Funny that, continued.

“This is a huge statement of intent from the …. government and an example of how we’re likely to see exponential change in the coming years as governments grapple with the necessary changes we have to make for air quality and our climate… These moves should be heeded by other governments and industry, who need to act to protect us from air pollution in our towns and cities and help mitigate climate change.”   

What a statement by ClientEarth CEO James Thornton.  Except of course, it wasn’t about London but France.   Which again is odd that the same environmental lawyers ClientEarth called the UK government’s virtually identical statement as a “diversionary tactic”:    

“The 2040 diesel and petrol ban, while important is a diversionary tactic and doesn’t deal with the public health emergency caused by illegally polluted air, now.”   

And our friends at Greenpeace.  They too used emotive language rather than fight the case the stand for.  Which much of the time is indeed worth fighting for.  But they do themselves and their cause no good when they come away with condemning the UK government’s proposals as “headline-grabbing” and “redundant”:   

“5 things the government doesn’t want you to know about their headline-grabbing petrol and diesel ban… It could be far too late — and end up redundant…”    

But when the French instituted the same ban, Greenpeace criticised the UK government for “stalling” and not introducing it sooner:    

“The move away from fossil fuel powered cars towards electric is inevitable, and picking up speed fast. First Volvo, now France, yet the UK government is still stalling.”   

Turns out the UK government are doing exactly what Greenpeace wanted them to do, if their reaction to the French announcement is anything to go by.