Last weekend, just in case you were doing your best to avoid the news, Rishi Sunak promised the UK’s motorists that he was “on their side”, as the Prime Minister ordered a review of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in England.
Listen to the road.cc Podcast on Apple Podcasts
Listen to the road.cc Podcast on Spotify
Listen to the road.cc Podcast on Amazon Music
The review – which led Cycling UK to accuse the Prime Minister of using LTNs as a “political football” – comes as the debate over green active travel policies continues to sharpen in the wake of the Conservative Party’s win at the recent Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election (called following the departure of the famously active travel-friendly PM Boris Johnson), a narrow victory credited to the Tory opposition to Labour mayor Sadiq Khan’s plans to extend London’s Ultra-Low Emission Zone.
> Rishi Sunak accused of seeking to exploit division over LTNs as he orders review of schemes
Sunak’s opposition to ULEZ and LTNs, the latest strategic manoeuvre in the pre-general election battleground, isn’t the only move away from the green active travel policies held by his party in recent years, with the Prime Minister recently hinting at plans to push back the date that sales of new petrol and diesel-powered cars will be banned, while funding for cycling infrastructure – including the new government body Active Travel England – has also taken a hit during his tenure in charge.
> Whose ULEZ is it anyway? Political chicanery as clean air zone set to expand to outer London
In the second part of the latest episode of the road.cc Podcast, Jack, Simon, and Ryan sit round the table to discuss what Sunak’s latest pro-driver pledges mean for the next general election, how they represent a shift away from past Conservative policy on cycling, active travel, and climate change (led by Johnson), and what impact they could have on the future landscape of cycling in the UK.
But before we get to all that political chicanery, in part one of this episode Ryan chats with Bristol couple Anna and Mark Cordle, who recently made the headlines after they set up a parking space for their family cargo bike outside their home – which, a year after it was installed, has been the subject of threats by the local council to remove it… because it was taking up a car parking space.
In a really interesting discussion which touches on the differing perceptions and treatment of people who ride bikes to get around compared to those who use cars, Anna and Mark detail the reasons why they needed the space for their young family, how it was greeted by their neighbours, their current struggle against the council, and why planter-based bike parking spaces may provide an organic, cost-effective way forward for active travel in the UK’s cities.
As outlined in our original article, Bristol City Council is standing firm in its reasons for asking Anna and Mark to remove the heavy planters, claiming that placing them on the road is in breach of Section 149 of the Highways Act, and that they would be liable “if any person has an accident has a result of [your] planters being on the highway.”
Are DIY cargo bike parking spaces the way to go, and if not, what are the alternatives? Anna notes during the discussion that she won’t be holding her breath for a dramatic policy shift just yet…
The road.cc Podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Amazon Music, and if you have an Alexa you can just tell it to play the road.cc Podcast. It’s also embedded further up the page, so you can just press play.
At the time of broadcast, our listeners can also get a free Hammerhead Heart Rate Monitor with the purchase of a Hammerhead Karoo 2. Visit hammerhead.io right now and use promo code ROADCC at checkout to get yours.
93 thoughts on “Rishi Sunak is “on the side” of drivers – What happened to Britain’s “golden age for cycling”? Plus THAT cargo bike parking row on the road.cc Podcast”
Surely the Conservatives won
Surely the Conservatives won’t win another election in the Unicorn Kingdom? Even in full culture wars mode there can’t be that many thick people in the UK. Are there? You know the kind – Get Brexit Done, Stop the Boats, Oven Ready Deal, Levelling Up . . . . . (Mind you with the unrepresentative, quasi democratic voting system you have – they don’t need a majority to win)
They seem stuck on this
They seem stuck on this negative, bar stool/ boomer politics when it’s clear from by-election results the country has had enough. But their lords and masters won’t permit a change of direction.
The rational thing to do would be to pivot on Brexit (stop the boats via co-operation or just stop going on about it) and start sounding a lot more climate-friendly.
