| London ULEZ, who can afford it now 10:03 - Nov 25 with 35381 views | RangersDave |
Just announced that ULEZ in the smoke is going to get bigger, and expanded to cover all of London.
WTF?
Up here in Manchester it will happen soon, making average Joe and Josephine pay to take their car past the boundary, which extends to the border with the M6!
all in all, what a sh1t show. [Post edited 25 Nov 2022 10:23]
|  |
| |  |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 08:42 - Aug 16 with 2001 views | R_from_afar |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 21:37 - Aug 15 by RangersDave |
No one has ever proven to me that the whole process of making, from scratch, using all the materials, the digging out of the earth the ore to make steel, the concrete, the wages, the fuel driving to work etc, the delivery of said concrete, the engineering the steel, the preparation, the foundations, the copper for the generator, the transport to site etc etc etc, for a wind turbine, can pay for itself over its life span, let alone when the wind drops to nothing for days on end!
If someone better than i started this list from very beginning, including literally everything involved in making just 1 wind turbine, i'm pretty sure peeps may be surprised nay shocked.
Wind turbines are only good for 1 thing in my book, and thats as a tax break! |
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/wind-power-now-the-cheapest-so |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:03 - Aug 16 with 1944 views | R_from_afar |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 23:28 - Aug 15 by Lblock |
Amazes me how people who are clearly anti government and anti establishment in their usual approach are so quick to buy into the great climate lie. Maybe because it’s so right on, trendy and woke at the moment?
Those self same people choose to ignore the payment to “the man” and bask in the thought they are saving a polar bear.
As I’ve already said every published fact for can be counteracted by a published fact against. For instance:
Electric Vehicles will not be sustainable until they consume batteries made of transition metals and magnets consuming rare earth metals. Each ton of rare-earth metal mined from nature leaves behind one ton of radioactive hazardous chemical waste, which nobody wants to discuss. The cobalt used in batteries is mined legally/illegally from African countries. It's killing the vegetation and farming in those countries. Not only is it leading to vast deforestation, but it is also making it difficult for people in African countries to survive.
I’ll go with my gut feel and eyes wide open view.
It also amazes me how I as a confirmed authoritarian, capitalist and right of centrist can be so in favour of pushing back on these clear controls, dictatorial tax grabs and coercion tactics to the extent of being so in favour of an anarchist approach against them I’d seek out groups wanting to smash these policies. I’ve shocked myself!!!!
ULEZ today, mile by mile charges tomorrow, bordered 15 minutes cities in the future…. Who knows where it all ends? |
It's not a lie, we have known carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect since Tyndall discovered it in 1859.
It's not woke to want the earth to remain habitable.
It's not just about polar bears, we just had the hottest month ever recorded.
Natural factors have been taken into account by the studies into climate change and global warming, it's clear that what we are seeing now is caused by us, not solar cycles or some other natural phenomenon.
The changes we are causing are creating a growing refugee crisis. Being a pastoralist used to be how the largest number of people globally made their living. In more and more places, this is becoming difficult or impossible because rainfall patterns are no longer reliable and when it does rain, it's so heavy it destroys crops.
At the time of the Glasgow climate agreement, 140 countries had committed to net zero.
There is no woke, lefty, tofu eating conspiracy. Scientists and world leaders have read the science, they've seen the physical evidence in their own countries, and they are quite rightly worried. We are close to tipping points, like the loss of the Amazon rainforest (which generates the rain for a huge part of the planet), which, once passed, no amount of money will fix.
This is about us. | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:13 - Aug 16 with 1927 views | lightwaterhoop |
In the 1980's they told us that by 2015 the North Pole would have disappeared and New York and Miami would be under water.Climate change looks like a hoax to me.Mind you the North Pole pub by the Scrubs is sadly no longer here. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 9:17]
|  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:14 - Aug 16 with 1912 views | Rs_Holy |
We covered quite a bit about electric cars in the Electric Car thread a few weeks ago.
