[Quarrelsome]

> to scrap unpopular things like ulez

How is ulez unpopular? Its geographical, age or class axis. In some places: like the cities, its extremely popular and extremely unpopular in other places: just outside the cities, especially for people who can't afford electric vehicles. Just cos some people vandalise the cameras, don't make it inherently popular or not. Its just that a very few _really_ don't like it, to the extent they're willing to smash stuff up.

> give away solar panels and two way heat pumps to low-income families, tax the profits of oil and gas companies, enforce right to repair, remove tariffs on chinese car makers if they create jobs in europe, fund train networks to get tickets cheaper than flying, invest in renewable energy to make electricity cheap... there are easy ways to offload that to the rich.

The basic issue remains that if we don't punish people relative to their burning of carbon then we're never gonna deal with climate change. One human can undo the hard work of many in one casual or selfish act. By the sound of international debate on the subject we should probably be investing in geo-engineering instead if we care for outcomes.

For all the presumed benefits of a populist green movement, I doubt it would actually care enough about the root issue and easily yield to self-interest. Every electorate-level conversation about climate change always starts and ends with talking about someone _else's_ carbon usage, never our own. As a species we're simply not mature enough to note what habits we've deeply embedded in our culture that are inherently problematic, like supermarkets.

[deepvibrations]

I agree - I think we really need to encourage reduction in the obvious negative habits and encourage people to take up more positive habits. eg.

- Use car less; walk, cycle, or use public transport more - Eat meat & air-freighted food less; eat local/seasonal produce more - Treat household items as disposable less; repair what breaks and buy for longevity more

I am sure there are plenty more, but how to incentivise these things is a hard problem. One exception being food, where you could easily shift agricultural subsidies away from intensive factory farming and towards local/seasonal food (details may be more complex, but it's do-able!)

[Ntrails]

> How is ulez unpopular?

As a rule most people with a ~10 year old car which runs fine at low cost are going to be frustrated at an extra tax on their vehicle. (It is not like the manufacture of a new electric car is green.)

Ordinary People always were going to have to suffer to migrate off fossil fuels. Expecting them to like it is somewhat hopeful!

[Symbiote]

The ULEZ in London was first discussed in 2014, so the writing was on the wall for diesel cars since then.

[Quarrelsome]

sure, but air quality is noticeably better in cities, so I can't let it stand that its just inherently unpopular. Some people like the benefits and enjoy them, those who don't like the downsides express that loudly.

It's not just a talking point (see ded comment below), every time we try to publicly survey to implement traffic calming ideas in our city (UK) its a stalemate between in towners and out of towners. Usually the crowds turn up to alternating ballots which is fun. Only thing that upsets me is out of towners talking like literally nobody wants it, which clearly isn't true.

I mean if your commitment to climate change or air quality in cities ends at charging people with vehicles that pollute more to enter the city: then did you have any in the first place?

[Ntrails]

You say "entering the city" but it literally applies to people who live there. My old car would have cost me every use even if all I did was move it to respect a temporary parking restriction. It isn't about dislike, it is financial hardship largely affecting those of more limited means (hint, old cars).

I am fine with ulez, but it is really important to be clear that people do suffer for it. Not out of towners. Real Londoners - especially with the extension to the outer boroughs.