Drivers make plenty of noise and there is an oil industry behind it all but in terms of numbers at the ballot box? I guess that is the calculation, not least following the hold in Uxbridge.
I know it’s silly season now, but haven’t they all, except for Sunak’s mis-firing efforts, gone pretty quiet? “Hang in there”, “working day & night” butter no parsnips when your weekly supermarket bill is £120 rather than £90, the mortgage, the gas/electric bill, Council Tax.
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:
Well, at least they won’t just use Brexit to ignore air quality rules:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/04/uk-government-ignoring-green-watchdog-over-air-quality-rules
theGrauniad wrote:
“It’s just a bit of poo” (courtesy of her caricature in Dead Ringers)
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:
Given the gullibility and short memory of the average voter, it’s entirely possible that the tories will win again. Be afraid, be very afraid.
eburtthebike wrote:
it’s all about the economy, as long as people are content with money in their pockets and a comfortable lifestyle, they will not vote them out. We’re a long way away from that, but you never know.
By-election results seem
By-election results seem pretty compelling. Many people and businesses are feeling a distinct “pinch” at the moment.
I think thats correct. This
I think thats correct. This is mostly due to a nervous Labour party over-reacting to an election result they had convinced themselves they would win, when they were likely to but it was always tight on a seat they have never held before. But they didnt and publically and politically they flinched big style and handed the iniative to the Tories – temporarily hopefully.
They had a chance to rebut strongly with World on Fire points – but again havent had the balls to do so.
The Tories would have probably culture war’d on the environment anyway, but the gutter right wing press may have been a tad less aggressive.
Right now it seems that Labour is keeping relatively quite hoping the Tories will over play just like they have on every other topic.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I was reading an alternate interpretation of the Uxbridge result – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/03/uxbridge-brexit-tories-anti-green-labour-local
They had a local down-to-earth looking Tory candidate vs a smart, city-dressed Labour candidate. Sounds like a screw-up by Labour.
I think it’s difficult to
I think it’s difficult to draw conclusions from by-election results – they tend to have a much lower turnout than a general election.
YouGov poll on what people think are the most important issues is quite interesting, an increasing number of people think The Environment is important – https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country
I’m not sure how you would categorise ULEZ though. Is it Transport, The Environment, or Tax?
Tom_77 wrote:
I agree, but the narrative being pushed by most media is that ULEZ was the main reason that the Tories held onto the seat. It’s more likely that the voters were turned off by the Labour candidate looking like a London-based banker and instead felt better represented by a down-to-earth looking local.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Never mind that the constituency has only ever elected Conservative candidates before (and of the two it was formed from, one also had only ever had Tories while the other has been blue since before a good proportion of the people on this forum were born – what is the age make-up of this place, anyway? 1970 is the year we’re aiming at)!
sheridan wrote:
My initial reaction on hearing the result was “those are the idiots that voted for Boris”.
Environment looks like
Environment looks like overtaking Immigration & Asylum on this chart.
You may find a Labour MP in
You may find a Labour MP in Wycombe of all places this time next year. There’s no way the Tories will fix the economy in the next 10 months – assuming a May election.
They will drag it out to
They will drag it out to December, maybe January. Hoping that things might, just might, turn around, no matter how much they manage to screw it all up.
That and them and their mates can suck more cash out of the populace…
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:
They will under the guise of the Labour party with Starmer as leader, the conseravtives have become the Nation Front from the 1970’s.
People really are even more incredibly stupid than you can imagine mind you, so nothing is certain.
People really are even more
People really are even more incredibly stupid than you can imagine
You only need to consider the careers of Trump and his accolyte Johnson to see that!
All that talk about Gear
All that talk about Gear Change and Golden Age of Cycling – that was more than 24 hours ago, far too many news cycles ago, so you’re not supposed to remember it.