I'm sticking to my argument that EV's are the future of motoring but what we are driving today is NOT the future... I had an ID3 (until some f***wit wrote it off on a roundabout in March), and I now drive an MG4. Both are beautiful cars but flawed in many ways.
However the simple facts are the combustion engine has had its day. There's only so much improvements you can make to something as crude and mechanically complex.
On the other hand the electric vehicle is still (relatively speaking) in its development infancy.
Look at mobile phones from 20 years ago and look at what we have now (I remember my kids getting all excited about polyphonic ringtones).
Its a new technology which will come on leaps and bounds now that the major manufacturers are investing serious R&D into it... Some chaps who used to work for SAAB have started an EV company and think they have a range of over 600 miles on their car. Toyota are developing a completely new type of battery technology and think they can achieve over 900 miles on a full charge. Its an example of how product design and technology improves with time.
Final analogy is post war all passenger jets were propeller based. Then de Havilland launched the Comet (the first jet passenger aircraft). It cut flight times by over 50% , but had some severe design flaws and fell out of the sky on a regular basis. Fast forward 20 years and Concorde had been designed, built and was going through its test flights.
One day I will look back and laugh at how crude my ID3 and MG4 were, but I will laugh even more at the petrol cars I owned up until 2022. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 10:04]
|  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:18 - Aug 16 with 1901 views | izlingtonhoop |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:03 - Aug 16 by R_from_afar |
It's not a lie, we have known carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect since Tyndall discovered it in 1859.
It's not woke to want the earth to remain habitable.
It's not just about polar bears, we just had the hottest month ever recorded.
Natural factors have been taken into account by the studies into climate change and global warming, it's clear that what we are seeing now is caused by us, not solar cycles or some other natural phenomenon.
The changes we are causing are creating a growing refugee crisis. Being a pastoralist used to be how the largest number of people globally made their living. In more and more places, this is becoming difficult or impossible because rainfall patterns are no longer reliable and when it does rain, it's so heavy it destroys crops.
At the time of the Glasgow climate agreement, 140 countries had committed to net zero.
There is no woke, lefty, tofu eating conspiracy. Scientists and world leaders have read the science, they've seen the physical evidence in their own countries, and they are quite rightly worried. We are close to tipping points, like the loss of the Amazon rainforest (which generates the rain for a huge part of the planet), which, once passed, no amount of money will fix.
This is about us. |
Well said.
'Climate lie' does seem a rather flat-earth, 'I see no ships' stance.
I genuinely find it difficult to think any but the most stubborn would claim to believe it a lie. |  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:23 - Aug 16 with 1886 views | Sonofpugwash |
When you get Reuters and "fact checkers" in any argument you know it all stinks. |  |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:46 - Aug 16 with 1834 views | QPR_John |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:14 - Aug 16 by Rs_Holy |
We covered quite a bit about electric cars in the Electric Car thread a few weeks ago.
I'm sticking to my argument that EV's are the future of motoring but what we are driving today is NOT the future... I had an ID3 (until some f***wit wrote it off on a roundabout in March), and I now drive an MG4. Both are beautiful cars but flawed in many ways.
However the simple facts are the combustion engine has had its day. There's only so much improvements you can make to something as crude and mechanically complex.
On the other hand the electric vehicle is still (relatively speaking) in its development infancy.
Look at mobile phones from 20 years ago and look at what we have now (I remember my kids getting all excited about polyphonic ringtones).
Its a new technology which will come on leaps and bounds now that the major manufacturers are investing serious R&D into it... Some chaps who used to work for SAAB have started an EV company and think they have a range of over 600 miles on their car. Toyota are developing a completely new type of battery technology and think they can achieve over 900 miles on a full charge. Its an example of how product design and technology improves with time.
Final analogy is post war all passenger jets were propeller based. Then de Havilland launched the Comet (the first jet passenger aircraft). It cut flight times by over 50% , but had some severe design flaws and fell out of the sky on a regular basis. Fast forward 20 years and Concorde had been designed, built and was going through its test flights.
