London ULEZ stops Mercedes W202 entering in 2023.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Seems unfair that the worlds super-emitters should carry on regardless when joe bloggs gets shafted for owning a 60 mpg diesel passat.
Road travel accounts for three-quarters of transport emissions. Most of this comes from passenger vehicles – cars and buses – which contribute 45.1%. The other 29.4% comes from trucks carrying freight.

Aviation – while it often gets the most attention in discussions on action against climate change – accounts for only 11.6% of transport emissions. It emits just under one billion tonnes of CO2 each year – around 2.5% of total global emissions.
 
Seems unfair that the worlds super-emitters should carry on regardless when joe bloggs gets shafted for owning a 60 mpg diesel passat.

Fair enough. London's pollution is not only due to cars. Jetliners burn fuel on takeoff, and that affects air quality in the neighbourhoods near Heathrow, Stansted, Luton, and City Airport. Do we now tax planes? What would we call the new tax - ULFZ for Ultra Low Flying Zone? :doh:
 
Also, yet another reminder that this thread is not about CO2 emissions... it's about NOx emissions.... the former is bad for the planet, the latter is bad for our children's lungs. Two different risks.
 
Also, yet another reminder that this thread is not about CO2 emissions... it's about NOx emissions.... the former is bad for the planet, the latter is bad for our children's lungs. Two different risks.
This^

A lot of confusion around this it seems…
 
Seems unfair that the worlds super-emitters should carry on regardless when joe bloggs gets shafted for owning a 60 mpg diesel passat.
It’s not about the MPG - it’s about NoX and PM2.5… besides no diesel will do 60 mpg in London… ;)
 
It’s not about the MPG - it’s about NoX and PM2.5… besides no diesel will do 60 mpg in London… ;)
And so far no aircraft have been churning out NOx and particulates whilst taxiing along the A road that my 8-year old daughter has to walk along on her way to school.
 
Seems unfair that the worlds super-emitters should carry on regardless when joe bloggs gets shafted for owning a 60 mpg diesel passat.

Planes and ships don't fly and sail inside our city centres... or in the streets outside our schools... their NOx emissions are dispersed long before they reach human lungs.

You should be worried about Joe Blogs your neighbour who has a machete, more than you worry about Musthafa brandishing an AK-47 and an RPG-7 in Kabool.....
 
It's not yet been verified that pollution levels in the London Underground are worse for your health than those at street level in London. But we'll still get this ^ sort of nonsense from those who try to be funny without thinking.

 
It's not yet been verified that pollution levels in the London Underground are worse for your health than those at street level in London. But we'll still get this ^ sort of nonsense from those who try to be funny without thinking.

Not to mention that no one lives on the London Underground… you spend far more time above the ground…

It’s classic ‘whataboutism’ from those with non-compliant cars.
 
 
Not to mention that no one lives on the London Underground… you spend far more time above the ground…

It’s classic ‘whataboutism’ from those with non-compliant cars.
Ahhhhhhhgggggghhh! .....its not compulsory to use the nonsensical word " whataboutism" in EVERY post where there is an EV or pollution involved!!!!! Comparing things with other things is how we assess if something is good or bad. To say, for example that New York air is dirtier than London air (I've no idea if it is BTW) is just getting perspective.....not whataboutism!!! Its not even grammatically correct to use it as you are...

"the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."
Its not a different issue....its all related to air quality.

Another good thread to now avoid!!

EDIT.....Google result in......New York air is cleaner!.....I guess it would be where no one drives a derv.....why would when you can fill your planet destroying V8 carbon machine with fuel for about 86p!?
 
Last edited:
Its not even grammatically correct to use it as you are...
You mentioning grammar is extremely ironic when reading the rest of your post. 😂
 
So a random listener to a radio show says the air on the underground has been awful when he's travelled on it. Then the rest of this piece goes on to repeat what I just posted from a scientific viewpoint.

It's right that things also need to improve on the tube. What makes anyone think that they haven't been? What do the anti-ULEZ people want: passengers charged extra to travel on there?
 
You mentioning grammar is extremely ironic when reading the rest of your post. 😂
LOL.....You think that's bad?....... you want to see my handwriting!
 
So a random listener to a radio show says the air on the underground has been awful when he's travelled on it. Then the rest of this piece goes on to repeat what I just posted from a scientific viewpoint.

It's right that things also need to improve on the tube. What makes anyone think that they haven't been? What do the anti-ULEZ people want: passengers charged extra to travel on there?

That's what happens when what they hear from a bloke done the pub becomes in their minds 'scientific evidence'.... :doh:

Let's leave brain surgery to brain surgeons, dental treatments to dentists, and science to scientists and adacemics.
 
Ahhhhhhhgggggghhh! .....its not compulsory to use the nonsensical word " whataboutism" in EVERY post where there is an EV or pollution involved!!!!! Comparing things with other things is how we assess if something is good or bad. To say, for example that New York air is dirtier than London air (I've no idea if it is BTW) is just getting perspective.....not whataboutism!!! Its not even grammatically correct to use it as you are...

"the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."
Its not a different issue....its all related to air quality.

Another good thread to now avoid!!