Insufficient credit has been
Insufficient credit has been given to the Tories’ crack Black Ops Unit which, I’m told, created the Republican Party as the only possible means of making Tories look less venal and stupid in comparison.
After reading so much
After reading so much politics on road.cc in the last few days, the average IQ of it’s readers must be a lot lower than I thought.
No wonder they keep posting nonsense articles about helmets, LTN’s, Brexit and the Tories to get it’s members frothing and clicking.
Ledner_Sirrah wrote:
Most of the readers seem to know the difference between it’s and its though, so that’s something. This is exactly what you did before you were banned as thisismyusername, spending your entire time telling us why both the readership and the editorial staff are crap. Have you really nothing better to do with your life than this?
Rendel Harris wrote:
A BITE A BITE
I don’t know what it is you refer to. No one was questioning the grammatical expertise and the editorship was crap. Rather, that they seem to be profiting well from the frothing, which is why they post it. Well done to the road.cc team.
Ledner_Sirrah wrote:
Hoy, hoy! Frothing & clicking are two of my favourite hobbies. And how do ‘ee expect this website to make advert money if there’s no clicking on articles describing mad & expensive cycling gubbins that no one needs but everyone wants, eh, eh!?
PS Tories have been replaced by various spivs, who don’t do politics (which involves compromise and associated tolerances) but are good at forming criminal gangs.
Cugel wrote:
I don’t agree with everything they are doing, but better the evil you know than that you don’t… no-one wants Captain Crasharoonie Snoozefest aka the Human Bollard as PM do they.
A name change already?
A name change already?
I don’t think it matters who
I don’t think it matters who gets in next, it’s too late.
levestane wrote:
It does matter as the Tories want the oil companies to get every last bit of profit out of the North Sea. They use a pretence of it bringing fuel bills down, but the oil will just be sold on the international market and won’t make the slightest difference to our fuel bills.
It’s almost as though they’re getting bought off by the worst polluters: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/30/tory-partys-35m-dirty-donations-revealed-by-desmog-analysis
The Tories are going all-in on speeding up the climate catastrophe in exchange for some profit.
To mis-quote Boris, I think
To mis-quote Boris, I think climate catastrophe is oven-ready or even baked-in (no puns intended).
Remind me of the carbon
Remind me of the carbon footprint of domestically produced oil/gas Vs imported oil/gas?
It may seem counterintuitive but if you want to reduce carbon emissions then using our own resources is a good way to do that.
The added bonus of strengthening our own economy and funding our own public services shouldn’t be discounted either.
Remind me of how much
Remind me of how much domestically produced oil and gas will be sold in the UK and not exported to the highest bidder? Remind me of the number of clauses in the new oil and gas contracts that mandate their oil and gas being sold in the UK (clue, it’s lower than one)?
Rich_cb wrote:
Norway oil and gas has a smaller CO2 footprint than UK produced due to gas flaring etc. Similarly, most other imported fossil fuels are generally a better choice than using the porrly managed North Sea oil rigs.
However, you’re looking at one particular aspect and ignoring the most important fact that leaving oil where it is has a monumentally smaller CO2 footprint (zero) than looking for and digging new supplies out of the ground. I can’t believe how stupid you must be to argue about the minor differences between where we get the last bits of oil from vs continuing to destroy the climate.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
The difference in carbon
The difference in carbon emissions between domestically produced gas and Liquified Natural Gas is absolutely enormous.
That’s an easily verifiable fact that you cannot deny.
The line that “most other imported fossil fuels are a better choice” is disingenuous in the extreme. LNG has a terrible carbon footprint and we are importing enormous quantities of it.
You seem to labour under the assumption that if we don’t open a new gas field then nobody else will either so by refusing to open our gas fields the total amount of gas produced between now and 2050 will somehow reduce.
That’s a completely flawed assumption. OPEC and other major gas producers will continue to drill until there’s no more demand. Any gas we don’t drill will simply be drilled elsewhere.
