Government’s own research contradicts Sunak’s 20mph speed limit claim

Spread the love

Original article by Adam Bychawski republished from OpenDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Traffic in South London.
Study found evidence that 20mph zones also improve walking and cycling in areas. Traffic in South London.

Study in 2018 found most drivers backed plans despite PM’s claim they ‘don’t reflect people’s priorities’

The majority of drivers support 20mph speed limits, according to the government’s own research, despite Rishi Sunak claiming they are an “attack on motorists”.

The prime minister is reportedly set to announce a number of new policies aimed at drivers during the Conservative Party conference that begins this weekend, including possible limits on the powers of councils in England to impose 20mph speed limits.

Sunak today criticised Wales’ new default 20mph speed limit, describing it as “absolutely not right” and saying: “It doesn’t reflect people’s priorities.” Commons leader Penny Mordaunt had previously called the scheme “absolutely insane”.

But research commissioned by the Department for Transport in 2018 found that “20mph limits are supported by the majority of residents and drivers”. 

The study, produced by the consultancy firms Atkins and AECOM and professor Mike Maher of University College London, combined “evidence from 12 case study schemes” and “feedback from over 5,400 questionnaires with a range of road users”.

It found that in areas that had introduced 20mph zones: “The majority of residents (78%) and non-resident drivers (67%) felt that 20mph was an appropriate speed for the area.

“There is little call for the limit to be changed back to 30mph (12% support amongst residents and 21% amongst non-resident drivers).”

The study also found evidence that the introduction of 20mph zones encouraged residents to use other forms of transportation or walk more often.

Lowering speed limits to 20mph was at one point Conservative Party policy: the Department for Transport commissioned the study in 2014 to “evaluate the effectiveness of 20mph” limits after publishing guidelines the previous year “encouraging traffic authorities to consider introducing more 20mph limits over time”.

Sunak has sought to present himself as being on the side of motorists following the Conservative Party’s surprise win in a July by-election in Uxbridge. The result came after the Tories campaigned heavily against the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone charge to the most polluting vehicles to outer London.

Following the party’s victory, Sunak ordered a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) and claimed that the Labour Party was “anti-driver”.

The proposals to limit 20mph would come just weeks after the prime minister U-turned on key net zero pledges by pushing back the deadlines for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers.

Number 10 has been approached for comment.

Original article by Adam Bychawski republished from OpenDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Continue ReadingGovernment’s own research contradicts Sunak’s 20mph speed limit claim

Sadiq Khan: The bogus war on the motorist is sign of Tory desperation

Spread the love
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. Image:  	DAVID HOLT from London, England  Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. Image: DAVID HOLT from London, England Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/03/sadiq-khan-ulez-motorists-conservative-party

The Conservatives have overseen 13 years of decline – with soaring rents and mortgages, devastated public services, sky-high bills and the highest tax burden on working people in a generation. They have nothing to offer.

That’s why they are desperate to confect a bogus war on the motorist. Division is both their strategy and overriding priority.

Regrettably, fostering this type of damaging politics is more important to Rishi Sunak right now than the harm being done to our children’s lungs by air pollution or the decline forced on our economy because of their recklessness and incompetence.

Serious, robust, reasoned discussion is essential in any democratic society, and something I have always welcomed.

My objection is not to good-faith debate, but to the Tories sowing discord and division, in a desperate attempt to distract from the mess they’ve made of our country.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/03/sadiq-khan-ulez-motorists-conservative-party

Continue ReadingSadiq Khan: The bogus war on the motorist is sign of Tory desperation

Sadiq Khan rubbishes Tory minister’s Ulez ‘cash grab’ claims

Spread the love
Traffic in South London.
Traffic in South London.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/sadiq-khan-rubbishes-tory-ministers-ulez-cash-grab-claims

LONDON Mayor Sadiq Khan has rubbished claims made by Tory Transport Minister Mark Harper about the extension of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez).

As the expansion of the zone to cover all London boroughs came into force today, Labour mayor told BBC Breakfast that Mr Harper had made factual errors in his criticisms of it.

“If it was a cash grab, as the government is saying, just to raise money, I’d have acceded to their demand to expand the Ulez without proper consultation and a proper scrappage scheme.”