One day I will look back and laugh at how crude my ID3 and MG4 were, but I will laugh even more at the petrol cars I owned up until 2022. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 10:04]
|
I assume with all this advanced technology getting a fully charged battery will only take at most 10 minutes and public charge points will replace petrol pumps. | | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:53 - Aug 16 with 1818 views | wombat |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:46 - Aug 16 by QPR_John |
I assume with all this advanced technology getting a fully charged battery will only take at most 10 minutes and public charge points will replace petrol pumps. |
you can pretty much charge on the telsa network in that time for abour 50% charge , its actually gets slower the higher amount of charge you take on , slows donw massively at 80% to 100% charge so the advice we are given is charge enough to get u home , the tech is brillaint for working this out by the way and will re reroute u to a charger if needed |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:54 - Aug 16 with 1814 views | Rs_Holy |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:46 - Aug 16 by QPR_John |
I assume with all this advanced technology getting a fully charged battery will only take at most 10 minutes and public charge points will replace petrol pumps. |
Currently the Tesla Supercharger is the fastest charging option, allowing you to charge your car up to 200 miles in 15 minutes... Its only going to get quicker! [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 9:55]
| | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:55 - Aug 16 with 1814 views | QPR_John |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:53 - Aug 16 by wombat |
you can pretty much charge on the telsa network in that time for abour 50% charge , its actually gets slower the higher amount of charge you take on , slows donw massively at 80% to 100% charge so the advice we are given is charge enough to get u home , the tech is brillaint for working this out by the way and will re reroute u to a charger if needed |
Charging enough to get me home is pretty useless if there is no way to charge at home. | | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:06 - Aug 16 with 1777 views | CateLeBonR |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 08:38 - Aug 16 by wombat |
that tw@t will tryand grab anything he can from where ever he can to make up for screwing TFL budget up and the lack of people using the net work these days , his latest plan i saw was to destroy half of holland park avn to put another underused bike lane in , but in doing so hell be ripping out hundreds of trees which have been there for hundred of years , think its the stetch from lancaster gate gate to marble arch , so nice big bike lane more slow moving traffic causing more pollution , the bloke a lunatic |
@LBlock
“Amazes me how people who are clearly anti government and anti establishment in their usual approach are so quick to buy into the great climate lie“
They used to say similar about the hippies I believe.
These things always start with the best intentions but always end up being exploited for economic and political gain. Before being discarded. The idea that the same corporations, institutions and governments who preside over us now are going to deliver this, is laughable. A fair and equal society, where everybody lives for the common good? Really? This government? These institutions? Sorry I’m going to take some convincing.
*Edit - sorry I didn’t mean to quote you Wombat. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 10:08]
|  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:08 - Aug 16 with 1760 views | Rs_Holy |
 | | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:26 - Aug 16 with 1688 views | hubble |
Strange that you reply to Sakura's post by quoting mine. Is that because for someone claiming - it seems - the moral highground - you use a false equivalence (if you are indeed replying to my post)?
I said second-hand petrol cars. All your facts and figures and comparisons are for brand new cars. The simple fact is that no new EV can ever be more environmentally friendly than the alternative of a properly maintained second-hand petrol car. So why are you promoting buying these things? All that you are really supporting is the lastest iteration of the wily government-sponsored capitalist/corporate monopoly - in other words: new ways to make money by enforcing obsolescence.
As I said, if you truly cared about the environment, you would promote the wonderful art of recycling and upcycling. A well maintained relatively modern second-hand petrol car will give you 100,000s of miles of service, at no additional cost to the environment (compared to a brand new EV) than the emissions from the cat-enhanced pipe and the consumables.
All the articles you quote are also full of suppositions and 'what-if' scenarios, they are not the 'hard evidence' you claim. Reuse, recycle; we don't need any more junk, manufactured at huge cost to the people who mine and assemble it, as well as the planet.
. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 10:28]
|  |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:32 - Aug 16 with 1665 views | PunteR |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:06 - Aug 16 by CateLeBonR |
@LBlock
“Amazes me how people who are clearly anti government and anti establishment in their usual approach are so quick to buy into the great climate lie“
They used to say similar about the hippies I believe.
These things always start with the best intentions but always end up being exploited for economic and political gain. Before being discarded. The idea that the same corporations, institutions and governments who preside over us now are going to deliver this, is laughable. A fair and equal society, where everybody lives for the common good? Really? This government? These institutions? Sorry I’m going to take some convincing.
*Edit - sorry I didn’t mean to quote you Wombat. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 10:08]
|
Yeh im kinda in the middle on this. I can accept that pollution and climate change is a thing but also I'm very cynical of government's motivation.
Agendas are getting pushed through off the back of climate change imo.
There has to be a better alternatives to help pollution then charging £12.50 for ULEZ but it's probably much harder to implement and would cost more to those in power and the establishment so they charge John the plumber in his 10 year old van. |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:37 - Aug 16 with 1643 views | R_from_afar |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:14 - Aug 16 by Rs_Holy |
We covered quite a bit about electric cars in the Electric Car thread a few weeks ago.
I'm sticking to my argument that EV's are the future of motoring but what we are driving today is NOT the future... I had an ID3 (until some f***wit wrote it off on a roundabout in March), and I now drive an MG4. Both are beautiful cars but flawed in many ways.
However the simple facts are the combustion engine has had its day. There's only so much improvements you can make to something as crude and mechanically complex.
On the other hand the electric vehicle is still (relatively speaking) in its development infancy.
Look at mobile phones from 20 years ago and look at what we have now (I remember my kids getting all excited about polyphonic ringtones).
Its a new technology which will come on leaps and bounds now that the major manufacturers are investing serious R&D into it... Some chaps who used to work for SAAB have started an EV company and think they have a range of over 600 miles on their car. Toyota are developing a completely new type of battery technology and think they can achieve over 900 miles on a full charge. Its an example of how product design and technology improves with time.
Final analogy is post war all passenger jets were propeller based. Then de Havilland launched the Comet (the first jet passenger aircraft). It cut flight times by over 50% , but had some severe design flaws and fell out of the sky on a regular basis. Fast forward 20 years and Concorde had been designed, built and was going through its test flights.
One day I will look back and laugh at how crude my ID3 and MG4 were, but I will laugh even more at the petrol cars I owned up until 2022. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 10:04]
|
Good post. An all electric vehicle with a range of over 600 miles has actually been available for many years, although - sadly - it is a Tesla sports car which costs an eye-watering amount of dosh (the deposit - deposit - is £38k!).
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/roadster | |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:45 - Aug 16 with 1614 views | CateLeBonR |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:37 - Aug 16 by R_from_afar |
Good post. An all electric vehicle with a range of over 600 miles has actually been available for many years, although - sadly - it is a Tesla sports car which costs an eye-watering amount of dosh (the deposit - deposit - is £38k!).
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/roadster |
I know someone who works in the industry and he thinks 300-400 miles is more than most people will ever need so they should concentrate on producing those batteries. | | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:45 - Aug 16 with 1609 views | Hunterhoop |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 08:08 - Aug 16 by Sakura |
Hunterhoop is unknowingly spreading misinformation
You accuse me of misdirection. You admit my stat was true. But then perform your own misdirection. Where in the article does it suggest in the UK it would be anywhere close to the 8,500 miles offset. It says this is the case for Norway, where almost all their energy is from Hyrdo power.
But what about England? Do we get all our electricity from Hydro like Norway, which you compare us to…
https://grid.iamkate.com
NOPE. Over the last year we have got 1.2% from Hydro and just 36% of renewables. But 39% from fossil fuels. Shock!!!!!! Misinformation is actually coming from you then!!!