There is therefore zero benefit to keeping UK gas fields closed. If we open them we will reduce global carbon emissions and make sure less money ends up in the hands of Putin, MBS and other unsavoury autocrats.
You are supporting a policy that worsens carbon emissions and helps fund atrocities.
Are you sure I’m the one who should be ashamed?
Rich_cb wrote:
The difference between leaving oil in the ground and burning it is what you need to be looking at. You cherry pick figures to find any possible way to justify burning yet more oil when the very clear message is that the world must not develop new oil sources if we have any chance of keeping the climate catastrophe within reasonable bounds.
You would sell all our future for the continued profit of oil companies. You actually revolt me with your attitude.
Meanwhile https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/05/uk-offshore-wind-at-tipping-point-as-funding-crisis-threatens-industry
You’re not addressing the
You’re not addressing the obvious flaw in your argument.
If we don’t extract the oil/gas here it will just be extracted elsewhere instead.
Those extractions elsewhere will have much higher emissions so out carbon emissions will be higher overall.
LNG has nearly 4 times the carbon emissions of domestically produced gas. Even if it took 3 litres of domestic gas production just to displace one litre of LNG production we’d still be better off from a carbon perspective.
We can’t afford to just pretend that emissions outside the UK don’t matter.
I’m sure your intentions are good but supporting the ban on UK drilling is causing massive environmental harm.
You can throw insults all you like but the numbers speak for themselves.
I’m not going to argue with
I’m not going to argue with someone who is obviously just repeating cherry-picked data and ignoring the effect of burning the fuel rather than just the production details.
As with Brexit, you’re on the wrong side of history.
Get your head out of the sand
Get your head out of the tar sands.
You cannot justify using a fuel with 4x the carbon emissions of an available alternative.
You haven’t presented a single scrap of evidence that reducing UK production will lead to a drop in global production.
Given that that is what your entire argument hinges upon I’d suggest you try and find some evidence to back your point up before resorting to insults and flouncing off.
Rich_cb wrote:
Absolutely. Some numbers that spring to mind are 8.1 billion, 20.96°C, 2.4 million km^2, 420 ppm, etc., etc. In many ways it would be best for humans to extract and burn all fossil fuels in the hope that humans are one of the species that go extinct. In the absence of the extinction driver biodiversity will then flourish. Second best is to radically reduce ecological footprint (of which carbon footprint is a part) in a socially just way and hope to avoid uncontrolled population crash. Still, the football is back!
I completely agree that
I completely agree that climate change is a pressing emergency.
I’m advocating the use of a fuel with 25% of the carbon emissions of the fuel it will replace.
For some reason my position is being presented as environmentally destructive whilst those folks who support using the fuel with 4x the carbon emissions shroud themselves in virtue.
hawkinspeter wrote:
— hawkinspeterThis is Rich’s modus operandi in any discussion – find a graph or some numbers and (thankfully politely) try to justify his position.
I guess we all do it to some extent, seeing something that matches our view, but this is part of a concerted effort to repeatedly deny that we need to do something drastic about climate change. No, it’s all going to be fine because he’s found some chart somewhere (Tufton Street?) contradicts the conclusions of virtually every expert scientist across the entire globe.
Perhaps we could get some drivers’ position on ULEZ to alter if every car had 50% of the exhaust emissions piped into the vehicle.
Another one with his head in
Another one with his head in the Tar Sands.
LNG has 4x the carbon emissions of domestically produced gas.
That’s an established fact.
I’ve yet to read a single person actually address that, let alone justify using such a polluting fuel.
Rich_cb wrote:
No, that’s you fella, with your climate denial, Brexit denial, head in de Nile.
No point blaming me when you and all the pro-Tory, pro-road building, pro-fossil fuel, pro-big polluters in the right wing media want to demonise environmental groups, protestors and anyone challenging the status quo, even to the extent of passing laws to prevent people having a voice with voter supressions, clamping down on protests.
