Jon Stenning

I had the same thought. The dual carriageway is *lovely*, very picturesque, but those wind turbines, urgh

The policy response would look very different - either people will do this in whatever car, so education and enforcement feels like the only option, or you can push people into smaller cars and their behaviour will change.

I'd love to understand more about the causality here - do people that don't care about other road users deliberately buy these cars, or does buying one of these massive vehicles insulate you from the road to such an extent that you end up caring less about other users?

A couple of times I've genuinely gone back and checked that you haven't just reposted the same video, because there's *always* a Land Rover.

This has allowed similar infrastructure to meet the demand from more people/households. We're now talking about switching that up, with EVs and heat pumps increasing per capita electricity demand, and also building more homes. It's obvious then that new infrastructure will be required.

It's not that it *can't* be done, but it's a question of what investment is needed to do it. The trend in electricity use per capita has been steadily downwards for years, as a result of low-key energy efficiency improvements (e.g. more efficient white goods, lightbulbs).

My mind is still boggled writing it out now. Who signed off on that process without questioning why they were adopting *precisely* the process that a scammer would want a user to go through?

Sensing a scam, she sensibly said no and hung up. She let me know, I googled it, and amazingly enough it was genuinely how EE (or some agents acting on behalf of EE) actually expected people to view and accept the T&Cs of their new contracts.

A couple of years ago, my mother was called by EE and offered a new phone contract to replace her existing EE one. After jumping through a few hoops, they wanted her to download some software so that they could remotely access her phone(!)

The criticism of such an approach is that, without producing a single figure, policymakers are free to implement whatever policy they favour. My rebuttal of that would be that this happens anyway, it's just that currently we obscure the fact by pretending that we can quantify all relevant impacts.

Doesn't that just highlight the futility of the whole "let's reduce an IA/CBA to a single £ number" approach though? How would DEFRA ever get nature-focussed funded under your proposed approach? Much better to take a more holistic view of the costs and benefits of interventions.

It's the way that it's an absolute article of faith for so many that gets me, given how clear it is that in the real world there are under-utilised resources. It's perfectly possible to believe that at times crowding out might be an issue, without assuming that it must always be the case.

I'm looking to buy a second-hand EV in the UK, and while a few adverts say that they've done battery health checks, none that I've seen actually tell you anything about the findings! They presumably rely on you trekking to the dealership and plan to tell the buyer that the results are "fine"