Even the renewables from how much weighting do we add for their reliance on Chinese coal to exist
More misinformation comes from you, you reference Reuters article which says majority of Polands electricity comes from Coal. But leave out that 21% comes from renewable energy, not too different to us
https://ember-climate.org/countries-and-regions/countries/poland/#:~:text=69%25%
80,000 miles to offset is too high when looking at the UK perhaps. But it’s definitely not 8,500 miles like Norway either. Evidence points to it being much closer to the 80,000 I said and not the 8,500 that you referenced. So who is spreading the misinformation here…
Can we agree on one thing at least. Older cars should not be forced off the road so early. There is no need to penalise societies poorest in that way especially when it provides little to no benefit
Also if you really care about this stuff I would suggest you go and educate yourself on why pure electric vehicles are such a bad thing for the environment and actually hybrid vehicles are far more environmentally friendly [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 8:16]
|
You’re literally lying. I’d did not say your stat was right.
I said 80,00 is wrong and irrelevant because it’s based on the energy mix for electricity being from 100% fossil fuels, which is not the case in the real world. In that article, you’ll see Norway it’s 8,500 break even, and the US (with their lower renewable proportion to their energy mix) being 13,500. The UK has a higher renewable mix than the US but lower than Norway, so it’s completely correct to say it’ll be between those numbers. You’re conveniently ignoring that the break even for the US is 13,500 as detailed in the report even with their energy mix from renewables being much lower than the UK’s
This is made clear in the report I posted the link to.
There’s no point discussing this with you when you deliberately lie and ignore very clear evidence clearly communicated. The studies on break even points takes into consideration the energy mix of all countries.
And as I said in my first post, less consumption is the key (not just on cars but across the board). But if you need to buy a new car and you expect to do more than 13,500 miles in it during it’s life (which I’d assume is everyone), an EV is better than a petrol car. It’s that simple. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 10:55]
|  | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:49 - Aug 16 with 1583 views | wombat |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 09:55 - Aug 16 by QPR_John |
Charging enough to get me home is pretty useless if there is no way to charge at home. |
then u would be mad to have an ev car , the full benifit is to charge at home , prob costs us £4.50 to £475 for a full charge at the moment which gives me around 250 to 280 miles . my audi fill it up for 90 quid i get 475 miles if im lucky | |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:54 - Aug 16 with 1555 views | Hunterhoop |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:26 - Aug 16 by hubble |
Strange that you reply to Sakura's post by quoting mine. Is that because for someone claiming - it seems - the moral highground - you use a false equivalence (if you are indeed replying to my post)?
I said second-hand petrol cars. All your facts and figures and comparisons are for brand new cars. The simple fact is that no new EV can ever be more environmentally friendly than the alternative of a properly maintained second-hand petrol car. So why are you promoting buying these things? All that you are really supporting is the lastest iteration of the wily government-sponsored capitalist/corporate monopoly - in other words: new ways to make money by enforcing obsolescence.
As I said, if you truly cared about the environment, you would promote the wonderful art of recycling and upcycling. A well maintained relatively modern second-hand petrol car will give you 100,000s of miles of service, at no additional cost to the environment (compared to a brand new EV) than the emissions from the cat-enhanced pipe and the consumables.
All the articles you quote are also full of suppositions and 'what-if' scenarios, they are not the 'hard evidence' you claim. Reuse, recycle; we don't need any more junk, manufactured at huge cost to the people who mine and assemble it, as well as the planet.
. [Post edited 16 Aug 2023 10:28]
|
Sorry, didn’t intentionally reply to you. Thought it was Sakura’s post.
Did you read my first post fully or switch off because it began on a track you didn’t like?
I quite literally said Reduce (then Reuse and Recycle) is the key, just as you are. And I made a similar point about the Capitalist God’s and addiction to GDP growth.
If you need to buy a new car, it should be an EV based on all the accepted, peer reviewed lifecycle analysis out there.
