The public doesn't hate Net Zero as much as RW politicians insist they do

Because Net zero is all about silly policies that make climate change and pollution worse whilst making someone ric, like putting solar panels on farmland. More energy will be ecpThere was some climate change committee that said the UK had too many sheep on the hills. I think the planes in the sky and all that shit we buy from China that we don't really need are more of a problem. Net zero is just a loaf of useless bollocks. The policies will make me.bets of yb

It's not just one death. Air pollution (I don't care if you're ULEZ-compliant, tyre particulates are bad too) and noise pollution negatively impact the whole city. Paving for car parking also shortens rainwater run-off, people are killed by collisions, congestion reduces productivity, the land use is incredibly inefficient, the anti-terrorist barriers are an eyesore... The negative externalities of car use (particularly inside a dense city) are endless.

Besides, if cars fit then every one of the 3.5 million households in London should be able to own two of them like you, right? It's only fair. Where do you think that we'll find the space for all of them?

We have just invested in solar panels. I drive a hybrid car. I don’t hate net zero and we need to take climate change seriously. America is propped up financially by big oil so they will never take it seriously but China has made great progress. Just because US has no morals it doesn’t mean we should stick our heads in the sand.

No one is stopping them. As far as "short haul" goes, it's not the same as Manchester-Paris.

I'm hopeful that Burnham understands Manchester's needs better than Sunak ever did - he who would rather use a helicopter from London to Southampton than take a perfectly decent train.

As for costs, a lot was driven up by appeasing Tory MPs in the Chilterns (not going to have the same issues in Staffordshire and Cheshire under a Labour Government, apart from the fact that most of the legal process is already done). Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine didn't help either - the steel was supposed to come from Azovstal, finding an alternative after that got overrun was pricey. The legislation was badly written - it should have provided a single point of approvals but instead there was a fragmented mess. The main issue though (which was exactly the same as the issues California is having) is that they rushed in to start building and get the politicians their hard hat photo ops before the designs had been finalised. So any changes that needed to be made - or any stalling by Bucks council - drove the costs through the roof.

Building through Staffordshire won't be half as complicated as digging out of London was, nor dealing with the Chilterns. Phase 2A should be an easy win to get as far as Crewe. For Phase 2B there is a short tunnel under Crewe, and a long tunnel under south Manchester that in theory hasn't actually been cancelled yet as it was to share infrastructure with a new Liverpool-Manchester line. If the lessons from phase 1 are learned, this shouldn't be too complicated.

There are definitely flaws in the analysis but the conclusion is correct and if anything understates the high cost of renewable electricity in consumers bills.

If you read my earlier posts I have explained why. The energy trilemma much discussed in the 2000s was:
Security of supply vs Sustainability vs Cost.

And you can't have all three.

The result was to prioritise sustainability, then security of supply with the result of higher electricity bills.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsinlondonasaresultofcaremissions

One death isn't a reason to ban cars. Cars do fit. I mean roads still exist in central London. Both our crossover SUVs are ULEZ compliant.

The big capacity gain from HS2 (if Piccadilly gets the new platforms it desperately needs) is the ability to run 400m long trains, rather than the 265m ones which currently fit. That takes capacity from 607 passengers to 1008 passengers per train. If a future generation decided to double deck (again, HS2 originally planned for this possibility for captive services to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds) then you're looking at around 1200 seats per train.

Flaws but still correct notionally and directionally

I think the people of Aberdeen should get a choice. There's already APD.

Not at the expense of everyone else they can't. Cars don't fit in central London. They lower the quality of life of everyone outside them. But we've seen from your childish responses ("boo hoo") that you only think of yourself.

I'd sooner think about the welfare of Ella:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55330945

I completely agree we could have more people travelling by train from Manchester to Paris and less flying. But then the government needs to actually build decent train track North of Birmingham. Hopefully they will. It doesn't even need to be super fancy high speed at this point. Just the capacity needed so trains can run direct to London and then people can change to the Eurostar. And it needs to be affordable. Again, achievable so long as the UK isn't chasing pointless vanity projects like "the fastest train in Europe" etc.

