afterall I am on here to take a break from what I normally do during the days and far too many evenings). I would add that as a result, I am far more pragmatic about transportation issues than I probably would be if I weren't on the 'inside' of the decision-making processes.

All that being said, Damon, you raise some interesting points about transportation in the US.

First, yes, it is difficult to travel via public transportation in the big suburban sprawls that we call cities in the US. This is primarily a function of poor zoning decisions. It is not necessarily something that public transit alone can be expected to solve. With regard to the demographic of bus riders being poor compared to auto users, this is true in general, but varies greatly depending on time of day. During the commute hours, the income level of the average rider is significantly higher than at other times of day.

Since you bring up the Everett to Tacoma corridor (one I am of course very familiar with), I would note that the I-5 corridor only works (and I use that term VERY loosely) it because it is flanked by Hwy 99 to the west and I-405 to the east at its busiest point (i.e. through Seattle). Hwy 99 travels via an earthquake UNsafe viaduct (not unlike the one that collapsed like a sandwhich in the 1989 San Francisco earthquake. The need to replace this viaduct is causing all kinds of traffic concerns in the region. Further, needed construction on the I-5 trunk route during the summer is predicted to turn this freeway into one of the worst traffic situations in the country. Seattle already is in the top 15 in terms of bad traffic (its gotten to as bad as 4th in the country at one time I believe). I will note that traveling across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco to Oakland during a Friday rush hour seemed like a cakewalk compared to Seattle traffic.

I can't remember when you last visited, Damon. But the days of speeding down I-5 particularly during commute hours are long gone. Traveling from Seattle to Tacoma for a single occupancy vehicle (high occupancy vehicles have a dedicated lane much of this trip) during the rush hour can take well over an hour. Public transit has grown considerably within the last few years via the provision of additional buses and a commuter rail. Unfortunately these options are geared primarily towards commuters and are based around transit centers with large parking garages so that people drive to a transit center, park and then continue their commute via transit. I say unfortunately with regard to the timing of the provision of these services, because many (myself included) decide to telecommute (a good thing) or as a last resort drive alone (a bad thing) if they miss the morning train. On those days I am compelled to drive in, I have a number of friends who live near me that I call so I can take advantage of the high occupancy vehicle lanes.

I say unfortunately with regard to the parking garage orientation of these transit centers because one of the bigger concerns with regard to CO2 emissions is not simply Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), but instead, 'cold starts' (a large percentage of CO2 emissions occur on the start up of a vehicle -- I don't have the figure handy -- regardless of how far the vehicle travels). A transit feeder system which provides an incentive for people to travel via car as part of their journey does not necessarily do enough to limit CO2 emissions. However, the pragmatist in me does note that by getting people to travel via transit for at least part of their trip, especially if they wouldn't have otherwide, does have a positive impact. Further, because these cold starts occur in the suburbs and rural areas rather than in the congested urban areas, the emissions are dissapated and limit some of the health concerns that they would otherwise entail if they had occured in the urban areas.

In any case, those are my brief thoughts on the issue, but don't be too surprised if I don't frequent this thread.

Wow I go against the way most people think & I'm the bully. That's a new definition.

As for your last point you mean 'I can live without a car so everyone should'. Well my life is complicated enough WITH a car without one I'd be completely lost, just like you would be if we took away electricity.

As I've said before stopping people doing things isn't the answer whether it's driving, flying or countries making atomic bombs. The US tried to stop people drinking alcohol & what happened, a massive crime wave.

There needs to be a way forward. The government doesn't help. Their answer to road congestion is to introduce a tax, alias road pricing. In Britain we have some of the highest train fares in the world, the train companies are trying to discourage people travelling becuase the trains are so full at peak time & yet there are trains are in sidings because no one will pay to use them (All true). The reasonis that it would cost money to improve the service. Since the 'blessed Margaret' public transport is seen as a cost rather than an investment.

I could help. The M62 is packed in 'the rush hour'. The inside lane (& much of the middle lane) is solid with lorries. Why not ban lorries from the roads in 'rush hour' like they do in Belgium. This also might increase the amout of freight on the railways & canals (much more efficient). But of course it's easier to hit the motorist than other road users.

If I remember rightly, the railways have all been sold to profit making organisations. And, of course, improving services costs money, something that Thatcher's getrichquick cronies were never interested in. What else would you expect from her policies and her friends? Certainly, I would expect nothing that would benefit the majority of the people. You see, she and her ilk think that private ownership of the means of production is a good thing. I would disagree.

There are two things I don't understand in your diatribe:

1) You wrote "stopping people doing things isn't the answer." Well, if people are not stopped from driving on roads they will clog up, which is what we are debating. Also, you went on to say that lorries should be banned - a synonym for stopped - in rush hour. I think you rather went against your own argument there.

2) You finished with, "of course it's easier to hit the motorist than other road users." What other road users are there? Perhaps you are alluding to cyclists or pedestrians. Or have you failed to see the problem with your self-centred view of the climate change issue?

Now hear this.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/28/wind/

Sarah I don't think that post I did was to ''pick'' on you. The might have been a bit unnecessary but it was just your words not the person. I go along with LeftintheUS and his 'ad hominem' thing if I can.
And I know about the Milton Keynes Redway's but that's not much good if you have to get to some industrial estate on the edge of town for 5am and you are coming from home 25 miles away.
My point has just been that a lot of road journeys are done because they start from some place that doesn't have a simple public transport alternative to the destination.
The last thing I would want when finishing a night shift of driving trucks, would be to be waiting at the bus stop for the first bus of the day (in the dark), then a change to a tram, then a walk. I've done it, but life feels grim when you have no choice.
Also, for people who work longer days than a nine to five, a longer commute by public tansport would make life miserable. Many times you might finish at say 8pm, and they want you in again for an early shift, so you only get the 9 hours off that are required by law.

