Category Archives: United Nations

The War on Cars – Video


Last month, I gave a talk to the Libertarian Alliance in London about the “war on cars” that successive UK governments have been conducting against us for decades now. The talk was very wide-ranging, covering:

  1. The green movement in general, and the involvement of the United Nations and the UK government in it.
  2. The “global warming” scare, and the (long and rather sordid) backstory to it.
  3. The “air pollution” scare that is now being used as an excuse to intensify the war on our cars, and the (just as long, and almost as sordid) backstory to it.

This is one of my very rare appearances on video (a good thing they’re rare! I hear some of you saying). The link is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUpOj7KabvM.

The talk is quite long (55 minutes) and rather detailed, but I think I got over many important points, and made people chuckle a few times on the way!

The backstory behind the war on cars in the UK


On May 20th, 2019, I gave a talk to the Libertarian Alliance about the damaging political policies being imposed on car drivers in the UK, and the history behind them. Normally, these talks are recorded on video. But on this occasion, an unfortunate combination of circumstances prevented a recording. As this subject is a topical one – and becoming more so by the day – I thought it appropriate to create a “transcript” of the talk, re-constructed from my notes.

Introduction

On April 8th, 2019, London mayor Sadiq Khan’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) went live in the Congestion Charge area in central London. It now costs the driver £12.50 a day, on top of the congestion charge, to drive in this zone a diesel car built before September 2015, or a petrol car built before 2006. This is an outrageous amount; and it also has to be paid at week-ends! This scheme is planned to be extended to all of the area inside North and South Circular Roads in October 2021. And after that, who knows?

Beyond this, there is talk of charging drivers of diesel cars to enter any of 35 or so cities around the UK. Some cities, like Southampton, have decided not to do this. Others, like Birmingham, are pressing on. Meanwhile, on May 9th the Times began a campaign claiming that “air pollution on the streets is poisoning 2.6 million schoolchildren,” and that this is due to “clogged roads”.

And yet, a recent (May 2nd) Sky News poll showed that more than 50 per cent of a random sample of people in the UK were “unwilling to significantly reduce the amount they drive, fly and eat meat,” either to combat climate change or to protect the environment in a more general sense. This is evidence of a huge disconnect between the political classes and the people!

There is a long backstory behind all this, which not many people seem to be aware of. In the last two years, I’ve managed to pull a lot of this backstory together. So, tonight I’ll bring it out into the open for you. In the process, I’ll identify what I call the Ten Deadly Dishonesties. These are attitudes and ploys that anti-car and other green campaigners have used, many of them more than once, in the course of their political machinations. Read more

The Social Costs of Air Pollution from Cars in the UK


By Neil Lock

(Author’s Note. This is an updated and re-written version of my earlier paper “Diesel Fumes” on the same subject).

Back in April the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, introduced from the coming October a £10 a day “toxicity charge” for pre 2006 cars, both petrol and diesel, entering the current London congestion charge zone. He also set out plans for a London “Ultra Low Emissions Zone” (ULEZ) [1]. From April 2019 (brought forward from September 2020), it will cost £12.50 per day to drive in this zone a diesel car first registered before September 2015, or a petrol car built before 2006. Furthermore, he plans to extend this zone to the area inside the North and South Circular roads by 2021.

Read more

“Our Common Future” Revisited


Thirty years ago, in April 1987, a new United Nations report was published. It came from the recently established World Commission on Environment and Development, and its title was Our Common Future. It was 300 pages long; and its preparation, which took two and a half years, had involved 23 commissioners and 70 or so experts and support staff. In addition, they solicited inputs from people and organizations, in many different countries, who had concerns about environmental and development issues. You can find the full text of the report at [1].

Today, most people seem unaware of this report. That’s a pity. For this is the document, which set in motion the green political juggernaut that has had such a huge, adverse effect on the lives of all good people in the Western world. The 30th anniversary is, I think, a good time to look back at, and to re-evaluate, this report. Not only in its own terms, such as asking how significant the issues it raised have proven to be, and how well these issues have been dealt with in the meantime. But also from a broader perspective, asking how well the process, both scientific and political, has measured up to the reasonable expectations of the people who have been subjected to its consequences.

Read more

The WHO Goes In To Bat For Big Pharma


by Dick Puddlecote

The WHO Goes In To Bat For Big PharmaWell, the World Health Organisation has finally come out of the closet and admitted that its Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the transnational pharmaceutical industry.