The thread from the Conservative Home blogger? And the PP who said that there are flaws with it? Have you got anything actually produced by an expert, published in a reputable publication and peer-reviewed?

Yes but the TGV high speed rails are built very straight to accomodate that. A lot of the "high speed" trains we have at the moment are actually tilting trains designed to deal with slightly less straight track. You couldn't replace them with high speed duplex trains like France have on the same lines. Younwoukd have to create brand new high speed train lines
I'm not against double decker trains or 200 mph trains. I think both are very cool. But saying "just build double decker trains" isn't the solution to the UKs issues with train capacity. We need to spend money on building out the infrastructure
I didn't realise that the HS2 tunnels are tall enough to accommodate double decker trains. That's something I guess. I still don't think "just add double deckers and ban short distance flights" is the solution.

Hardly anyone flies from Aberdeen to Paris. Under 20k/year. I don't care about edge cases. I care more about the 777k who fly from Manchester to Paris. A route perfectly viable by train.

I'm quite happy for people to choose how they travel. So long as they pay for the pollution they cause. No more tax breaks and subsidies for polluters...

Or they can drive what they want to. We have 2 SUVs. We like them and we use them

HS2 goes nowhere near the Cotswolds:

"We still need to drive cars though"

Not everyone does. There's no reason those SUV drivers in Kensington can't find an alternative.

And then I showed the thread with the analysis and PP also weighed in on it agreeing with it as well

The wind farm I can see from my window is far more local than the North Sea. You posting bogus graphics you found on Twitter doesn't change the actual prices being charged.

For a positive, realistic and pragmatic guide to climate change I recommend Hannah Ritchie “clearing the air” (I listened to audio)

Net zero WOULD mean cheaper bills - whether we use oil and gas from UK (very limited amount left) or elsewhere, we pay at prices set by global market. Renewables are cheaper - in the last ten years cost of solar fallen by 90%.

It is actually good for the economy. Green economy is growing far faster than any other element of the UK economy.

UK responsible for 1% of emissions yes - but a third of global emissions are 1% countries. Should all these countries do nothing? The UK also has huge historic emissions. Also, shrinking our emissions so far has not negatively impacted quality of life or the economy.

China actually has far lower emissions per person - and is rapidly scaling up wind and solar.

The benefits for households are huge - less air pollution, less negative impact to the economy when oil prices go up - but even if they weren’t, it would still be necessary. Continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere at the rate we are now would be catastrophic for every country.

HS2 is being built to the same loading gauge as European railways, though the platforms will be to the British standard.

Double decker trains can be high speed, have you never been on a TGV Duplex?

Double-deck trains won't happen on conventional routes in the UK. Our railways were the first in the world, therefore bridges were built much smaller than they are in Europe (never mind Russia or North America). It is a theoretical possibility on HS1, Eurostar is ordering double-decked trains which may end up serving London as well as their Paris-Amsterdam/Cologne routes.

I've actually done EES multiple times. Longest it took us was 20 minutes. Perfectly quick and simple.

I said before on the thread how do expect someone from Scotland and especially Aberdeen to get to Paris. And yes they do fly from there. I'm all for giving people choice on how they want to travel. Are you?

London to Manchester speed is already there. When the West Coast Route Modernisation was completed, journey times dropped to two hours and decimated the number of flights. Now all that's left flying between London and Manchester is a BA shuttle which purely exists for connecting passengers catching long-haul flights out of Heathrow.

The reason we're building (just about) HS2 is capacity. The West Coast Main Line is the busiest mixed traffic trunk line in Europe, peak fares have skyrocketed because even with the Pendolinos extended as long as the infrastructure can take them and running every 20 minutes they're still having to price off demand. HS2 doubles capacity and fares can fall as a result.

London to Edinburgh is just over the four hour threshold that is the tipping point where trains lose out to flights. HS2 built as far as Wigan (as per the original plans) would have brought this down to a nice, speedy 3h40. More importantly though it would also have increased capacity - the East Coast Main Line is also very busy and having to price excess passengers off.