In terms of continuing to use a 2nd hand car vs the buy a new EV, it does depend on the mileage. In their lifecycles, the tailpipe emissions of a petrol car outweigh it’s upstream emissions. In an EV it’s the other way around. I don’t have to hand the additional mileage on a 2nd hand car at which point an EV becomes less. However, I get your point that EVs aren’t driving a huge benefit here in the short term. But existing petrol cars don’t live forever. At some point new vehicles are required across society. At that point, EVs are the way forward. And as ranges improve, EVs will only become better than petrol cars on the lifecycle analysis. Then you reach a point where the decision you’re referring to doesn’t exist.
And on top of all this is the air quality benefit, which again is undeniable. | | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 11:42 - Aug 16 with 1474 views | hubble |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:54 - Aug 16 by Hunterhoop |
Sorry, didn’t intentionally reply to you. Thought it was Sakura’s post.
Did you read my first post fully or switch off because it began on a track you didn’t like?
I quite literally said Reduce (then Reuse and Recycle) is the key, just as you are. And I made a similar point about the Capitalist God’s and addiction to GDP growth.
If you need to buy a new car, it should be an EV based on all the accepted, peer reviewed lifecycle analysis out there.
In terms of continuing to use a 2nd hand car vs the buy a new EV, it does depend on the mileage. In their lifecycles, the tailpipe emissions of a petrol car outweigh it’s upstream emissions. In an EV it’s the other way around. I don’t have to hand the additional mileage on a 2nd hand car at which point an EV becomes less. However, I get your point that EVs aren’t driving a huge benefit here in the short term. But existing petrol cars don’t live forever. At some point new vehicles are required across society. At that point, EVs are the way forward. And as ranges improve, EVs will only become better than petrol cars on the lifecycle analysis. Then you reach a point where the decision you’re referring to doesn’t exist.
And on top of all this is the air quality benefit, which again is undeniable. |
Fair enough, Hunter, if you meant to reply to Sakura.
However, my point still stands, and although we apparently agree on reusing and recycling as opposed to buying new, don't forget, EVs will also wear out and need replacing.
But then you say "And on top of all this is the air quality benefit, which again is undeniable..."
Well, actually it is deniable, given that there is the dangerous particulate issue, particularly from tyres, and the fact that EVs are heavier than petrol cars:
“Tyres are rapidly eclipsing the tailpipe as a major source of emissions from vehicles,” said Nick Molden, at Emissions Analytics, the leading independent emissions testing company that did the research. “Tailpipes are now so clean for pollutants that, if you were starting out afresh, you wouldn’t even bother regulating them.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-parti
This report comes after the so-called myth-busting RAC report. | |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 11:58 - Aug 16 with 1449 views | kensalriser |
Who's lying abut climate change?
Why are they lying about it?
And how have they managed to bring the overwhelming balance of scientists along with them? |  |
| |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 12:05 - Aug 16 with 1435 views | QPR_John |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 10:49 - Aug 16 by wombat |
then u would be mad to have an ev car , the full benifit is to charge at home , prob costs us £4.50 to £475 for a full charge at the moment which gives me around 250 to 280 miles . my audi fill it up for 90 quid i get 475 miles if im lucky |
I assume you meant £4.75. Yes at the moment I would be mad to purchase an electric car but what of the future. I'm unlikely to move house so that I can fit a charger so maybe give up driving because you can be sure public charging points, forgetting the problem of inconvenience, will still be more costly than a home charger. | | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 13:05 - Aug 16 with 1348 views | Rs_Holy |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 11:58 - Aug 16 by kensalriser |
Who's lying abut climate change?
Why are they lying about it?
And how have they managed to bring the overwhelming balance of scientists along with them? |
its all a conspiracy ... They're all on the make ... all the scientists, BBC, ITV, Sky, Attenborough, Thunberg, Rishi, Chris Packham... Its the New World Order! | | | |
| London ULEZ, who can afford it now on 13:20 - Aug 16 with 1306 views | Sonofpugwash |
Blimey,it's all on here today.
BTW don't forget to get your old face masks out - there's more fakery a- brewin'.  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