Mr Khan said: “In a couple of years’ time, TfL has predicted there will be no additional money made because the number of non-compliant vehicles will decrease.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/sadiq-khan-rubbishes-tory-ministers-ulez-cash-grab-claims

Continue ReadingSadiq Khan rubbishes Tory minister’s Ulez ‘cash grab’ claims

Stop playing politics over clean air, Greenpeace tells Sunak

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/stop-playing-politics-over-clean-air-greenpeace-tells-sunak

Vehicles queue in heavy traffic in south London

ENVIRONMENT campaigners have told Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to “stop playing politics” over London’s anti-pollution Ulez regulations.

Instead he should work with the capital’s Mayor Sadiq Khan and provide government funding for working people to replace polluting vehicles, Greenpeace said.

Greenpeace UK clean air campaigner Paul Morozzo said: “Rishi Sunak has a legal obligation to cut harmful pollution levels across the UK.

“So instead of playing politics with such a vital issue, he should work with the London mayor to provide proper financial support for working people wanting to get rid of older, more polluting vehicles.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/stop-playing-politics-over-clean-air-greenpeace-tells-sunak

Continue ReadingStop playing politics over clean air, Greenpeace tells Sunak

Sadiq Khan gives impassioned defence of decision to expand ULEZ

Spread the love

“If you saw the 30 GPs with the largest number of respiratory problems, 24 of those are in outer London.”

https://leftfootforward.org/2023/08/sadiq-khan-gives-impassioned-defence-of-decision-to-expand-ulez/

The Mayor of London has given an impassioned defence of his decision to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) across all London Boroughs, saying that he had seen the devastating consequences of air pollution.

Appearing on LBC, Khan highlighted how there were now ‘third fewer children being admitted to hospital with asthma related illnesses caused by air pollution’ as a result of ULEZ.

Tweeting a clip of his appearance, the Mayor of London wrote: “I took the decision to expand the ULEZ because experts believe it will save lives. It wasn’t an easy one, but we cannot delay action when toxic air is linked with conditions like cancer and dementia. Air pollution particles have even been found in the brains of unborn babies.”

Khan went on to tell listeners on LBC: “We know that ULEZ is effective. How do we know that? Because in central London when we introduced the ULEZ we saw a reduction of almost 50% of the toxicity in our air, there are third fewer children being admitted to hospital with asthma related illnesses caused by air pollution, we’ve expanded it in London and we’ve seen a further improvement of 20% in our air.

https://leftfootforward.org/2023/08/sadiq-khan-gives-impassioned-defence-of-decision-to-expand-ulez/

Continue ReadingSadiq Khan gives impassioned defence of decision to expand ULEZ

North-east mayor slams Starmer’s green rollback after quitting Labour

Spread the love
Labour leader Keir Starmer (centre) with then US secretary of state Mike Pompeo (R) and then US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, in London, 21 July 2020.
Labour leader Keir Starmer (centre) with then US secretary of state Mike Pompeo (R) and then US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, in London, 21 July 2020. Pompeo said in 2019 “we will do our level best” to stop Jeremy Corbyn getting elected. (Photo: US State Department)

Original article by Adam Ramsay republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Exclusive: Jamie Driscoll says some voters think Starmer is ‘a liar’ and backing ULEZ would win votes

The ex-Labour mayor of the UK’s poorest region has slammed Keir Starmer for watering down the party’s environmental commitments.

In an exclusive interview with openDemocracy in his office in Newcastle, North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll said: “There is no contradiction between protecting us from the climate emergency, and prosperity. In fact, if you fail to protect us from the climate emergency, you’re going to lose all prosperity in the future.”

Labour’s leadership has blamed its failure to take Boris Johnson’s former constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip in the recent by-election on London mayor Sadiq Khan’s plan to expand the city’s ‘ultra-low emission zone’ (ULEZ) into the area. But Driscoll, who dramatically quit Labour last month, said the party would have won the seat if it had stood by the scheme and campaigned against Tory cuts to bus services in the capital.

“Labour would have won the Uxbridge by-election if they had said: ‘Yes, it [ULEZ] is a problem, because the Tories have cut public transport in London – if we had better buses here, which we will do, you’ll be better off,’” he said. “That would have won them it… A lot of people who voted Green because they were outraged by Labour’s abandonment [of ULEZ] probably would have voted Labour.”

Labour’s candidate in the by-election had publicly opposed the ULEZ expansion during the campaign; the Green candidate won 893 votes, more than the margin separating Labour from the Tories.

Driscoll also argued that politicians’ failure to take climate breakdown seriously contributed to falling trust in politics: “We’ve got a climate juggernaut hurtling towards us, and [politicians] are saying ‘some people in outer London didn’t like ULEZ so let’s just burn the planet because we need their votes’. Almost any rational person, which is the majority of the electorate, I still believe, would say: ‘It doesn’t add up any more.’”

