https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/13/dutch-government-cuts-speed-limit-to-100kmh-to-reduce-air-pollution
DWP #6: Speed
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/13/dutch-government-cuts-speed-limit-to-100kmh-to-reduce-air-pollution
Published by
Daily Writing Prompts 
After hearing about the new speed limit for highways in the Netherlands, I was quite pleased to be honest. Although some people may be skeptical on this new rule, I believe that we should not be picky in how we need to help the environment.
Of course people are going to be frustrated about the fact that it will now take longer before they reach their final destination but isn’t that a small price to pay for the bigger motive? Climate change has come too far for us to be fussy about how and when we will help our planet. We have waited too long, so long that the climate change is physically visible and I believe this may be our last chance.
I believe that lowering the speed limit is a first step towards working against air pollution regarding transportation. Banning cars in general would be more effective but then we could not cope anymore as we have become too reliant on them. Another step could, for example, be just like in Mexico City, that only some license plates are allowed to drive on specific days due to the smog, but now I am getting ahead of myself.
There is no sense in complaining about the efficiency of 100 km/h speed limit because if it continues this way there will be nothing to discuss about anyway. Hence, I believe, reducing the speed limit is a good first step to fight against air pollution.
Femke Calame Fonville, 2A.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You argue your point well! I like how you allow that people have their foibles, but don’t let them off the hook. You use a lot of good phrasing, like a native speaker. Nice touch with thinking even further (Mexico City) but then reigning yourself in.
LikeLike
This is going to sound really ridiculous and maybe a bit naïve, but I am one of those people who does not really care about air pollution or climate change in itself.
In regard to the reduced speed limit set by the Dutch government, I do not think it is going to make a change. Let’s be honest, who is going to keep that speed limit? The decent Dutch citizens, well probably not. In my opinion, people would still travel with a speed of over a 100 km/h. I do understand that the government has to do something, but a lot of parties would feel attacked by some reductions or other legislations.
Why do we need to reduce or speed limit, or farm industry, and can Schiphol expend? I am maybe not the smartest person in relation with this subject, but I cannot imagine that aeroplanes and the whole industry of Schiphol makes less air pollution than all the farmers in the Netherlands together. And how do they get the green light to expend and farmers get a big red cross to even continue with their work? Does not same fair or right in my point of view.
The same goes for the speed limit. Do you really think a million cars a day, who travel with a speed of 100 km/h can change the air pollution compared to a 1000 flights a day at Schiphol? I do not think so.
In my opinion the government has to talk to the 10 most influential business in the Netherlands, such as Unilever and Shell. What can those big names do to make a change? Because I do not think the government can figure It out all by itself.
Martine Schrik – EN2C
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be honest, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. We are an incredibly small country and reducing the speed limit to 100 km/h is unlikely to make a change for our environment, specifically climate change. If the world’s biggest polluters (China, India) have free reign, why should we be forced to come up with ludicrous new laws? The impact is so small that it can be neglected.
As for ‘pickiness’, I don’t think it is the right word for it. I think it’s mostly scepticism from people who are tired of patronising laws made by people who are completely disconnected from citizens’ everyday lives. The speed limit should be just that: a limit. Banning certain types of cars, for example, forces many small businesses in the construction branch to find another line of work (which may prove very difficult) or get a newer car they cannot afford. What this means is that a supposedly green government punishes them because they are in a certain line of work and have a lower income.
Another good point is the shifting of the blame towards ordinary people and needlessly forcing them to make life adjustments whilst other industries like Schiphol are allowed to expand ever further. This more or less proves the point that once environmental measures taken are no longer economically viable, the government couldn’t care less about it. It’s just another way to pester the regular person. The government isn’t going to knock on Shell’s door since it would mean certain higher-ups cannot line their own pockets.
The only good thing that will come from this is saving gas money from driving slower, yet I think people should decide to do that on their own accord.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There have been a lot of discussions concerning air pollution and climate change. When I heard the Dutch government wanted to reduce the speed limit from 130 km/h to 100 km/h, I was surprised to say the least. In the Netherlands we at least have a speed limit, while in Germany you can drive as fast as you can, on certain roads.
With that being said I don’t think this new rule will help change anything at all. I know that the government must do something to improve the situation, but I don’t think this was the right call. There are bigger corporations, who with a couple of adjustments, can make a real impact on the air pollution and climate change.
I also think that the people who made the law, aren’t listening to the citizens and what they need. Because of this there have been a lot of strikes lately. People aren’t happy with the way things are going.
Take the farmers for example, they must stop working, while corporations like Schiphol are allowed to expand. Is this fair? I think not. Why do ordinary people have to change their way of living completely, while big corporations get to do what they want. No wonder people are done with our government.
In conclusion I think that the government should start listening to its citizen and take their needs in account. Of course, we must do something about climate change and air pollution, but this isn’t it.
