this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
48 points (96.2% liked)
Statecraft
172 readers
1 users here now
- URL has to point to the actual article
- Body has to have an archive link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seemed pretty factual and gave an in-depth look at the effects on the London Mayor's family and life just from trying to improve the air quality in their local area. Why anyone tries to argue that removing cars from central London doesn't improve quality of life is strange. Of course it does. It's a disliked plan but unless everyone drives electric it's necessary. Too many self-centred arseholes these days.
I realize that lots of people (including the architects of the ULEZ plan themselves, probably) think pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are the problem they're trying to solve, but the reality is that electric cars ruin cities just as surely as combustion ones do. The simple fact is that cars take up too much space, and any city that tries to raze itself to fit them in ceases to function properly in the process.
In other words, restricting cars from the city center is necessary whether they're electric or not.
I agree and encourage you to reread what I wrote. Yes, the ulez both encourages less vehicles AND electric vehicles. That's not the same thing but achieves a common purpose generally. I struggle to answer the issue that you can drive modern 4x4s and older vehicles still but I think they are necessary allowable technicality because one is often half-electric and cleaner than a vehicle ten years older, and the other is soo niche that the percentage it affects is irrelevant.