Deselected by Labour

Driscoll is currently mayor of the North of Tyne region, which extends northwards from Newcastle to the Scottish border. He has successfully negotiated an expansion of the region, meaning that when the post comes up for re-election next year, it will also cover areas of north-east England south of the Tyne, including Sunderland, Gateshead and County Durham.

With an engineering background and his own software business, Driscoll was first elected as a councillor in Newcastle in 2018. He was quickly chosen by Labour members to be the party’s candidate for North of Tyne mayor when the post was created in 2019, beating the longstanding leader of Newcastle Council in the selection. Calling himself a “pragmatic socialist”, he is generally identified with the left of the party, and was supported by Momentum.

But when Labour announced its shortlist of candidates for the mayor of the newly expanded North East seat, Driscoll’s name was notably absent. Party insiders briefed that he had been ‘purged’ because he once spoke at an event alongside the filmmaker Ken Loach, who was himself banned from Labour because of his prior support for the Left Unity party. While much of the media parroted this line, a simpler explanation is that he was binned because of his left-wing views, and as revenge for defeating one of the party’s big beasts.

Driscoll’s deselection was slammed by politicians across the political spectrum, with Labour mayors Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham praising his approach to the role. His interview with openDemocracy is the first time he has so clearly attacked the Labour leadership since standing down from the party.

Speaking about Starmer’s recent equivocation on previous climate spending commitments, Driscoll characterised the Labour position as: “We might put £28bn into tackling the climate emergency at some point in the future if the fiscal rule allows it – a fiscal rule which we decided on, which is not real and has no legal basis in anything, on the basis that we just think it makes us look a bit more credible to some people.”

If you do a vox pop and say ‘do you think Keir Starmer keeps his word?’ you would have no one say ‘yes’

He added: “There is an underlying reality to people’s lives. Either your bus comes, or it doesn’t. Either you can get an operation, or you can’t. These are the things that are concrete and in the real world. The climate emergency is absolutely one of those.

“The science is uncontroversial – we already now have enough CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that even if they remain stable at that level, global heating is going to continue and we will pass way beyond 1.5°C. Even if we live in a magic world where no tipping points kick in, that will lead to mass people movements and crop failures around the world.”

For Labour’s leadership to respond to this reality by saying “yeah, but we need a fiscal rule” isn’t good enough, he argued. Criticising his former party for saying it won’t cancel oil and gas licences recently issued by the Tories, and for comments Starmer reportedly made to shadow climate change secretary Ed Miliband that he “hates tree huggers” (which he denied) and isn’t “into hope and change”, Driscoll asked: “What are they there for?”

‘Dishonest’

Speaking more broadly, Driscoll said some people perceive Starmer as a “liar”. He claimed: “If you would go out and do a vox pop and say ‘do you think Keir Starmer keeps his word?’ you would have no one say ‘yes’. Or some people think, ‘yes, he’s a liar but he’s not as much of a liar as the Tories’ – you know, lesser of two evils. But the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.”

Referring to an event during Starmer’s Labour leadership campaign, Driscoll added: “I interviewed him in 2019. He said that you have to inspire people to party unity – you don’t discipline people to party unity.” Referring to Starmer’s promises at the time, Driscoll said: “Ten pledges, has he kept any of them? I don’t think he has. And the public know that.”

He added: “Regardless of what people say in politics, regardless of their ideologies, there is an objective reality. And when politicians forget that, they find themselves unable to tell the truth. The reason they are unable to tell the truth is that what they propose does not tally with reality.”

He also claimed Starmer and shadow health secretary Wes Streeting are unduly influenced by big business, pointing to Streeting’s donations from a hedge fund manager heavily invested in private healthcare and Starmer rowing back on commitments to tax Big Tech after a meeting with Google. “To abandon that,” he said, “shows you in whose interests they are operating.”

Whatever you’re interested in, there’s a free openDemocracy newsletter for you. HAVE A LOOK

Original article by Adam Ramsay republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Continue ReadingNorth-east mayor slams Starmer’s green rollback after quitting Labour

Neoliberalism can’t solve the climate crisis. We need activism

Spread the love

Original article by Paul Rogers republished from Open Democracy.

Protest banner reads Stop Climate Crime. We are One.
Protest banner reads Stop Climate Crime. We are One.