Sabrina Spaan – VO Engels 2C
LikeLiked by 1 person
After reading the provided article and doing some research I do not believe that the new law regarding the speed limit in the Netherlands will do much good in terms of helping the environment. It is more likely to annoy a whole lot of people than to provide any major help.
One of the largest source of the CO2 emission is agriculture and Netherlands has a lot of it, if one wants to help the environment they should start by looking into creating a green form of intensive farming and cattle raising. However since the government thinks that the best way to lower the CO2 emission is for people to drive tad bit slower at certain times of day I would like to offer an alternative. Do not trust people, if someone wants to drive fast they will drive fast law or no law, if the government is desperate to create a speed limit it should not be a law, but a physical device within ones car. A speed limiter that disallows one to ride past certain speed limit is in my opinion much safer to trust than having a blind trust in different people across the whole country. While the installation fee of such a device on all cars would certainly be very costly, I believe that it would have a much more desired effect than a simple new law installment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Though an admirable attempt from the Dutch government, I simply do not believe that setting the speed limit to a 100km/h will be effective.
First of all, with modern technology and media, there has been a rise in ‘speed camera’ apps. These applications allow the user to know where the speed cameras are located so they can slow down just in time not to receive a speeding ticket. This would mean that according to statistics, the average speed will indeed be lower, yet in practice it will not.
Second of all, changing the speed limit will have a lot less impact than altering the cars and with that the engines itself, which are a big cause of pollution. To me it seems fruitless to reduce the speed limit, which only reduces the problem as well, instead of taking measures towards eradicating the problem entirely.
Finally, it is my opinion that instead of lowering the maximum amount of kilometres per hour, governments could focus on other, more efficient, solutions. Large cities for example, are a huge cause of pollution. By improving public transport and promoting walking and cycling, the amount of pollution could go down significantly. To extent this even further, green spaces could be created inside cities to remove pollutants in urban areas. A benefit to this solution is also that citizens are more enthusiastic about new and pretty parks than they are about new highway regulations.
Juliet Wind, 1D
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I first heard about reducing the speed limit to 100 km/h, I was quite skeptical about it. I thought that it couldn’t be true, but now I’m surprised that the Dutch government actually does something they claim! I think it will annoy almost the whole countries’ citizens, but we will see.
To be honest, I don’t have a very strong opinion about the topic, but I find it hard to believe that we, a country that belongs to the smallest ones on earth, are going to safe the environment. As long as a short-sighted person like Donald Trump exists, environmental issues will still be continued. I think that the biggest countries on earth first have to do something, if we actually want to safe the world.
As long as companies like Shell, or Schiphol can still expand further, there isn’t going to change anything in our country. We are just balancing each other.
On the other hand, we are now a great example for a land that does right. We have a great cleaning policy and a clean country (compared to other countries). Now reducing the speed is a good sample too. I hope other countries will see our good will and copy our laws.
Hanneke Hiemstra, 1B
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s a great idea and I really hope it actually happens. It’s a great start but I think we could do so much more. No driving on Sundays should be reinstalled, it was a great idea and I don’t understand why people stopped doing it. Public transport should be able to get you were you need to be on Sundays and if it doesn’t more trains or busses could be scheduled and stops could be added. With that said I do think public transport should be mostly if not completely powered by green energy.
Most students either use their bikes if they live close enough or use public transport because it’s free to them. If that was powered by green energy it would already make a huge difference. In addition I think there are a lot of small changes we can make. For example some big cities have electric scooters all over the city that you can use with a card. A lot of people use their car for short distances, if every city and village had enough scooters and enough charging stations that would make a big difference too.
There are so many things that the government could do, I think this is a great start and I hope more things change for the better.
Samara Sahar 1b
LikeLike
In all fairness, I don’t really know that much about cars nor do I really care about them as I am a huge fan of public transport. Public transport might not be as fast and liberating as a car but it gets the job done and it’s better for the environment. However, I can imagine that people are annoyed by this new rule and from what I’ve read so far most people hate it.
I guess this solution is the least costly solution the fairly fiscal conservative government can pull at this moment but it is definitely not the best solution. For starters, Mark Rutte himself concluded it was a short term solution and when talking about things contributing to global warming we shouldn’t be looking for short term solutions as they aren’t sustainable. What I’d like to see instead is for the government to spend more on public transport, something that is far due if you look at the past few years.
My idea basically boils down to: if public transport sucked less, was less expensive and more efficient, more people would use public transport. In many places around the world, public transport is becoming more popular and in Hong Kong pretty much no one uses a car. In fact, Public Transport is so efficient in Hong Kong that you can get pretty much anywhere for ridiculously low prices. Despite the low prices the Hong Kong transport system is so profitable that it has a 187% farebox recovery ratio. This means the operational costs get covered and the Government gets to keep a lot of profit.
While I don’t see the Netherlands achieving the same results any time soon, I do think it’s possible to get a positive return on investment if the Government were to invest more in public transport. Afterall the RET in Rotterdam is almost profitable (99%) and so is the metro network in Amsterdam (87%).
LikeLiked by 1 person