Many people wanted to see the UK to move towards renewables, insulation, cleaner air, a greener economy etc decades ago but the self-interest and refusal among so many in government, their donors and friends to even acknowledge the scale of the problem, let alone start to address it, is making things so much worse.
YOU and all those deeply selfish people who continue to vote Tory/UKIP/selfishcuntparty are the problem – and it’s a very, very serious problem, not just for the UK but globally.
I also suspect it makes more
I also suspect it makes more sense to leave the fossil fuels where they are – but I’ve not done the economics or thermodynamics (though I’m still skeptical of human carbon capture efforts).
If making it personal IIRC rich_cb has at least made their heating more efficient via heat-pump.
You allude to all the people who’d like to see more concern for environment. I think there’s some truth there but people have limited appetite for change. Especially the kind that means things don’t stay the same for *them*!
Knowing that governments of all parties (“decades”) have acted pretty similarly. Our leaders / salesmen certainly have power and influence (it’s their raison d’etre) eg. ushering in mass motoring. Individual humans do tend to choose “cake today, pay tomorrow” though…
What is the (negative) feedback which will limit the appetite of n+1 humans for using n+1 resources? What mechanism arbitrates “they have one – I want / need one too?”
So the fuel with the carbon
So the fuel with the carbon footprint 4x as large is the climate friendly choice?
Oil from the tar sands and gas shipped from Australia are the choice of any respectable person who cares about the planet…
Simon E wrote:
It’s like re-arranging deck-chairs on the titanic – trying to justify digging more oil out of the ground, despite the very clear IPCC guidance. When all the global climate experts are very clear that we must not drill for any more oil, we get armchair experts like Rich_cb trying to persuade us that in fact he knows best and that Sunak has the climate at heart. This is despite the very obvious signs that he has no moral objections to selling us all under the bus as long as he can continue getting Tory donations from oil companies.
Yet you still won’t address
Yet you still won’t address the point I’m making.
Marginal oil production (eg Tar Sands) is incredibly carbon intensive. LNG gas is incredibly carbon intensive.
New oil/gas exploration that displaces those forms of production will be climate positive.
The chart below shows the carbon intensity of tar sands oil (on the right) compared to conventional oil fields.
Rich_cb wrote:
Enough said.
You carry on pushing your fossil fuel agenda, drill, drill, drill. That will definitely get us out of trouble.
At least the man in 10 Downing Street shares your interest (and investments?) so I guess we’re all in this mess together.
Simon E wrote:
You carry on pushing your fossil fuel agenda, drill, drill, drill. That will definitely get us out of trouble.
At least the man in 10 Downing Street shares your interest (and investments?) so I guess we’re all in this mess together.— Simon E
The fallacy is that by drilling for new oil, that there’ll be a reduction in other oil production, but that’s not likely at all. What’s far more likely to happen is that existing oil production will continue (it’s making people money after all) and the new oil supplies will simply add to the climate woes. This is why the IPCC have been extremely clear that we must not drill any new sites if we want to limit the world’s warming climate.
We need some effective way to get rid of politicians that serve oil interests rather than the electorate.
Take your position to its
Take your position to its logical conclusion and we should stop building wind farms…
If reducing our demand for oil/gas imports has no effect on oil/gas production then building a wind farm (which requires a decent amount of coal etc) will create CO2 emissions but lead to no reduction in global fossil fuel consumption.
The net effect of building the wind farm will therefore be an increase in global CO2 emissions. That doesn’t seem quite right does it?
Personally I think that reducing demand for oil/gas will lead to a reduction in the production of oil/gas.
The evidence for this can be seen in the output cuts being imposed by OPEC in response to falling prices which themselves are a result of reduced demand.
You can also look at what happens to US shale drilling when demand falls. It reduces.
Right now drilling is increasing rapidly in America as the LNG demand supports higher prices and more profits.