Radical action is essential to stop the transition from global warming to global boiling

Extreme weather events have increased in frequency and intensity over the past decade, with the last month seeing a rare combination of problems across North America, the Mediterranean and Middle East, northern China and South Korea. For the British, there has been the separate added shock of seeing tourists fleeing wildfires, especially in Greece.

These events are all part of the early stages of climate breakdown, which will get progressively worse unless the world makes a revolutionary and rapid transition to a low carbon economy, yet there is little evidence that political leaderships are even remotely prepared for this. At least UN secretary general António Guterres is using different language, not least his use of “global boiling” rather than “global warming” for his warnings of what is to come.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres discusses climate change at U.N. headquarters in New York City on July 27, 2023.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres discusses climate change at U.N. headquarters in New York City on July 27, 2023.

He is an exception, and public opinion overall is still not aware of the huge changes required. All the warnings from climate scientists, coupled with the evidence of our own eyes, seems to count for little as we move towards an unstable, chaotic and overheating planet.

Why is this? More importantly, why is it that radical decarbonisation isn’t happening, even though we know it’s possible? And, most important of all, how can things be turned round in time?

Let’s start with the inaction. Here, three elements interact. First, we are talking about fundamental changes in how we live, not just in the UK or western Europe but across the whole world. The result would be a cleaner, safer and healthier world, but it would involve years of huge change – which is a lot for ordinary people to take in. We shouldn’t underestimate this. Poorer communities, in particular, will find it very difficult to cope with the changes, while richer elites everywhere in the world will likely maintain the naive belief that their wealth will keep them secure.

Second, what must be done runs directly counter to the way the economy currently works. The market fundamentalist system is rooted in competition and the false belief that the millions of people left behind will benefit from trickle-down from the rich and be content. It believes that while central government, in partnership with wealth, may hold the ultimate levers of control, it should have a minimal role in how the market works. Cooperation is anathema to this way of thinking, but cooperation is essential to prevent global boiling.

Neoliberals see this market fundamentalist approach as necessary for an ordered and stable society, and believe that if the millions of marginalised people do not upset the apple cart, all will be well. At root is a belief that the elite knows best.

In Britain, there was the unexpected risk of a seriously radical Labour government taking over in 2017. Fortunately for the neoliberals, that was narrowly avoided and since then the threat from the Labour left has been well and truly suppressed.

Despite this, the system still has wider concerns over potentially violent responses from the margins. In many countries, and especially Britain, new laws have been brought in and others strengthened, and police and security forces are much better equipped and trained to handle public dissent. Heavy prison sentences for even small acts of nonviolent direct action are now there to be used.

The problem is that a market economy system simply cannot act fast enough to handle climate breakdown. The system knows this, so finds it preferable to support the view of any “experts”– of whom there are plenty – who still deny there is a problem.

The anti-climate breakdown forces are exceptionally well entrenched in society and have the easy job of convincing people that no action is required

This brings us to the third point: the relentless propaganda from the fossil fuel industry and associated think tanks over half a century to deny the problem, even when their own scientists are saying otherwise. In a fairer world there would be an offence of global corporate manslaughter, but in the real world there isn’t.

Overall, the anti-climate breakdown forces are exceptionally well entrenched in society and have the easy job of convincing people that no action is required – just when they are being told that action will be personally costly. Politicians will play on this, especially when elections are in the offing. This can even reap electoral favour. The current behaviour of Britain’s Sunak government is a case in point, with Sunak declaring that climate policy must be “proportional and pragmatic”, following a by-election win in a constituency where the Tory candidate had opposed extension of the ULEZ low-emissions scheme.

So where do we go from here? One way to look at it is to view the current issue as two very broad global trends that are on course to converge, and when they finally meet there will be a chance of radical change because there will be no alternative.

One of these trends, as we have seen, is a system set in its ways and highly unlikely to change. Carbon emissions will continue rising, temperatures will head well above 1.5°C and those with the power will reap the rewards, at least in the short term.

The other trend is much more positive and has three elements.

Climate science has come on by leaps and bounds in the past half century. The science community is far more confident of its expectations of climate breakdown and is, at last, saying so bluntly. That welcome change also has greater force because of the manner in which the beginnings of climate breakdown are frequently exceeding the warnings of predictive models.

The second trend is, at last, a growing public awareness that things must change, and change quickly. The power of the movements in many countries is remarkable, so much so that far more people are willing to risk prison for the sake of the future.