EDIT.....Google result in......New York air is cleaner!.....I guess it would be where no one drives a derv.....why would when you can fill your planet destroying V8 carbon machine with fuel for about 86p!?

The issue here is that it's a two phase argument - first comes the comparison with the 'other thing' - next comes argument that until we fix that 'other thing' (which is usually a mammoth task) we shouldn't be doing anything about the issue at hand.

It's not dissimilar to arguing that traffic cops shouldn't be "wasting their time writing speeding tickets before they caught all the murderers, solved all the robberies, and stopped knife crime" - which is often heard when someone is caught speeding....
 
Not to mention that no one lives on the London Underground… you spend far more time above the ground…

It’s classic ‘whataboutism’ from those with non-compliant cars.
I don’t understand the ‘whataboutism’ thing. Can someone please explain.
 
I don’t understand the ‘whataboutism’ thing. Can someone please explain.
You asked. Make sure you thoroughly read it all and digest. I hate the idea that anyone here may be ignorant of anything.

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”.

It happens on social media, in politics and in societal and international conflict too. To wit, UK prime minister Boris Johnson, in February 2022. In response to Keir Starmer’s accusation of wrongdoing in relation to the partygate affair, Johnson sought to deflect attention by (falsely) accusing Starmer of failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile during his time as director of public prosecutions.

Media commentators have rightly pointed out that Johnson was simply adopting what one journalist called Donald Trump’s “favourite dodge”. When criticised, Trump would routinely deflect attention by claiming that someone else was worse.

The rise of social media and increasing political polarisation may well have made whataboutism more visible. But it is certainly not a new tactic. It was, in fact, taught by the sophists, a group of lecturers, writers and teachers in Greece, over 2,500 years ago.

In some limited circumstances it may be a legitimate tactic, for example, when it is relevant to highlight that the person making the accusation has a bias. For the most part, however, even if the person making the accusation is a hypocrite or has double standards, this does not mean that their accusation is false.

Origins of whataboutism​

The exact term was first used in print by a reader named Lionel Bloch in 1978 in a letter to the Guardian. “Sir,” writes Bloch, “your leader [article], East, West and the plight of the warring rest (May 18), is the finest piece of ‘whataboutism’ I have read in many years.” He goes on to decry the use of this tactic as a “Soviet import” used by “progressive minds” to defend communism.

But Bloch’s usage derives from earlier uses of similar terms. In a letter to the Irish Times published on January 30 1974, reader Sean O’Conaill complains about the use of the tactic by IRA defenders, to whom he refers to as “the Whatabouts”. Three days later, the Irish journalist John Healy published a column in the same paper, on the same topic, dubbing the tactic “Whataboutery”.

Formally speaking, whataboutism is a fallacy most closely related to the ad hominem fallacy, wherein a person responds to an accusation by attacking the person making it.

It is a fallacy because even if the counter-accusation is true, it doesn’t defend whoever is being accused (the lying partner, the messy child, Donald Trump) in the first place. At best, it shows that both parties behaved shamefully. And, of course, two wrongs do not make a right.

In philosophy, an argument is a reasoned debate aimed at truth. But in many other contexts, people often do not view arguments in this way. They view them, rather, as battles to be won. Their goal is to get their opponent to concede as much as possible without their conceding anything themselves.

Viewed in this way, whataboutism is an effective strategy. It works on the principle that offence is the best form of defence. By launching a counter-attack, you place your opponent on the back foot.

Why whataboutism is so popular​

Psychologists suggest that this view of arguments is prevalent in political debate because it is driven by partisan bias. When confronted by an opponent with a different political viewpoint, you are more likely to view what they say as an attack to be countered, rather than a point to be debated.

More pernicious is when whataboutism is put to work as a misinformation tool. Since the cold war era Russian propagandists have responded to criticism of Russian policies by immediately pointing out that western countries have similar policies.

In philosophy, an argument is a reasoned debate aimed at truth. But in many other contexts, people often do not view arguments in this way. They view them, rather, as battles to be won. Their goal is to get their opponent to concede as much as possible without their conceding anything themselves.

Viewed in this way, whataboutism is an effective strategy. It works on the principle that offence is the best form of defence. By launching a counter-attack, you place your opponent on the back foot.

The same ploy is routinely seen in other conflict situations. Chinese propagandists have used it to deflect criticism of how China’s Uyghur population is treated. Junta propagandists in Myanmar have used it similarly when criticised for the regime’s treatment of Rohingya muslims. The list goes on.

The sophists were the propagandists of ancient times. They prided themselves on being able to convince an audience – using any means available, including whataboutism – of any conclusion, irrespective of its truth.

Plato was an ardent critic of the sophists. He vehemently made the point that arguments should be aimed at truth. His most famous work in this respect is the Gorgias dialogue, which sees Socrates and Callicles debate the good and evil of man. Fittingly, it contains the earliest example of whataboutism that I have been able to find and the best response to it:

Socrates: You’re breaking your original promise, Callicles. If what you say contradicts what you really think, your value as my partner in searching for the truth will be at an end.
Callicles: You don’t always say what you think either, Socrates.
Socrates: Well, if that’s true, it only makes me just as bad as you …
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom