How Net Zero Will Cost You Your Car

“There are few pleasures greater than promoting your moral enthusiasms at other people’s expense.” Theodore Dalrymple

There is probably no greater democratising invention than the car. It goes a long way to explain the hatred of certain section of the middle classes to it. The car enables travel by the working class, a section of society that can’t afford the luxuries of the train and connecting taxis.

I have leafletted at various trade union and labour events and posted many times on social media that the climate delusion will make attacks-of-the-past on working class people – the Miners’ Strike and the Poll Tax – seem like small beer. “This time they are coming for your Sunday dinner, your holiday abroad, your freedom of movement and your family car.” Most people regarded this as hyperbolic or thought I have bought into conspiracy theories about the WEF (World Economic Forum).

But conspiracy is unnecessary when there is a common belief, lack of scientific understanding, political naiveite, improperly thought through and rushed legislation, irrational prejudices, and distain for ordinary people. All of these are demonstrably evident in the UK’s Establishment.

Across the country with very little coverage and no analysis in the press, there is a huge anti-car movement growing. Nearly every major city and region has stealthily implemented, or plans to implement, restrictions on car and van use. These attacks are variously the implementation of LTNs (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods), CAZs (Clear Air Zones), ZEZs (Zero Emission Zone) and ULEZs (Ultra Low Emission Zone) together with decreased road space for cars and vastly underused cycling lanes.

Oxford plans to limit travel between neighbourhoods with fines if you exceed an arbitrary limit.

“People can drive freely around their own neighbourhood and can apply for a permit to drive through the filters, and into other neighbourhoods, for up to 100 days per year. This equates to an average of two days per week.”

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23073992.traffic-filters-will-divide-city-six-15-minute-neighbourhoods-agrees-highways-councillor/

But no-one that I can see, is linking this directly to anti-democratic moves by crowdfunding climate activist groups using Net Zero legislation.

In June 2019, as some sort of bizarre leaving present to Theresa May, her pet project Net Zero was implemented in law. It was passed with almost no debate (two hours), no plan, no cost benefit analysis, and no costing. Only six MPs voted against it. Peter Lilley at the time asked for a costing. None has been forthcoming. The official estimate for the cost of implementing Net Zero is £1 trillion but the GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) has estimated a cost to the UK of £3 trillion.

Speaking after the House of Commons debate on the Climate Change Bill, Peter Lilley said,

“I managed to track down the government’s own document assessing the costs and benefits of their Climate Change Bill – a document that they are supposed to make available before any Bill is considered by the House of Commons. The figures in it are dynamite. You can see why they did not want MPs to know its contents and refused to discuss it until the debate is over. It shows that this measure will be one of the most costly ever introduced – potentially well over £200 billion. It could cost every household in Britain £10,000 – or far more since the government admits that their cost estimates omit major factors. Yet the maximum benefits are about half that figure and few of them will accrue to people in this country. If other countries fail to follow our example the sole effect will be to drive British industry abroad without reducing carbon emissions worldwide at all.”

At the time, we were the only country in the world to implement climate targets into law in the world. Britain emits 1% of world CO2. Since then, half a dozen others have followed suit but none with such ambitious targets.

The consequences of The Climate Change Act 2008 and the subsequent Net Zero 2019 legislation were more far-reaching than merely cost. Environmental policies laid out in law can be challenged in the courts, overturning democratic processes.

Client Earth, a climate activist group funded in part by the Post Code Lottery but also by crowdfunding, seized the chance and has done exactly this. They have forced through a change in a young girl’s death certificate so that it now says that she died from the consequences of air pollution. They have challenged the government and won on the implementation of Net Zero. They have also challenged the government and won on the subject of air quality.

As an aside, no-one dies from air pollution. The idea that 40,000 people die each year from it is fantasy. The 40,000 deaths from air pollution belief was comprehensively de-bunked by Professor Anthony Frew, Doctor of Respiratory Medicine at the Royal Sussex Hospital and at the time a government adviser. The absolute and unquestionable driver of health and longevity is income. People live longer in supposedly polluted London than they do in many economically disadvantaged parts of Britain with air like wine. Bold claims require evidence. So, I will be writing more on this subject.

Client Earth won their air quality case, and as a consequence the Conservative government ordered councils and cities to address the alleged problem. The details of the implementation were left up to the councils. It was specified, though, that charging would be an option of last resort.

So, we now see anti-car measures across the country and in Wales, a blanket 20mph speed limit. Every major city and council has implemented schemes. Bristol’s charging system went live two days ago. There dozens of similar schemes (see list below) and the vast majority have decided to charge.

Manchester has the largest CAZ in the world at 500sq miles, courtesy of Mayor Andy Burnham. The ULEZ in London will expand to the M25 Mayor Sadiq Khan announced two days ago.

London boroughs are gridlocked by planters installed in roads to prevent access to streets and green campaigners have installed “pop-up” parks. Pop-up parks have bizarrely popped up outside real parks

There are literally scores of internet groups set up to oppose these anti car attacks, The Facebook group for the Manchester CAZ alone has 83,000 members.

Public consultations have been undertaken but these only give a veneer of democracy to decisions that have already been made elsewhere. There is a plethora of examples of consultations which, when oppositional, are ignored. A common trick is to start the scheme and then to recruit local people in its implementation. Greater Manchester has already spent in excess of £60m on cutting down trees and installing cameras and air quality meters but will not be consulting with the public on the programme until the project is three years advanced. Campaigners in Wales, after sharing relevant information from a head of a road safety charity, were blocked on Twitter by the Head of Transport of the Local Council.

Although vigorously opposed at a local level, it is only comparatively recently that this has been recognised as a national problem with groups linking up.

The anti-car legislation is being implemented to meet the prejudices of councillors and the needs of cash strapped councils. The schemes affect everyone in these areas, and the areas affected are growing. Pretty soon, it may cost you £10 to undertake a journey of even a few miles. You could be charged if you travel outside your local neighbourhood as in the Oxford proposals. Plumbers, electricians, and tradesmen will have to pass charges on to you. Already vulnerable high streets are set to be further harmed by loss of business. The disabled and the elderly will clearly be disadvantaged by such schemes. Sadiq Khan has said that classic cars will not be exempt and in fact will be charged up to £17 per day. Scrappage schemes are being planned which will take your car but leave you unable to pay the typical £50,000 for an electric vehicle.