6 ms·

I don't own a car because I'm fortunate enough to live in London with an awesome public transport system and a half decent cycle network. But the air quality h

I don't own a car because I'm fortunate enough to live in London with an awesome public transport system and a half decent cycle network. But the air quality here sucks and pollution from cars is through the fucking roof. We just introduced an Ultra Low Emission area scheme that's a half hearted attempt to do what they've done in Madrid, but for me that doesn't go far enough. I think we should just ban any vehicles that aren't electric from being inside the M25 and give people two years to prepare. I get that this will be difficult for a lot of people and cause a lot of disruption, but it's killing us. It's killing us now. And if the Brexit brigade can wave away the looming catastrophe of their no-deal-Brexit dreams by conjuring up fantasies about the Blitz spirit, and how we can always make do and mend because we're British; then I don't see why we can't use that same logic to inflict difficult circumstances on people to save the fucking planet and protect our fellow citizens from the harm of air pollution that's being brought into our city by people who don't fucking live here.

nextos 8y ago
I agree. I would go further by forcing all new cars to be plug-in hybrids as soon as it is practically doable. Maybe someone with ICE and battery expertise can chip in and clarify whether there are any pitfalls in this approach. I simply don't understand why this is not enforced very soon. Many companies are producing inexpensive hybrids, so it sounds quite doable. And most people, at least in Europe, make really short trips on average. Even if the electricity used to charge your car was produced by a coal plant, pollution could be controlled by centralized filters, etc. Clearly much better than having machines driving around cities and spreading toxic fumes and particles everywhere.
- ponow 8y ago
  I see inefficient-yet-hybrid SUVs in Pittsburgh, yet more-efficient-yet-gasoline-only subcompacts would be banned. I frequently see people who won't alter their own wasteful practices (always buying new things, instead of re-using or repairing old ones, for example), yet virtue signal by buying green, driving hybrid, etc. If you really want root out the causes, we need to measure all the contributors, including people's life choices (living in suburbia, eating meat, etc.). Pretty soon it becomes clear how draconian that would be. Cost is a pretty good proxy for all of that, yet leaves people free.
  - robocat 8y ago
    The (unsubsidised) cost of a product or service already exists as a reasonable proxy for waste and petroleum usage. Are you suggesting we add carbon and pollution taxes to offset some of the the externalities? Your income level is a superb indicator of how much of the planets resources you are using. Does taxation that goes to the government change that? Does the government use taxes more "greenly" than consumers? On topic: if they shut down the centre of Madrid, they could get pollution to zero!
    - llukas 8y ago
      > Your income level is a superb indicator of how much of the planets resources you are using. Not really. Your spending level is. One can have high income and reinvest or you can spend money you don't have by borrowing. I'd agree that income level is correlated.
    - PeterStuer 8y ago
      >The (unsubsidised) cost of a product or service already exists as a reasonable proxy for waste and petroleum usage. Not even close; If market economies are good at one thing, it is finding products that concentrate their benefits while at the same time distributing their negative externalities.
ummonk 8y ago
Nearly all pollution is due to older vehicles and diesel vehicles. Banning all non-electric cars is a rather sledgehammer way to deal with that.
kingosticks 8y ago
And just look at the black cabs. Currently excempt from the ULEZ with their old diesel engines running all day because..? Oh, money.
- tim333 8y ago
  Money and politics. It's kind of ironic that the government controlled black cabs "are responsible for about 60 per cent of greater London’s NOx emissions from passenger cars" while the mostly unregulated Ubers are mostly relatively clean Priuses. I gather they are gradually trying to switch the black cabs to electric. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/black-cabs-taxis-air-pollution-london-research-true-icct-a8688141.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/black-cabs-taxis-a...
  - vondur 8y ago
    I take it that diesels aren’t required to have DEF to reduce the NOx emissions?
    - tim333 8y ago
      I don't think the black cabs have that.
- PeterStuer 8y ago
  And if you are callous to a psychopath level, you can always create your own 'cab' company just so you can drive your Mercedes S500L everywhere, including public transport priority lanes and public transport only zones. https://www.irishcentral.com/news/ryanair-boss-michael-oleary-has-his-own-taxi-service-161772675-237750821 https://www.irishcentral.com/news/ryanair-boss-michael-olear...
  - lozenge 8y ago
    That is creative for sure but wouldn't work in London. Only the official black cabs can use bus lanes. I suppose you could hire a driver for about £40k a year. Less if you let them use the vehicle while you're abroad.
esotericn 8y ago
Agree. The ULEZ is an utter joke. My car is over fifteen years old. It's ULEZ compliant. I can drive it in to Central London for free after 6pm and at weekends, because it's not diesel. I don't do it often. I'd be supportive of a serious penalty (50+ quid say). When it's extended to the North and South Circular roads in a few years time; the car will at that point be almost 20 years old, and if it's still going, permitted for free. Oh - but I don't live there! I live further out, so actually none of this would affect me in any case, despite local roads still breaching pollution limits. I wouldn't go quite as far as a blanket ban; I think charges are reasonable (basically to make petrol cars cost about as much as leasing an EV, say, but not forcing up-front massive expenditure). But at the moment we seem to be in this bizarre land in which the only changes that happen are those which don't feasibly affect anyone. Suggesting that someone who can't afford to buy a new car probably shouldn't be driving around London is seen as political suicide.
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  That’s because a 15 year old petrol car (Euro 4) is almost always better than even a 3 year old diesel car (Euro 6): https://mobile.twitter.com/apbandiv/status/1006238872966066176 https://mobile.twitter.com/apbandiv/status/10062388729660661... And 15 year old diesels are terrible. Banning dieselgate-era diesels is overwhelmingly the most important policy. Only RDE (Real Driving Emissions) diesels are ok, and under EU rules RDE has only come in during the last year or two, and even now is quite lax. Diesels will only be fully required to fully meet the pollution standards under real world driving conditions within a year or two, and only then will be roughly equivalent to petrols built from 2004 onwards.
danielecook 8y ago
The cycle network is not half decent imo. Take a walk - or a drive around London and it quickly becomes apparent that cyclist are the lowest priority next to cars (1st) and walkers (2nd). In many cases, the cycle network is so half-assed it ends up making things more dangerous for everyone. Numerous bike paths exist that head directly into a utility pole, or last less than a block, or are consistently used as parking spaces, or lack any sort of protection from drivers. London does have a handful of nice 'cycle superhighways' which in any other city are simply 'bike lanes.' It's a good start. I see bike infrastructure as a win-win-win. You reduce traffic and pollution, free up space on public transit, and improve the health and wellbeing citizens. I think London could develop a really unique bike network too - because many of the paths don't need to be associated with roadways and can instead cut through parks or follow along beside train tracks, canals, or the river.

nextos 8y ago

I agree. I would go further by forcing all new cars to be plug-in hybrids as soon as it is practically doable. Maybe someone with ICE and battery expertise can chip in and clarify whether there are any pitfalls in this approach. I simply don't understand why this is not enforced very soon. Many companies are producing inexpensive hybrids, so it sounds quite doable. And most people, at least in Europe, make really short trips on average. Even if the electricity used to charge your car was produced by a coal plant, pollution could be controlled by centralized filters, etc. Clearly much better than having machines driving around cities and spreading toxic fumes and particles everywhere.

ponow 8y ago
I see inefficient-yet-hybrid SUVs in Pittsburgh, yet more-efficient-yet-gasoline-only subcompacts would be banned. I frequently see people who won't alter their own wasteful practices (always buying new things, instead of re-using or repairing old ones, for example), yet virtue signal by buying green, driving hybrid, etc. If you really want root out the causes, we need to measure all the contributors, including people's life choices (living in suburbia, eating meat, etc.). Pretty soon it becomes clear how draconian that would be. Cost is a pretty good proxy for all of that, yet leaves people free.
- robocat 8y ago
  The (unsubsidised) cost of a product or service already exists as a reasonable proxy for waste and petroleum usage. Are you suggesting we add carbon and pollution taxes to offset some of the the externalities? Your income level is a superb indicator of how much of the planets resources you are using. Does taxation that goes to the government change that? Does the government use taxes more "greenly" than consumers? On topic: if they shut down the centre of Madrid, they could get pollution to zero!
  - llukas 8y ago
    > Your income level is a superb indicator of how much of the planets resources you are using. Not really. Your spending level is. One can have high income and reinvest or you can spend money you don't have by borrowing. I'd agree that income level is correlated.
  - PeterStuer 8y ago
    >The (unsubsidised) cost of a product or service already exists as a reasonable proxy for waste and petroleum usage. Not even close; If market economies are good at one thing, it is finding products that concentrate their benefits while at the same time distributing their negative externalities.