Rich_cb wrote:
Sadly I think there will always be markets for oil and gas, and so the known reserves will be exploited eventually, whether that takes 20, 30 or 50 years. So the only ways to sufficiently impact carbon emissions globally is a global embargo on new wells being drilled and a ban on the international trade of oil and gas.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Sadly I think there will always be markets for oil and gas, and so the known reserves will be exploited eventually, whether that takes 20, 30 or 50 years. So the only ways to sufficiently impact carbon emissions globally is a global embargo on new wells being drilled and a ban on the international trade of oil and gas.— Rich_cb
A simple “predict and provide” model probably won’t even get us where our stated targets are. That also ignores stuff that comes along unexpectedly like “health” and “war”.
OTOH “too much” and public and market confidence makes your political life much shorter. There’s always a question about how much change our politicos think they need. After all most are not going to spend a lot of time with people at the sharp end of economics!
Even if they do see a need the system will act to limit how much they think they can “force”. (For “reductions” in stuff for anyone but the “have-nots” I suspect it’s more like “nudge”.) Political cycles are fairly short – you could be out before you’ve pulled off your great idea.
I disagree.
I disagree.
As someone else linked to earlier in the thread, the cost of renewables is now low enough to compete with fossil fuels.
This should drive down demand for fossil fuels and will lead to many mines/wells etc becoming unviable. It’s important however that we stop using the worst fuels first. A carbon tax on fossil fuels would help achieve that.
If increasing supplies of ‘cleaner’ fossil fuels leads to a faster wean from the ‘dirtier’ fuels we shouldn’t shy away from supporting that.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Both British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell are past masters at geopolitics and lobbying UK government especially HM Treasury.
Education of the electorate is possible but compared to the interests concerned is not funded significantly.
100 years of collaboration with Big Auto makes Big Oil untouchable in practice…
hawkinspeter wrote:
One of my other major hobbies (besides cycling and posting silly things here) is cabinet-making. As I’ve made as much furniture as me, family, friends, neighbours and anyone else I can push it on wants, a project to construct a full size working head lopper would be welcome.
Mind, I’m too much the squeamish softlad to pull the blade-release rope meself so you’ll have to find a willing executioner. (I’ll make a small hypocrite label to wear when sat in the eager crowd of knitting ladies awaiting the next Toryspiv bonce-bounce into the basket).
Which one will you drop the chopper on first? I vote either the Bokum blackguard or that IDS guttersnipe. Cruella would also be on my list.
********
Of course, we would both eventually end up with our heeds in the basket too as this is the trouble with all revolutions. (Se E. Burke for details). Still, it would be worth it, eh?
Cugel wrote:
I’d like to start with all the billionaires. I cannot understand how someone can gain many millions and then deliberately under-pay all their workers and attempt to over-charge people for stuff in an attempt to gain yet more money. Anyone with a conscience would come to a realisation – “I’ve got x millions which is easily enough for me and my family – I’ll start increasing our employees wages as many of them are starving”
We’re going to require fossil
We’re going to require fossil fuels for decades to come.
Nobody disputes that.
If we’re going to be using fossil fuels then we must make sure they are the least damaging types available.
That means replacing the dirtiest fuels with cleaner alternatives.
To do that we need to increase the supply of the least harmful fossil fuels.
It’s not a hard concept to grasp.
While Rich promotes continued
While Rich promotes continued use of fossil fuels:
https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1687489263904927744This is the renewables sector the Tory governments have hacked and bludgeoned the whole time they’ve been in power. They’d prefer that the planet burns than we have a more sustainable way of producing energy so they and their donors continue to pile up the $millions. The worst kind of scum.
The green line is renewable
The green line is renewable generation. The reddish line is fossil fuels.
If that’s the result of hacking and bludgeoning then maybe we need to hack and bludgeon some more parts of our economy.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’ve omitted to mention, I’m sure it’s simply an oversight and not you cherrypicking, that the majority of gas imported by the UK isn’t LNG but gaseous via pipeline.
