Government forced to act on pollution…

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/02/diesel-vehicles-face-charges-after-uk-government-loses-air-pollution-case

The link mentions eu law.I guess Enola May can just ignore that now and let the cars pollute as much as she likes. After all she mustn’t upset the car manufacturers.

Bloody EU forcing clean air on us. Sooner we are out of this mess the better.

Ahh but, EU innit.

Brexit means two fingers dunnit.

EU law or not this looks like a perfectly good reason or excuse for the government to raise taxes. I bought a petrol mainly mainly because I didn’t want to do any potential damage to my kids lungs, but I was wary about a tax like this coming in.

I have a crystal ball, it’s old, and takes ages to warm up, but I just gave it a shake, and the mists of prophecy tell me that our government really doesn’t care, and **** all will be done about the premature deaths of 40,000 people a year.

(An extra 2p on a litre of diesel counts as ‘**** all’)

Paris Mayor (Socialist) is talking of banning Diesels altogether. She has already been closing roads, reducing speed limits and in summer banning cars with even or odd numbered registrations on alternate days

Sounds like a lovely place for a bike ride.

Grenoble has just introduced windscreen stickers to differentiate which vehicles can and can’t be used when NOX is high.

The odd-even thing in Paris predates the current mayor by at least a decade. Paris is the proof that the latest diesels produce just as much NOX as the old ones, despite most of the pre-EGR diesels being in the breakers NOX levels haven’t gone down.

Having read the case, the government got a kicking for assuming modern euro 6 spec diesels NO2 emissions only exceed their lab results by 2.3 times in the real world. Everyone else thinks more like 4 or 5!

Bloody EU forcing clean air on us. Sooner we are out of this mess the better.

I did wonder if that might actually be the case.

The government has accepted the ruling, which I assume means they have to go away and revise the UK strategy for meeting EU limits on emissions…

Could they not drag their feet for 24 months and then quietly call no longer needing to comply with EU limits on emissions, because the UK is no longer in the EU, a “strategy”?

I don’t think anything will change for another 20 years. I think like it’s getting worse, the colour of my pollution mask filters don’t lie.

Stop buying diesels? I imagine a great deal of stw’ers drive VAG diesels.

Can I also add in a grump about the lying, cheating and swindling car manufacturers? They also promised and sold diesels as a way of reducing co2, and gave us test ‘proof’ of how clean all the sensors, valves and extra bits made modern euro5/6 diesels.
We now know it wasn’t just VAG too…. Most were at it.

London will have an ultra low emission zone by 2020. We need them outside London though.

As I understand it the government is in breach of UK law, and also intending to incorporate EU standards into UK law en masse with one bill so it can’t wiggle out of this one. Fingers crossed.

Stop buying diesels?

Haven’t bought one in seven years!

They also promised and sold diesels as a way of reducing co2, and gave us test ‘proof’ of how clean all the sensors, valves and extra bits made modern euro5/6 diesels

Diesels are lower in CO2 though. Sure, they aren’t as low as the claimed figures, but that’s also true of petrol. As for ‘proving how clean’ their diesels were – really? Do you know anyone who actually checked NOx figures for potential car purchases before say 18 months ago? Was there any advertising showing low NOx figures for cars?

And those same lying cheating manufacturers have developed SCR (AdBlue) to actually properly reduce NOx by a lot (whether or not it’s what they claim is another issue – it is a lot lower). And don’t forget, those same manufacturers also introduced fuel injection for petrols years ago, which means town centres don’t smell like petrol any more.

They also promised and sold diesels as a way of reducing co2, and gave us test ‘proof’ of how clean all the sensors, valves and extra bits made modern euro5/6 diesels.

Well, yes, but until recently, all the focus has been on particulate matter and CO2 from diesels. Thus for the last 25 years, making diesels ‘cleaner’ has only related to PM and CO2. It’s always been known that various NOx species are respiratory irritants, but there’s been a groundswell of new data over that last 5 or so years to show its effects are more severe than previously thought, so it’s climbed up the priority list.

The really unforgivable thing is the cheating, but it’s a failure of the regulatory system to control the industry really.

but it’s a failure of the regulatory system to control the industry really.

Well in VW’s case it was a failure of the company, but the fact tests aren’t fit for purposes is a failure of the regulatory system you are quite right.

molgrips – Member

Haven’t bought one in seven years!

Have never bought one, never will. I despise Diseasal.

One of the things that Margret Thatcher got right was her astute observation that basing emissions solely on CO2 would drive the increase in diesel which was far worse for everything else. She was a chemist and knew full well what she was talking about.

I disagree mol, it’s not a failure of the company. It’s outright, willful decption and they should be nailed to the wall for it.

BUT, they could do it because the regulatory system is both weak and insufficient.

And those same lying cheating manufacturers have developed SCR (AdBlue) to actually properly reduce NOx by a lot (whether or not it’s what they claim is another issue – it is a lot lower).

They developed technologies in response to mandatory requirements, lied about the results, and produce cars that still exceed the official result by 2 or 3 times. Not exactly a cause for celebration, is it?

They developed technologies in response to mandatory requirements

Well that’s true.

But I don’t think they can be entirely blamed. It’s one of those ‘everyone was doing it’ things. The degree of fudging of tests escalated gradually over the years. Car companies were put in a difficult position.

