• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rishi Sunak

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
It's rather interesting that he finds himself being attacked by Ford:

Ford is leading a furious business backlash against Rishi Sunak’s plans to water down some of Britain’s key climate pledges – including a delay to the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel car sales.​
The car giant said any relaxation of the 2030 target would undermine the government’s “ambition, commitment and consistency” – all of which are key to its manufacturing plans.​
The ban on new petrol and diesel car sales was announced by Boris Johnson in November 2020, and as recently as July the government described the date as “immovable”.​
And Ford’s UK chair Lisa Brankin said the auto industry is “investing to meet that challenge”. She cited a £40bn commitment to electrifying its cars, with a range of nine electric vehicles to launch by 2025.​
Ms Brankin said the range is supported by £430m of investment in Ford’s UK facilities, with further funding planned based on the 2030 target. She said it was “vital catalyst to accelerate Ford into a cleaner future”.​
The auto chief said business “needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three”. [source]

CNN reports ...

Britain will delay a series of key climate targets, its beleaguered Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is set to announce Wednesday, intensifying an assault on green policies that has been condemned by his predecessor Boris Johnson, a number of his own lawmakers, businesses and environmental experts.​
Sunak is expected to say in a hastily organized press conference he will push back a ban on selling new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035, slow down plans to phase out gas boilers, and reject calls to regulate efficiency for homeowners.​
It marks a sharp turn away from a long-standing political consensus on the climate, announced just two years after the UK hosted the crucial COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, seriously undermines efforts to portray Britain as a leader in the fight against the climate crisis.​
The move instead deepens a controversial electoral strategy by Sunak to confront and reject emissions-cutting policies, as he scrambles to reverse dismal opinion polling ahead of a vote that is anticipated next year. [source]
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
It's rather interesting that he finds himself being attacked by Ford:

Ford is leading a furious business backlash against Rishi Sunak’s plans to water down some of Britain’s key climate pledges – including a delay to the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel car sales.​
The car giant said any relaxation of the 2030 target would undermine the government’s “ambition, commitment and consistency” – all of which are key to its manufacturing plans.​
The ban on new petrol and diesel car sales was announced by Boris Johnson in November 2020, and as recently as July the government described the date as “immovable”.​
And Ford’s UK chair Lisa Brankin said the auto industry is “investing to meet that challenge”. She cited a £40bn commitment to electrifying its cars, with a range of nine electric vehicles to launch by 2025.​
Ms Brankin said the range is supported by £430m of investment in Ford’s UK facilities, with further funding planned based on the 2030 target. She said it was “vital catalyst to accelerate Ford into a cleaner future”.​
The auto chief said business “needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three”. [source]

CNN reports ...

Britain will delay a series of key climate targets, its beleaguered Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is set to announce Wednesday, intensifying an assault on green policies that has been condemned by his predecessor Boris Johnson, a number of his own lawmakers, businesses and environmental experts.​
Sunak is expected to say in a hastily organized press conference he will push back a ban on selling new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035, slow down plans to phase out gas boilers, and reject calls to regulate efficiency for homeowners.​
It marks a sharp turn away from a long-standing political consensus on the climate, announced just two years after the UK hosted the crucial COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, seriously undermines efforts to portray Britain as a leader in the fight against the climate crisis.​
The move instead deepens a controversial electoral strategy by Sunak to confront and reject emissions-cutting policies, as he scrambles to reverse dismal opinion polling ahead of a vote that is anticipated next year. [source]
Yes, I've heard about this. I believe it is because it is hurting the poorest, who cannot afford new electric vehicles during the phase-out. We also have done a very poor job of putting electric chargers in all needful places (I can't think of any near me). The cost of living crisis is impacting upon these decisions. I support the move to green energy but if it hurts the poor, which I have seen a lot of in the capital especially, but also in the North-East, where people can barely afford to fill their tanks let alone buy new cars to transition, I don't know how best to go forward. It's been made a mess of.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Yes, I've heard about this. I believe it is because it is hurting the poorest, who cannot afford new electric vehicles during the phase-out.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that the PM's actions are aimed at helping "the poorest," or that Ford is protesting on their behalf?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that the PM's actions are aimed at helping "the poorest," or that Ford is protesting on their behalf?
Yes, his policies seem to be aimed at this in some measure. Large numbers of drivers in London are protesting against the ULEZ measures - they are fined for not meeting the emissions requirements. If you need to travel within these zones in a regular petrol vehicle you are fined £12.50p per day,

'If your vehicle doesn't meet the ULEZ emissions standards and isn't exempt, you need to pay a £12.50 daily charge to drive within the zone. This applies to cars, motorcycles, vans and specialist vehicles (up to and including 3.5 tonnes) and minibuses (up to and including 5 tonnes).'

