PUT SPEED CAMERAS ON MOTORWAYS 'TO CUT GAS EMISSIONS'
Average speed cameras could help the UK meet its greenhouse gas targets
INS News Agency Ltd/Rex Features
Average speed cameras could help the UK meet its greenhouse gas targetsINS News Agency Ltd/Rex Features
Ben WebsterEnvironment Editor &Michael, Member, of the House of Byers, Editor-In-Chief, Mikiverse Law. Last updated June 30 2011
The 70mph motorway limit should be strictly enforced, using cameras monitoring average speed, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars, the Government’s climate change watchdog recommends today.
There you go. We need to be monitored to ensure the so-called protection of the planet. Is this why we have groups like Greenpeace trying to sell us onto the idea that the faster you travel, the more you are polluting and 'killing' the earth.
Does this logic extend to hybrid cars? Airlines?
How about industry?
Maybe we should be banning car racing?
More than half of all drivers on motorways break the limit and one in six drives faster than 80mph. The Committee on Climate Change calculates that forcing them to slow down would lead to a reduction in emissions equivalent to taking more than 350,000 cars off the road.
Those figures contradict figures this paper present in another article whereby they claim that 49% and 1 in 7 apply to the two presented scenarios.
This Committee on Climate Change doesn't seem to mind going against POPULAR opinion, but why should it? Without a climactic problem, there is NO NEED for their existence
The recommendation comes in a report advising the Government that it must take much tougher action to meet legally binding targets on emissions.
There is very little speed enforcement on motorways, which are far safer than other roads. Average speed cameras are used for safety reasons at roadworks and to reduce congestion on sections of the M25, but have never been used to reduce pollution.
"Average speed cameras ... have never been used to reduce pollution" ..... YEAH, AND SO WHAT??????
Speed Cameras, have also never been used to reduce the numbers of reality t.v shows, bake cakes, or to teach Thai to tourists visiting Thailand..
Why would a newspaper present such a inadequate analogy?? Do they think that you will believe any old shit that they publish?
The committee also dismisses a suggestion by Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, that the limit should be raised to 80mph. It says that this would raise CO2 emissions by 2.2 million tonnes a year.
The report concludes: “Any increase in speed limits would significantly raise emissions. In contrast, there is an opportunity to significantly reduce emissions through enforcement of the existing speed limit.”
ENFORCEMENT. This is about enforcing ideas up-on you. Making you pay a little more money to them so they can maintain their life of comfort feeding off your energy.
It expresses concern that the proportion of drivers breaching the motorway limit has increased, up from 49 per cent in 2008 to 52 per cent in 2009. It also questions the Government’s policy of reducing funding for speed cameras. The committee calls for the number of drivers taking eco-driving courses to be increased from 10,000 last year to 350,000 a year.
The two things here are the figures which indicate that either the 49% in the previous article may be wrong, or the 52% in this one. I'm guessing the 49% in the previous article was used to help a contention that was disguised as an article in the last article.
Either way, the public opinion CLEARLY has no effect on this self-important group's desire to embed THEIR opinion onto everyone else.
The other thing is to alert you to the fact that this eco-driving course, if, implemented in, say China, would be referred to as some type of RE-EDUCATION programme. Waiting for the great leap forward and all that.
I wonder if this eco-driving course has a position on climate skepticism.
The report says that Britain’s total emissions rose by 3 per cent last year, mainly because people used more energy for heating in the cold weather. Once the effect of the exceptional winter is discounted, emissions effectively stayed the same as in 2009.
To meet the Government’s commitment to cut greenhouse gas by 50 per cent on 1990 levels by 2025, emissions need to be falling by 3 per cent a year.
The committee urged the Government to set itself ambitious targets of insulating all lofts and cavity walls by 2015 and two million solid walls by 2020. It criticised the slow progress in insulating homes, with only 13,000 solid wall homes treated last year. The number of homes fitting cavity wall insulation fell from 700,000 in 2009 to 400,000 last year.
Energy companies, it said, should be forced to help millions of households to pay for insulation, with the costs being passed on to all customers through energy bills.
The Government plans a new Energy Company Obligation to fund insulation that could raise the average household bill by £40 a year. Those costs are likely to be outweighed, however, by the overall savings and better insulation would lift millions of homes out of fuel poverty.