Toyota have put a lot of work in over the years too, they developed an electric RAV4 in the US for Clinton’s electric car programme, and they also created the hybrid car market more or less from scratch because they wanted to make more efficient cars. US car drivers used to be happy with 25mpg because that’s what was on offer, and Toyota could’ve sat back and flogged millions of cars that did 30mpg. The fact that they made them that did 50mpg meant that fuel economy is now a big area of improvement.

Of course sales have a lot to do with it, but there’s more than one way to approach increasing sales and Toyota did a good thing.

Glad to hear that petrol cars are good for kids’ lungs.

Creating an effective, reliable public transport network will be significantly more effective in reducing pollution compared to upgrading vehicles to euro 6, or changing to petrol. But making it a requirement for euro 6 vehicles is cheap and easy for the government as its transport operators and you and me who pay for new vehicles. Investing in transport requires a lot of cold hard cash and thinking, planning and general effort – no one likes that.

*network being key

As for ‘proving how clean’ their diesels were – really? Do you know anyone who actually checked NOx figures for potential car purchases before say 18 months ago? Was there any advertising showing low NOx figures for cars?

Marketing. Implying clean without actually stating figures. A few for reference.

But I don’t think they can be entirely blamed. It’s one of those ‘everyone was doing it’ things. The degree of fudging of tests escalated gradually over the years. Car companies were put in a difficult position.

I don’t think they were in a difficult position: they decided to cheat because they believed they would get away with it.

Obviously the existing test is a problem, but we can be pretty sure that the manufacturers are already working on ways of getting around the new test.

Marketing

Ah yes. Feel free to blame the marketing departments.

I was thinking of the engineering and strategy departments.

I’m not aware that many customers contact the engineering and strategy department when buying a car – we rely on marketing and press. The subliminal messages have been all about how ‘green’ and ‘eco’ the ‘wonderful’ new engines were/are.

I agree. But whilst we’re handing out blame, I’d reduce portion sizes for some in engineering. But not all.

Anyway, VW bashing aside, I knew this would come one day.

I’ve planned to get a petrol next time for a long time now, I don’t drive in many city situations and my diesel gets a lot more MPG than it’s petrol version but I fancied a change.

I would rather go with corporate responsibility with large corporations. 😉

I’ve been considering petrol too, after having been in my mate’s now ancient 1.8T Octy and feeling how well it pulls. A nice TFSI would do nicely. Shame to have to use more fuel overall but I can afford it.

I can’t tow with a Prius, which is a shame, but I can tow plenty with a Passat GTE. Shame they’re FORTY GRAND though 🙁

One of the things that Margret Thatcher got right was her astute observation that basing emissions solely on CO2 would drive the increase in diesel which was far worse for everything else. She was a chemist and knew full well what she was talking about. [/I]

But it was the Govt that ‘forced’ many folk into diesels by linking company car tax to co2. Even back in 2006 I was pretty much the only one at work who took a petrol car.

And the constant climb in fuel prices pushed must other high-mileage folk into diesels too.

Bottom line, they make the ‘rules’ and we follow them.

With the exception of VW, I don’t think anyone really cheated. A test was set, engineers worked to ensure their vehicles met that test, and it took lawmakers an awfully long time to react to the fact that it was known that tests were a woefully bad representation of the true level of contaminants.

Both particulates and NOx have been reduced under test conditions due to new vehicle regulations, it’s not like NOx hasn’t been a factor until now.

I would add to this, though, the qualification that I’m sure there is plenty of lobbying from car manufacturers, leading to the wilful ignorance of the massively inadequate emissions tests.

Edit – I used to work developing diesel fuel injectors, and at least for trucks, from the company I worked for, I can assure you there was no cheating on the part of the engineers, there was a desire to develop a fuel injection system that met statutory requirements and there was an awareness (from company training materials among other things) of the problems associated with air pollution from diesel engines.

I was in a showroom recently poking a new Zoe that is claimed to do 400km and will definitely do the round trips I do most. The first electric car that’s viable without providing levels of performance I don’t want (Tesla). So from the Fluence which was a nice drive until it came to a premature halt to a viable electric car it’s taken Renault only 5 years.

With the exception of VW, I don’t think anyone really cheated.

Strictly speaking, you are correct. This is what they did:

1. Pump up tyres the tyres
2. Remove the passenger door mirror
3. Optimise emissions performance for the test vehicle speeds and gear change points
4. Disconnect the battery
5. Tape up panel gaps
6. Use low viscosity lubricants

Seems reasonable compared with having the engine go into a specific low power, low emissions mode when the bonnet is open. Having to drive around with the bonnet open if you want the car to produce the emissions it did on test is pushing the acceptable.

With the exception of VW, I don’t think anyone has been caught.

I like my cars, I like diesels but I like the fact that the combustion engine is seeing the end of its life in my life time.

I’ve just been Googling the bonnet open cheat which was discovered but failed to find which manufacturer did it, VW’s cheat was a lot more complicated and relied on using the information from multiple sensors to detect a test.

I wonder what they’ll do about all those diesel trains, diesel HGVs, diesel buses, diesel backup generators, diesel farm equipment, etc? Anyone who’s ever stood on a platform at Birmingham new street knows the eye watering fumes those trains pump out. I suspect we’ll ignore them and pretend it doesn’t happen.