Rational debate, and the seeds of a driver backlash

Alan Wenban-Smith doesn’t seem to like rational views being expressed in LTT (Letters 30 May). My letter to which he refers didn’t challenge any ‘science’, it referred to the Paris climate agreement, which has been shown by the former head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sir Robert Watson and the economist Bjorn Lomborg as not fit for its claimed purpose (LTT 15 May). The economics of climate policy are based on a cost-benefit analysis and the Paris Agreement fails miserably. 

If Alan thinks those who campaign on behalf of drivers are aggressive then he clearly has never experienced the likes of Extinction Rebellion or some in the cycling lobby. All too often those promoting the political agenda of a climate emergency, crisis or catastrophe depart from the actual science – I’ve written a ‘primer’ on extreme weather and climate change for those who continue to misrepresent the known facts: https://tinyurl.com/yc9k2pn5  

UK transport policy is now a ‘war on transport’. Covid-19 has become Covid-1984 with ‘new normal’ as ‘Newspeak’, justifying road closures and the removal of road space to disadvantage disabled drivers, taxis, emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles and inhibit the freedom of personal transport choice.

 It seems an elite minority in the taxpayer-funded public sector has no interest in the economy, which is dependent on the wealth-creating private sector and motorised transport. The ‘walking and cycling’ soundbite does not represent a credible transport policy.  

Ending on a more positive note, all of this is uniting groups including the Alliance of British Drivers, Fair Fuel UK, the Motorcycle Action Group and the road haulage industry under a soon to be launched ‘umbrella’ group. Enough is enough.