ummonk 8y ago

Nearly all pollution is due to older vehicles and diesel vehicles. Banning all non-electric cars is a rather sledgehammer way to deal with that.

kingosticks 8y ago

And just look at the black cabs. Currently excempt from the ULEZ with their old diesel engines running all day because..? Oh, money.

tim333 8y ago
Money and politics. It's kind of ironic that the government controlled black cabs "are responsible for about 60 per cent of greater London’s NOx emissions from passenger cars" while the mostly unregulated Ubers are mostly relatively clean Priuses. I gather they are gradually trying to switch the black cabs to electric. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/black-cabs-taxis-air-pollution-london-research-true-icct-a8688141.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/black-cabs-taxis-a...
- vondur 8y ago
  I take it that diesels aren’t required to have DEF to reduce the NOx emissions?
  - tim333 8y ago
    I don't think the black cabs have that.
PeterStuer 8y ago
And if you are callous to a psychopath level, you can always create your own 'cab' company just so you can drive your Mercedes S500L everywhere, including public transport priority lanes and public transport only zones. https://www.irishcentral.com/news/ryanair-boss-michael-oleary-has-his-own-taxi-service-161772675-237750821 https://www.irishcentral.com/news/ryanair-boss-michael-olear...
- lozenge 8y ago
  That is creative for sure but wouldn't work in London. Only the official black cabs can use bus lanes. I suppose you could hire a driver for about £40k a year. Less if you let them use the vehicle while you're abroad.

esotericn 8y ago

Agree. The ULEZ is an utter joke. My car is over fifteen years old. It's ULEZ compliant. I can drive it in to Central London for free after 6pm and at weekends, because it's not diesel. I don't do it often. I'd be supportive of a serious penalty (50+ quid say). When it's extended to the North and South Circular roads in a few years time; the car will at that point be almost 20 years old, and if it's still going, permitted for free. Oh - but I don't live there! I live further out, so actually none of this would affect me in any case, despite local roads still breaching pollution limits. I wouldn't go quite as far as a blanket ban; I think charges are reasonable (basically to make petrol cars cost about as much as leasing an EV, say, but not forcing up-front massive expenditure). But at the moment we seem to be in this bizarre land in which the only changes that happen are those which don't feasibly affect anyone. Suggesting that someone who can't afford to buy a new car probably shouldn't be driving around London is seen as political suicide.

Brakenshire 8y ago
That’s because a 15 year old petrol car (Euro 4) is almost always better than even a 3 year old diesel car (Euro 6): https://mobile.twitter.com/apbandiv/status/1006238872966066176 https://mobile.twitter.com/apbandiv/status/10062388729660661... And 15 year old diesels are terrible. Banning dieselgate-era diesels is overwhelmingly the most important policy. Only RDE (Real Driving Emissions) diesels are ok, and under EU rules RDE has only come in during the last year or two, and even now is quite lax. Diesels will only be fully required to fully meet the pollution standards under real world driving conditions within a year or two, and only then will be roughly equivalent to petrols built from 2004 onwards.

danielecook 8y ago

The cycle network is not half decent imo. Take a walk - or a drive around London and it quickly becomes apparent that cyclist are the lowest priority next to cars (1st) and walkers (2nd). In many cases, the cycle network is so half-assed it ends up making things more dangerous for everyone. Numerous bike paths exist that head directly into a utility pole, or last less than a block, or are consistently used as parking spaces, or lack any sort of protection from drivers. London does have a handful of nice 'cycle superhighways' which in any other city are simply 'bike lanes.' It's a good start. I see bike infrastructure as a win-win-win. You reduce traffic and pollution, free up space on public transit, and improve the health and wellbeing citizens. I think London could develop a really unique bike network too - because many of the paths don't need to be associated with roadways and can instead cut through parks or follow along beside train tracks, canals, or the river.