This hurts the poor the most and they have been destroying ULEZ cameras. If you are a parent of a large family and require a minibus, you are fined. Paying nearly £40/month is untenable even for the middle classes. They can't exactly afford new vehicles, so it's fail-fail.

People would welcome rolling back these fines. ULEZ has already been scrapped for Kent, where I live.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Such hard-date phase elimination of new IC engine
cars, replacing them with 100% EV strikes me as
myopic focus on the particular solution, rather than
on how best to solve the problem.
It might be either impossible, or the costs (eg, time
spent waiting at chargers, cold weather performance,
increased cost) won't be worth the benefits.

Reducing the burning of fossil fuels should be the focus,
with solutions being compared against each other.
There immediately are practical ways to do this, eg,
stricter fuel economy regulations, plug-in hybrids (which
offer ICE efficiency improvements over using them as prime
movers).
Phasing in electrics in a less panicky manner strikes me
as the better approach. This allows for more development
of EV design & infrastructure.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Such hard-date phase elimination of new IC engine
cars, replacing them with 100% EV strikes me as
myopic focus on the particular solution, rather than
on how best to solve the problem.
It might be either impossible, or the costs (eg, time
spent waiting at chargers, cold weather performance,
increased cost) won't be worth the benefits.

Reducing the burning of fossil fuels should be the focus,
with solutions being compared against each other.
There immediately are practical ways to do this, eg,
stricter fuel economy regulations, plug-in hybrids (which
offer ICE efficiency improvements over using them as prime
movers).
Phasing in electrics in a less panicky manner strikes me
as the better approach. This allows for more development
of EV design & infrastructure.
Setting a hard and fast date was a political manoeuvre, designed for votes not reality. They were never going to do it. Nobody believed they would.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Using an ICE in a plug-in hybrid offers efficiency
gains over using an ICE as sole power in a car.
In ordinary cars, the ICE runs at a fraction of
full power, which is less than optimum efficiency.
Some reasons...
Energy consumed by throttling of intake air.
Lower thermodynamic performance.

In a plug-in hybrid, the car can run on batteries
for commuting. On long trips, the ICE can
partially maintain battery charge while running
at its most efficient power output. So those
heavy spendy batteries can be much smaller,
while still being fully EV for most of the miles
traveled.

I imagine a plug-in hybrid ICE to be.....
1) A small 3-cylinder opposed piston diesel.
2) A small gas turbine with a regenerator (to
recapture exhaust heat potential energy).

This would also be cheap to maintain. I base
this on heavy mining dump trucks, where using
an ICE to drive a generator that powers electric
motors has been found to be much lower cost
to maintain than an ICE driving a mechanical
transmission.
Caterpillar was the last hold-out with mechanical
final drives. But now they too are switching to
electric because of lower operating costs.
Big machinery is interesting.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Setting a hard and fast date was a political manoeuvre, designed for votes not reality. They were never going to do it. Nobody believed they would.
I considered that too.
But it's more fun to take them at their word, & respond.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Yes, his policies seem to be aimed at this in some measure. Large numbers of drivers in London are protesting against the ULEZ measures - they are fined for not meeting the emissions requirements. If you need to travel within these zones in a regular petrol vehicle you are fined £12.50p per day,

'If your vehicle doesn't meet the ULEZ emissions standards and isn't exempt, you need to pay a £12.50 daily charge to drive within the zone. This applies to cars, motorcycles, vans and specialist vehicles (up to and including 3.5 tonnes) and minibuses (up to and including 5 tonnes).'

This hurts the poor the most and they have been destroying ULEZ cameras. If you are a parent of a large family and require a minibus, you are fined. Paying nearly £40/month is untenable even for the middle classes. They can't exactly afford new vehicles, so it's fail-fail.

People would welcome rolling back these fines. ULEZ has already been scrapped for Kent, where I live.
Thanks for the information.

(BTW, my wife and I once spent a week at a Kent B&B and loved every minute of it!)
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Setting a hard and fast date was a political manoeuvre, designed for votes not reality. They were never going to do it. Nobody believed they would.

We're experiencing similar issues in California. Arbitrary date-setting is foolish without a plan to systematically ensure that infrastructure is replaced and new vehicles are affordable.
 

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
Mr Competence and rule of law, only to turn around and bring Braverman back.

English politics are hilarious.
It's like a Zoo.
 
Top