Finally, numerous impressive developments in renewable energy technology have brought down the cost of electricity by huge margins, bringing it well below grid parity in price with fossil fuels.

That leaves just two huge questions, on which so many futures depend, particularly for our children and grandchildren. When will the convergence happen, and how quickly can changes then be made?

If it takes another 20 years to the early 2040s, then the task will be almost insurmountable, with action only happening after numerous appalling catastrophes, and bitter anger from the marginalised billions. If change comes before the mid-1930s then prospects will be brighter, but the later the convergence the greater the challenge.

It is therefore a matter of the sooner the better, so the rest of the 2020s has to be a time of intense activism whenever and wherever possible. Whether it is by persuasion, argument, nonviolent direct action or other means, it might then be possible to convince enough people that radical action is essential before the transition from global warming to global boiling risks becoming irreversible.

Whatever you’re interested in, there’s a free openDemocracy newsletter for you. HAVE A LOOK

Original article by Paul Rogers republished from Open Democracy.

Continue ReadingNeoliberalism can’t solve the climate crisis. We need activism

Morning Star: Despite both parties’ political backsliding, Britain must take responsibility over climate change

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/despite-both-parties-political-backsliding-britain-must-take-responsibility-over-climate

AS heatwaves and wildfires sweep across swathes of southern Europe, north Africa and North America, today’s report from the World Weather Attribution (WWA) rang timely alarm bells.

WWA scientists predict that highly inflammatory temperatures of up to 45°C (Palermo has just reached 47°C) should no longer be regarded as unusual.

They estimate that heatwaves of the kind we have seen this July can be expected to recur around once every 15 years in North America, every 10 years in Europe and every five years in China.

Moreover, they warn that if the planet’s temperatures rise by another 1°C, on top of the 1°C increase since the late 19th century, heatwaves and wildfires will strike even more frequently.

Underlying these projections is the certainty — supported by an Everest-sized pile of scientific evidence and shared by almost all climate scientists and their professional organisations — that human activity is by far the biggest cause of global warming.

Yet the Westminster government and the Labour opposition have spent the past week — of all weeks — diluting the case and the policies for meeting Britain’s net-zero emissions target by 2050.

The Conservatives favour the exploitation of new oil, gas and coal sources while blocking onshore wind developments. With Labour’s support, they are pushing ahead with a major rearmament programme. As the Scientists for Global Responsibility point out in their invaluable report, The Environmental Impacts of the UK Military Sector (2020), the production, testing and use of armaments contribute hugely to greenhouse gas emissions — yet the figures are concealed from the public and excluded from official statistics by Britain and many other states.

The Labour leadership has announced the postponement of its Green Investment Plan even before winning a general election and taking office.

Instead of explaining the need for ultra-low emission zones (Ulez) based on genuine local consultation and support for people’s jobs and living standards, Keir Starmer blames London’s Labour mayor and Ulez for the party’s defeat in a parliamentary by-election.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/despite-both-parties-political-backsliding-britain-must-take-responsibility-over-climate

Continue ReadingMorning Star: Despite both parties’ political backsliding, Britain must take responsibility over climate change

Conservative Party Funds Anti-ULEZ Facebook Ad Blitz

Spread the love

https://www.desmog.com/2023/05/03/conservative-party-funds-anti-ulez-facebook-ad-blitz/

Rishi Sunak’s party has attacked green traffic measures via adverts to millions of UK voters, despite central government commitments to cut road pollution.

The Conservatives deployed anti-ULEZ adverts on Facebook in March and April that were seen on more than three million occasions, DeSmog research has found. 

The party has engaged in a concerted online campaign against the expansion of London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), which has been the subject of more than a quarter (28.4 percent) of the 88 adverts that were launched during this period.

Although London boroughs are not going to the polls in the 2023 local elections coming up on on 4 May, the proposed ULEZ expansion has been a key campaign issue in the areas bordering the capital, many of which are set to vote. 

According to Facebook data, the Conservative Party’s 25 anti-ULEZ adverts were seen between 3 to 3.5 million times, at a cost to the party of up to £19,100.

This is despite the government’s 2021 Decarbonising Transport Plan, which lauded the Labour mayor’s efforts on air pollution for its “significant impact on air quality” and on “reducing the number of older, more polluting vehicles that enter London’s central zone.”

https://www.desmog.com/2023/05/03/conservative-party-funds-anti-ulez-facebook-ad-blitz/

Continue ReadingConservative Party Funds Anti-ULEZ Facebook Ad Blitz