That’s not relevant as we can
The shortfall from Russian gas supply curtailment is being made up by increased LNG imports to Europe.
These are much more expensive than both piped gas imports and domestic production so it is the LNG that will be directly displaced by UK production. Pipeline imports will be unaffected.
The correct comparison is therefore between UK production and the product it will be displacing which is LNG.
Not cherry picking, just accuracy.
Ah I see, your statements
Ah I see, your statements were not based on the actual facts at present (which is that 55% of the UK’s imported gas comes via pipeline) but what you predict will happen in future (the LNG/pipeline balance has remained pretty much the same as prewar by the way, due to increased imports from Norway). I’m sure failing to mention that was just another of your little oversights.
By the way, as you are so keen on domestic natural gas, has it ever occurred to you to ask why 40% of our current domestic production is exported and why that should be any different under the new licences? If new production is designed to provide energy security, why don’t we start by not exporting nearly half what we produce? It’s almost as if the system is set up to benefit huge multinationals that sell their product to the highest bidder and the whole spiel about energy security is a red herring. Once again, if the new licences are designed to increase our domestic gas use and make us secure against the vagaries of foreign imports, why are there no restrictions on the companies granted said licences compelling them to sell to the UK? As it stands if they want to convert all they produce to LNG and sell it to the Far East, absolutely nothing to stop them.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Exactly. The new licences are for the oil and gas to be sold on the international markets – they’re purely for profit and to keep the oil industries going as long as possible.
LNG use in Europe has
LNG use in Europe has remained the same as prewar?
Reality would like a word.
Domestic UK gas production will displace LNG imports either to the UK or Europe.
LNG is much more expensive to produce than domestic gas or pipeline imports so it’s not exactly Mystic Meg territory to predict that it will be displaced first.
Rich_cb wrote:
Interesting data but worth being aware that Germany is reacting to the NordStream 1/2 closure by building several LNG ports to replace it.
So Germany will soon come out of the Other group to be a large consumer for LNG.
They believe that energy security demands it, and given their position on Nuclear, seem to be failing on carbon neutral.
Experimental Sustainable Auto Fuel in Peru is not going to replace Hydrocarbons on das Autobahn any time soon..
This is bilge even by your
This is bilge even by your standards.
Look up the carbon intensity
Look up the carbon intensity figures for imported LNG versus domestically produced gas.
You might learn something.
The_Tory wrote:
I don’t agree with everything they are doing, but better the evil you know than that you don’t… no-one wants Captain Crasharoonie Snoozefest aka the Human Bollard as PM do they. — Cugel
That’s it is it, better the devil you know? So you voted for Gordon Brown, did you?
And yes, Captain Snoozefest will be PM. Partly because a boring politician isn’t a bad thing, and partly because (despite being far too right wing for comfort) he’s much, much better than the devils we know.
In a free country even you
In a democartic & free country even you are entitled to be wrong.
jaymack wrote:
Democartic? You’re embarrassing Rendel who previously said that road.cc readers actually were literate and could spell.
The_Tory wrote:
Actually I said they knew the difference between it’s and its, which you, as you amply demonstrated, don’t. Nor, clearly, do you know the difference between an inability to spell and an obvious typo. Your obsession with namechecking me wherever you can is as worrying, in terms of your sanity, now as it was when you were trading as thisismyusername, Rendel Harriz and Sirrah_Ledner. By all means carry on if you wish (until, inevitably, you get banned again) but you really should ask yourself if this is a healthy way to spend your time. Get well soon.
Rendel Harris wrote:
An obvious typo? You’re pretty desperate if start claiming that.
I was simply saying that he was embarrassing you for his non-deliberate spelling mistake. And seeing as you seem to think you speak for everyone every time you comment, there is no harm in referring to you is there.
As for a healthy way to spend time…seeing as you seem to feel the need to respond to every one of my comments, is it not you that has a strange obsession with me? It’s pretty creepy to have you following me around.