We’ve kinda known this for a while but it has always previously posed as being concerned with health by attacking tobacco. However, once again e-cigs have thrown a huge spanner in the works and the WHO has been forced to reveal its hand in the most shameful of ways. Read more

I get worried sometimes when repellent people in other countries do repellent things, and we seem to have no power to prevent the fucking bastards from behaving in pre-capitalist-barbarian ways.


David Davis

My dear colleague Sean has had relayed onto his facebook a somewhat exciting post, by someone called Chris White (who I do not know) regarding some scumbags crucifying other people (who they might or might not know, for all I know).

I do not have any information about whether the victim, videoed, was also a scumbag or not, sadly. This might or might not have been the case, but at this time we cannot know if he was a scumbag or not, as he is unable to say.

My gripe with this situation is that, here we are, sitting in what’s really a fairly OK country, with most of what we want, and not really starving or wanting for much, most of the time. OK, you could rue the lack of a Bugatti Veyron or, if desperate and needy, a Range-Rover HSE Sport Overfinch, and perhaps you might be pissed off at not owning somewhere like one of these. But really it’s not that bad, quite yet.

Should we care if various unsocialized scumbags, arguably desocialized recently and on purpose when it wasn’t a requirement – by a “certain religion which has held their people’s social development back 1,500 years” –  are ritually-slaughtering each other somewhere else?

I think we ought to care. As the English People, we did actually teach the world how to live. I’ve been saying this off and on for eight years on this blog, and about 50, shambolically, elsewhere. This is not to say that the right thing to do is to “go to war in Syria”…and “for who or what? Also we have no vital British Interest in what goes on in Syria. But as a human being, one’s visceral response is to ” arrive in might, find the perpetrators, arrest and then (ideally) dispose of them in public (to make a point), and then _occupy the place, for perhaps decades or hundreds of years_ . This is necessary for mere years (such as the eight or so of Iraq) won’t do the job.

The GramscoFabiaNazis knew, even in 1884 when they began shagging each others’ wives and daughters, that they would have to occupy Britain for decades, and decades and decades, after their victory. The one which they have scored over us, gradually, between 1948 and the present day. They know their war is not over by a long chalk. I’m not making value-judgements about whether they ought to have engaged in those sexual past-times which I stated,

But having “gone into Iraq”, perhaps we should have stayed for 100, 200, 300 years. We stayed in India for just short of 350 years, for example, and even that was barely enough to turn a place like that into a semi-functioning pluralist democracy.

One day I’ll tell you stories about what my old dead father said, about stuff in the Gold Coast (now Ghana) when  he was there with the RAMC in The War, and what the African Tribesmens’ “big-men” said to him when their fears about “White Man Going To Leave Us After War” were sadly confirmed by him.

Perhaps we should have “intervened in Syria”. But :-

(1) Not this government

(2) Not in the way they thought they might.

It’s probably good Cameron was stopped, but then what do we do about this awful stuff going on?

The FoodNazi farm-animal-Police dishonoureth us, doth bully us and yea, seriously degradeth us (from and old and unremembered tongue-twister)


David Davis

Here we see the Salt-Nazis regrouping for another attempt to either ration salt, or tax it, or both. As War Secretary of an incoming British Libertarian Minimal-Statist Classical-Liberal government’s first administration, I’m not especially worried about these people, for they will simply “have to go”. What salt is in what purchased food will become a matter for the manufacturing sellers and their buyers, as is good and right.

However, there is hope for proper capitalism still since there seem to be enough people still alive who are old enough to write stuff like the following:-

I have no objection against government offering advice and to an extent it is duty bound to pass it on. I don’t, however, go along with the tiresome narrative that food companies are evil because they deliberately hide toxic, addictive, additives to make profits knowing full well that it is killing their customers. Go along with that and one ends up demanding that the state should protect us by ‘acting’ against ‘Big Food’. It’s a trope that is encouraged by the WHO and ‘health’ activists, peopled as they are by those whose agenda is to use health as a tool for attacking western capitalism via global companies. Simplistic though it is, the idea of sinister corporations covertly poisoning populations to make money is a powerful one and seems to find sympathy with many people. I’m quite sure that in the ideal world as envisaged by the WHO and it’s cohorts that state food rationing would be the norm. Perhaps by manufacturing fears of ‘Big Food’ it will eventually encourage a demand for the state to control the food supply? Some might want this, I don’t know, but it certainly isn’t a world I’d wish to inhabit.

« Older Entries