also FWIW - what is an indirect greenhouse gas?
https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview
Nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and NMVOCs are included in the inventory because they can produce increases in tropospheric ozone concentrations and this increases radiative forcing (warming of the atmosphere).
And which air quality objectives are breached in the ULEZ zone?
If it's a euro 5 diesel engine it's nitrogen dioxide emissions, I don't think there is any difference between euro 5 and euro 6 engines with regards to particle pollution.
Wood burners are apparently far more damaging to health than modern diesel engines.
Terrible isn’t it, a political thread where not everyone has the same opinion.
It didn't start that way but once you got your teeth into it, well the rest is history.
Pretty sure you could make a thread about cake into politics.
As a sidebar, I'm sure what we'll see soon enough is a spike in MH related posting that coincides with the bickering.
It's almost like there's a pattern in some people's behaviour...
Pretty sure you could make a thread about cake into politics.
This thread isn't about cake, it is about ulez which is a political issue.
I happen to share very similar views on the issue as the current leader of the Labour Party and the Labour mayor of Manchester.
Obviously not everyone is happy with people expressing political veiws which are different to their own but hey, it's called a forum for a reason.
If it’s a euro 5 diesel engine it’s nitrogen dioxide emissions, I don’t think there is any difference between euro 5 and euro 6 engines with regards to particle pollution.
Is an answer to a question I haven't asked.
Terrible isn’t it, a political thread where not everyone has the same opinion.
Sterile threads where everyone agrees are so much more useful.
It's not that you disagree, ernie. It's the quality of the discussion that you create. You just nit pick everything and point score and it's sooo tedious even I can't handle it.
I predict your response to this post will be "Where do I nit pick? Show me the evidence" or something like that.
Also +1 jonv.
A Google search of “wood for burning” suggests that it is very easy to buy wood for burning. I have to assume that they are not being fined for flouting the law.
No, and they're not being fined for burning it either, as I think councils gave up policing it as most people stopped doing it. But now people have started again so they will need to do something.
So let me get this straight. Compliant vehicles give off less emissions.
But still give off harmful emissions.
Harmful emissions contribute to child deaths.
Seems that theres at least a bit of hypocrisy going on here. Your car still contributes to child deaths, but less so than his, so therefore you are better than him(or Her).
Your car still contributes to child deaths, but less so than his, so therefore you are better than him(or Her).
I think you made that last bit up. The government needs to make rules to reduce pollution - this is reasonable. Feeling superior to others based on your car is something that you may choose to do, it's nothing to do with the government.
Moving folk into new cars isn’t exactly fixing the issue. Also what’s the actual numbers of cars not ulez compliant? And is that going to make a huge difference?
Why isn’t it fixing the issue, which is cleaning up poor air quality. Not sure offhand what the numbers are, something like 9% or thereabouts.
Also what’s the actual numbers of cars not ulez compliant? And is that going to make a huge difference?
My old Octavia certainly wouldn’t have been, so when it became obvious that it just wasn’t worth trying to get it through MOT tests I decided to get a fairly new petrol.
My mate has a petrol Polo, I think it’s something like a 57 plate, and that’s compliant. I can’t imagine many people unable to afford a second hand car of that age, tbh.
Something I read recently was very interesting, it was a list of the cities with the worst air pollution, including Paris, Athens, possibly Amsterdam, but London wasn’t anywhere to be seen. Sadly I can’t find a current list online, and I can’t remember the source of the list I was looking at.
As mentioned above Paris has Crit’Air though, and while it’s non-charging, if the air quality is sufficiently poor and your car is in the wrong band, it’s the metro or a massive fine. I’m not sure if that’s more inconvenient as on especially in the summer you might not know from one day to the next?
I’m pretty surprised by how many people are ok with air pollution, with pretty well known deleterious effects, if it saves them a few quid.
Don’t be surprised. People voted for a crap health service because someone told them their taxes would be lower. How dim can you get?
So all in all, traffic is just generally bad.
The elephant in the room. We need less traffic, via proper public transport and active travel. Compliant, non-compliant, disel, electric etc etc. All create gridlock and harm the environment in some way or other.
We need less traffic
Less large traffic certainly. single occupancy vehicles, large vehicles. Short trips. I look forward to the day when we have a mix of "tiny" vehicles. Peds, bikes, electric bikes, single person electric vehicles with short ranges right up to smallish family vehicles for carrying a family. We are stuck in this dangerous cycles of SUV's and ever larger cars, ev and ICE.