The_Tory wrote:
Superb. No need for any further comment on this one.
Anna and Mark Cordle are
Anna and Mark Cordle are typical of people that think they can ignore road law to do something that is convenient for them; anyone with the faintest clue about using public roads know that a council permit is needed to place anything on a public road, other than parking a vehicle that is legal to use on the road, so they can park their bicycle but not place planters that act to prevent anyone else from using that space when their bicycle isn’t parked there.
grOg wrote:
The problem with the planters is that the council isn’t providing any kind of facility that would enable secure parking of cargo bikes. What they should do is provide some Sheffield stand type of loops along the edge of pavements (where there’s seen to be a need for them). That would enable all kind of bikes to be locked in a secure fashion whilst also keeping them from blocking the pavement and as a bonus would prevent drivers parking on the pavement too.
The planters seem like a good compromise in light of the lack of other options, but yes, they aren’t allowed to be just put onto roads by people although I think in this case the Cordle’s have the support of their neighbours and are trying to be responsible.
hawkinspeter wrote:
They would never do that because it might get in the way of all the pavement-side parking…
“Britain’s “golden age for
“Britain’s “golden age for cycling”?” is not here yet.
mattw wrote:
Hopefully – but it probably *was*, somewhere around 1920s – 1930s, with the later being the peak for cycle infra as motor vehicles became common.
https://www.bikeboom.info/formby/
Is this a website about
Is this a website about bicycles and bicycling for bicyclists?
perce wrote:
Oh you poor innocent child. Bless you.
It’s reading the same comment
It’s reading the same comment over and over again, sometimes with graphs, sometimes not. It’s befuddling my senses. I wish I’d taken up stamp collecting. Although there would probably be someone on a Stanley Gibbons site arguing about the type of dye used in 19th century Guatamalan stamps. Eternally.
It’s reading the same comment
It’s reading the same comment over and over again
There is a simple answer: Identify Nutters, Ignore comments either by, responding to, or referring to Nutters.
Well said and very true. I do
Well said and very true. I do try.
But occasionally there are
But occasionally there are pictures of relevant squirrels.
ktache wrote:
perce wrote:
— percePhilately gets you nowhere: cycling gets you everywhere.
Very true. Had a great bike
Very true. Had a great bike ride today, got lost for the first time, got three thorough soakings and had a great time. Don’t feel as grumpy now, sorry all if I sounded grumpy yesterday, feel much better now.
I also had a great bike ride
I also had a great bike ride today, no getting lost, no soakings, although it was a bit windy across the top of the Ridgeway. Rode a bike I’ve not been on since May, a magnificent machine it is too. Life is better spent riding a bike than arguing on the internet IMO.
eburtthebike wrote:
On the contrary if you stick enough stamps on yourself then philately too will get you anywhere, though probably less comfortably.
perce wrote:
Is there a whiff of tricycle-exclusion here? #cyclingiscycling #allwheelswelcome
Ooops – sorry.
Ooops – sorry.
chrisonatrike wrote:
#RideLikeAGirl
The government has unveiled
The government has unveiled its new climate strategy – ‘We’re all going to die anyway, so who cares.’
Inspired by the success of getting 13,000 fewer votes than last time in the Uxbridge by-election, the Tories have concluded that everyone now hates the planet.
“Liking the planet is for poofs and communists,” explained leading Tory thinker Lee Anderson.
“Being British means being able to set fire to a pile of tyres in your garden and not having some limp-wristed, muesli-knitting lefty reminding you that your grandchildren are going to have to spend their entire lives on fire.
“If you don’t like living on this planet, then you should just go and live on another one.”
https://newsthump.com/2023/08/09/were-all-going-to-die-anyway-so-who-cares-government-unveils-new-climate-strategy/
Yeah! Sometimes I wonder if
Yeah! Sometimes I wonder if I’ve slipped a couple of decades back in time and parody has become reality.