|
|
 |
| |
Last-gasp bid to tackle air quality
• ISLINGTON Council should stop playing politics with the health of residents and the environment, and press ahead with higher charges for gas-guzzling vehicles (Do you want to clobber 4x4s? April 13).
Revenue from those who persist in driving these vehicles, together with the saving of £90,000 on a referendum, should be spent on reducing traffic, and therefore harmful emissions in the borough.
Added to the £2 million that central government is apparently planning to award each local authority for traffic-reduction schemes, this could most effectively be spent on a discount on council tax for all homes without a car. This is already the majority of Islington households. All further housing developments should be car-free.
London’s air quality is declining, while throughout Britain last month’s report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution estimates an extra 24,000 deaths a year from air pollution. Traffic emissions are the single greatest cause.
Other recent studies have shown children and women are particularly vulnerable. Children living closest to motorways suffer more permanent lung damage and lower life expectancy than others, while women living in areas of high pollution are at greater risk of heart disease and death. Women have smaller cardiac arteries than men.
Over the recent bank holiday Islington residents cannot fail to have noticed the improved air quality resulting from fewer cars on the roads.
If the Lib Dems are not prepared to lead on this most urgent of matters they don’t deserve to remain in power.
MEG HOWARTH
Ellington Street, N7
• I WAS really pleased to read about forthcoming plans for a referendum on introducing “polluter pays” parking charges.
On contentious issues such as this – where some Islington residents will be worse off (and some better off) – it’s really important to introduce changes that are the will of Islington – not to blindly impose them.
I’m therefore a bit confused by Labour councillor James Murray’s comment that the Lib Dems should be showing some kind of leadership on this issue, as this is exactly what they are doing: managing change in a sensible way and taking a bit of time to listen to what people want.
However, it seems Cllr Murray is a bit confused too, because, when complaining that the Lib Dems should be showing leadership, his comment immediately after is that he “appreciates that’s what they are doing”. Thanks for the clarity, James.
KEITH ANGUS
Batchelor Street, N1
• ANDREW Myer, of Islington Green Party, accuses me of being a Nick O’Teen of the 21st century and driving a 4x4 over our children’s futures (‘See no evil’ brigade drive 4x4s over our children’s future, April 13).
Well, I don’t smoke, don’t own a 4x4, don’t drive (don’t even fly, preferring rail travel across Europe), but I do care passionately about my children’s future. That’s why, cheap abuse aside, it is important for us to ensure our local and national government doesn’t waste billions of pounds responding to fashionable climate change theories that may or may not be true.
Mr Myer claims a majority of scientists support the link between carbon emissions and climate change, but he is really talking about proclamations from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
Over recent years, the IPCC has clearly “sexed up” the reports of its authors to pander to a media that loves stories of doom. Many IPCC authors do not support the conclusions of the lead authors and some have even been forced to take legal measures to disassociate themselves from them.
The increasingly alarmist statements of the IPCC fuel an anti-capitalist agenda which has more to do with politics than science.
The Channel 4 documentary Mr Myer refers to was a welcome but rare corrective to the carbon emissions-climate change bandwagon. The BBC seems overwhelmingly credulous to the IPCC, and its debates on carbon emissions/climate change do not even include opponents now but just feature spokesmen who vie to see how far we should go in reducing our carbon footprint.
The fact is that nature, not man, is the greatest producer of carbon emissions and one major volcanic explosion can undo any paltry human efforts.
Climate change is happening (it always has) and it seems a far better use of our precious resources to concentrate on solving the problems associated with it than somehow managing to “apply the brakes”. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of King Canute.
The resources of rich countries are far more effectively spent on providing clean drinking water, reducing famine and eradicating disease. These are problems we have now and can solve, not problems we may or may not have in 50 or 100 years based on a suspiciously anti-capitalist agenda.
Also, dare I say it, but scientists have said there may be benefits to global warming which could outweigh the negative ones. Why do we not hear of these? Is it because we all prefer bad news stories?
TIM NEWARK
(Address supplied) N5 |
 |
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