About the Seattle Viaduct, I kind of liked it. People live under it, and hang out for day labour under it in Belltown. Though I can well belive it would come down like a pack of cards in an earthquake.
I agree about the zoning and planning laws in the US. The cities just go on and on until they join up with the next place. Pheonix was a big disapointment. It doesn't have a downtown at all - well hardly, just endless drive-in businesses.
Apart from the rise in telecommuting, which is bound to rise, I can't see how you get a serious number of people off the roads, with out making peoples lives more difficult.
People on motorways and freeways at 7.30 in the morning are going places, and to do jobs, that an economy needs to run. To just say the equivalent of ''let them eat cake'' (which seems to be one green solution), seems to be overly symplistic.

That's me and I love it. It depends how you use your commute time - I either read or listen to an audiobook or podcast - that way it isn't wasted time.

Andy you may not have noticed but as well as all the cars there are thousands of lorries on the road. A lorry does far more harm to the road than a car. In parts of Europe most frieght goes by river, canal & rail. In Britain most fright goes by (& clogs up) roads. As I said the motorways such as the M62 & M1 are mainly clogged up by lorries not cars in peak hours.

As for self centred it's obvious that I should just give in & get a menial job I can walk to rather than a job which I'm qualified for. I used to work with a group of people who worked 10-15 miles away from home. Today most of us are out of work, working away or comuting over long distances.

btw The reason for this 'problem' is that companies are busy moving my work to India.

So lorries are not motorists? Or are you implying that clogging up motorways with cars is perfectly OK? (The traffic jam this morning here in Swindon seems to me to be caused by commuters sitting alone in their cars.) If you're commuting over long distances why not use river, rail or canal yourself?

The idea about putting freight on rail, rivers and canals - I can't see it working myself. Just think about all that volume. On the Grand Union Canal? Rail could do more for the long distances I suppose, but if it was that good an idea then they'd already be doing it I would have thought. And the containers would still have to be hitched up to a lorry at the terminus.
As from banning them during the rush hours, that doesn't seem very well worked out either. Where are they all expected to go during this time? The motorway service stations wouldn't want them, and they can't just park anywhere.
Make them all run at night? That's forcing night work on a lot of people, not only drivers, but people who take the delivery. And in London there is the night time lorry ban which forces trucks to go on long detours, driving more miles and using more fuel.

Maybe people should just buy less stuff. Or for example, if you have a water cooler at work, don't have one.
Them water bottles have to be driven there in a truck (and carried up the stairs by a human being - worst job I've ever done).

Freight distribution has been reorganised quite well in britain in the last decade or so. There are less knackered old trucks on the roads, and the big businesses are quite efficient, running distribution centers that cover a large area. You couldn't really put the goods of your high street shops on the rails - it would get too complicated.

How about a few new motorways? Maybe with six lanes in each direction.

in case i forget.. i read (in the grauniad i think) that david bellamy is cynical about carbon thingy. Ill look up what he actually said when i get a mo.

I'm flying to the UK for a weekend in july. If there's no monetary incentive to stop me, I'll keep on visiting this way. I'm a hypocrite and I don't care.
(but I cycle to work each day, but as I understood that does nothing to offset my terrible flight footprint)

That's the way I look at it Rob, you can't read and drive at the same time and I'd really really miss my reading time.
Damon, I've often finished my day job at 5.30/6pm, to go on to my not-for-profit work in the evening and not finished that until 10.30/11pm and then got the bus home. The thought of getting in a car when I was that knackered is terrifying - surely a perfect example of when people really really shouldn't drive?

No offence, but everybody should be free to make their choices based on their own criteria. If you don't want to take the train or bus, fair enough. We all make our own choices based on what's important for us.
But if you're using up common resources or if you're polluting those same common goods, you have to pay for it.
The free market won't take care of that, so the government has to by taxation.
You're free, as long as you pay your dues. Those dues can be used to restore those common resources or make clean alternatives cheaper.

I hate commuting

Goodness knows why you started off your post with ''No offence'' Leontien. You were only giving your opinion.

And Sarah, I agree that public transport is the best way. Or cycling even better. I'd love to see cycling here like they have in Holland and Denmark. I used to cycle to Park Royal in Brent every day from Streatham - a 20 mile round trip (and used to enjoy it).
But if I have to get to some remote industrial estate in Sussex or Kent that hasn't got easy public transport links, then a car (or motorbike) is the only way.
How would you like your job to be in Gravesend?
(With very early morning starts).

Yes well this has been the problem - 30 years of planning decision that have seen workplaces migrate away from where people live. Globalisation has accelerated this.

Leontien. I agree with the polluter pays principle. The problem is we can no longer afford to pollute.

We have to find different ways of doing things - it will require lateral thinking and big changes - but if we don't make them the climate sure as hell will change enough to force even larger and distinctly more unpleasant transition upon us.

"We can no longer afford to pollute".
I'd agree, but people don't base their every day decisions on principles, but on economics. You can try to convince every person you meet to give up travel, but that's not going to happen.
I'd argue that travel has increased because we can afford it. No doubt the price fighters have increased our flight mileage. Making it less affordable will immediate result in a decrease in the amount we travel.
It's a first step, which must be taken.
Rearranging our cities will take a bit longer...