Why isn’t it fixing the issue, which is cleaning up poor air quality
Becauae air quality isn't the only issue.
we lived in Brentford for the first 4 years of my sons life, it was great but, when we moved out of London to Buckinghamshire his asthma cleared up overnight
glad to see Brentford is now in the ULEZ
my 9 year old zafira is compliant, what percentage of cats on the road are older than that ? (obviously diesels are less likely to be)
We need less traffic
Fewer traffic. Oh. Sorry. As you were.
Yes, all traffic is bad and ideally you wouldn't need to drive everywhere and maybe you don't but it is such a massive change to peoples lives that they will never vote for a party that suggest it and democracy wins that one.
Many solutions - i.e. get on one of hundreds of electric powered very regular but small buses, get off and use your electric powered scooter (or clearly better still walk or bicycle) to get to where you are going. Needs a lot of investment and change to even make that possible.
Maintain home working via law would also have been a progressive step but we have quickly returned to the better companies still even demanding 60% of days in office.
Probably the most notable one was the Stockholm congestion charge which was trialled as a one year pilot. At the end of the year, residents were asked to vote on whether to retain it. They voted for.
Quote from article about Stockholm:
An important part of the pilot included enhancements to the transit system.
“It was important to give people options besides cars,” Holecy said. Bus service was expanded. Parking spots were added outside the city so that people in more remote areas could leave their cars for the day.
My 2 cents worth:
1. If TfLs figure of 10% non compliant vehicles is correct then i struggle to see how much of an improvement in air quality you get from "banning" them (also assumes that people will just stop driving them..many won't, they'll pay cos it's easier)
2. People who say everyone can just replace their non compliant car for £1500 - i can't imagine a vehicle at that price is going to be ideal for e.g. A large family who use their one and only car for everything including family holidays...
smallish family vehicles for carrying a family
Or for people with disabilities. Often marginalised, or just completely ignored, in utopian visions of society.
3 i also struggle to believe that a knackered old petrol car, probably burning oil, is less polluting than a euro 5 diesel.
People voted for a crap health service because someone told them their taxes would be lower. How dim can you get?
Well that is obviously not true, there is no evidence that people voted for a crap health service.
In fact poll after poll shows that people are very happy to have tax increases to pay for an improved social provisions. Here is just one:
And when the Tories and the LibDems convinced voters that austerity was vital in 2010 they had to make a pledge to ring-fence the NHS budget. Obviously the NHS was still affected because of cuts in social services but it was recognition that a worse health service would not be acceptable to voters.
I agree that the public needs further political awareness but they are certainly not dim.
In fact poll after poll shows that people are very happy to have tax increases to pay for an improved social provisions. Here is just one:
Poll after poll does say this.
Election after election shows otherwise. Despite all the evidence.
Anyway, back to ULEZ
@twodogs - if we said that all littering is caused by 10% of the population, and that our plan was to lock up that 10%, do you agree that this would solve the litter problem? Same principle. Although the analogy breaks down when you get to the “pay to fly tip” point.
For your second point… well, owning a car isn’t a right and if you can’t afford to do it without poisoning the family down the road who earns exactly the same but is using public transport, then you don’t get a car. Set £2,000 as the limit on Autotrader and loads of stuff comes up.
ULEZ targets a specific kind of emission.
Next they need to impose French style additional costs on SUVs to get them out of the city. Better for everyone.
Why SUVs? Should a SUV emitting 130g be banned whereas a RS6 that emits 290g be allowed? Cars are already taxed based on emissions irrespective of shape or personal irrational hatred for a particular type of car.
Poll after poll does say this.
Election after election shows otherwise. Despite all the evidence.
That's because elections are fought on lots of issues.
Election after election shows otherwise.
Election after election shows that all political parties feel the need to promise an improved health service, whether they deliver or not.
Anyway, back to ULEZ
And claiming that the answer to every political question is "people are dim"?
i also struggle to believe that a knackered old petrol car, probably burning oil, is less polluting than a euro 5 diesel.
Oil burning aside, it might well be, because of the way petrol is burned in an engine compared to diesel.
If TfLs figure of 10% non compliant vehicles is correct then i struggle to see how much of an improvement in air quality you get from “banning” them (also assumes that people will just stop driving them..many won’t, they’ll pay cos it’s easier)
If the NOx emissions are being produced by 10% of the vehicles on the road, then removing 90% of them will reduce the NOx emissions by 90%.
It won't, of course, because there will be commercial vehicles and other sources of NOx pollution, but it could still make a big difference. It's the 'low hanging fruit' concept.
if we said that all littering is caused by 10% of the population
But what about the other 20% who actually also litter? (according to RAC figures and warping your analogy). To be clear I'm not questioning the ULEZ (tho it should be phased in over 3-5 yrs with gradually increasing charges IMO), I'm questioning TfL's logic and apparent under reporting the number of impacted vehicles...
irrational hatred for a particular type of car.
But its not irrational is it. Additional features of large SUV's is their greater weight, greater use of materials as well as fuel to cart that weight around, polluting tyre particles etc. Not to mention that pedestrians are more likely to be killed by them if they are hit.
The irony that you cannot drive an older diesel vehicle to Heathrow airport to drop someone off without paying the ULEZ payment. However airside at Heathrow they have literally hundreds and hundreds of non compliant vehicles driving round the ramp and don't have to pay a penny as they don't go on the roads.
(Anyway, I'm off, cosnapart from a momentary return to the actual subject, the usual thread spoiler is back)
The irony that you cannot drive an older diesel
Its not irony. I agree it should be dealt with but its the "look over there" mentality which excuses positive changes like this being implemented.
I would argue the airport is a far bigger contributor to pollution and poor air quality than any group of vehicle's on the road. Average hold times into heathrow are about 20-30 minutes on a good day, thats 30 minutes for any aircraft circling over London burning vast amounts of aviation fuel. Surely it would have been better to force Heathrow into reducing air traffic so no holding is required and also as a side effect this would have improved the quality of life of everyone under the flight path.
Does the pollution from the aircraft drop down to street/house level?
Average hold times into heathrow are about 20-30 minutes on a good day
The longest I’ve held going into Heathrow in the last year is five minutes. Traffic is much more streamlined from Europe and the rest of the UK than a decade ago, and most delay is absorbed by slowing down prior to entering UK airspace. It’s also quite rare to hold in level flight at Heathrow so you’ll be flying with close to idle thrust from 150 miles out until 1200ft / 3.5 miles from the runway anyway.
Obviously the fuel wasted (and associated pollution) from running an engine at idle while waiting on the ground for the rest of the problems at Heathrow to be fixed is a different matter, but IMHO inbound traffic is not the cause.
“It was important to give people options besides cars,” Holecy said. Bus service was expanded.
It would be hard to argue that in order to tempt Londoners out from their cars London needs better public transport solutions. Given that (the last figures I could Google) Londoners have about £1212 / head spent on them whilst in the North of England its more like £450.
I’m sure someone’s already said on this thread that no matter how attractive you make the alternatives, unless there’s some sort of discouragement to driving people will still get in their car.
People who say everyone can just replace their non compliant car for £1500 – i can’t imagine a vehicle at that price is going to be ideal for e.g. A large family who use their one and only car for everything including family holidays…
Posted 48 minutes ago
thats probably more than my compliant zafira would cost and were currently on a family holiday (it doesn't burn oil either)
TfLs figure of 10% non compliant vehicles is correct then i struggle to see how much of an improvement in air quality you get from “banning” them (also assumes that people will just stop driving them..many won’t, they’ll pay cos it’s easier)
if its a small number of the most polluting vehicles, then yes it would
I’m sure someone’s already said on this thread that no matter how attractive you make the alternatives, unless there’s some sort of discouragement to driving people will still get in their car.
Yes. I mean, there are already discouragements - commuting in a car is generally pretty shit, and it's expensive. But we have managed to make public transport even shitter.
It’s expensive, but it’s a sunk/hidden cost?
It would be hard to argue that in order to tempt Londoners out from their cars London needs better public transport solutions. Given that (the last figures I could Google) Londoners have about £1212 / head spent on them whilst in the North of England its more like £450.
And yet transport is still hideously expensive and coverage is patchy. In a previous existence I worked in Uxbridge and when the tube was out of action to get home from there was an absolute nightmare - took hours.
I’m sure someone’s already said on this thread that no matter how attractive you make the alternatives
The owner of an electric taxi in London told me last week that he gets about 60miles from a charge, the cost of the charge has increased from £3.00 to £14.00 and takes him 35 mins, he "fills up" on average 3 times a day*. He doesn't mind the waiting (although it's often longer becasue of the queue for the charger) but was pretty disappointed that he was being penalised for "doing the right thing" The cost of the taxi is more money and that was being offset by the (much cheaper) "refuelling" now, he reckons it's about the same as it was for diesel, but the lease on the car is still the same increased price.
* once when he gets into town, nearly every day about lunch time, and once again to top it up to get him home again.
Why isn’t it fixing the issue, which is cleaning up poor air quality.
The answer to that one is always fewer cars not newer cars. Not something the multi-national car manufacturers are comfortable with.
