7 ms·

I don't believe for a second that the reduced emissions are enough for these kids to actually notice. ULEZ is a tax on being poor, nothing more.

fragmede 2y ago
Like, at all? pictures of LA smog in the 80's, or Beijing air pollution now should be enough to convince you that the problem is real, even if you don't believe in the latest round of it.
jprete 2y ago
> Four in 10 London children stopped driving and started walking to school a year after the city's clean air zone went into effect. I had the same interpretation of the headline as you. But, based on the quote, I think the change is that their parents stopped driving them to school.
aimazon 2y ago
Vehicle ownership in London has always been expensive. Poor people have never driven in London, poor people use public transport. For all London's faults (of which there are many) the high population density makes public transport useful. Please share evidence for your assertion that the "ULEZ is a tax on being poor". Only half of households in London have a vehicle.
- AdamN 2y ago
  They're probably referring to poor (working class really) people living in outer London who have cars and are now basically frozen out of central London unless they use mass transit or pay for entry. There are also legacy car owners who are poor (rent stabilized, etc...). Anyway, the car has a major negative externality on the city's residents and usage should be taxed to reduce the over-usage of the roads regardless of whether the owner is poor or rich.
  - harry_ord 2y ago
    Congestion charge and parking availability would have already frozen out most lower owners driving into Central London (zone 1 and 2). What does rent stabilised mean here? Not a phrase I've ever heard regarding council housing in the UK.
    - hkt 2y ago
      Probably council housing or housing association tenants. My guess is that the person who said "rent stabilised" is American, as it is an American term - I know new yorkers in rent stabilised housing.
      - chgs 2y ago
        One of the many problems with the internet is the export of American culture. Given the time of day it’s likely OP was just repeating YouTube talking points from outrage bait videos, rather than being an actual American, but the infection remains regardless, the whole “hands up don’t shoot” nonsense where people in the U.K. acted like the police were armed for example
        hkt 2y ago
        The following is not a class bound remark: some people don't have culture, so they absorb americanisms more easily. Hands down, worst bit of the Internet is that it provides those americanisms.
  - oarsinsync 2y ago
    > usage should be taxed to reduce the over-usage of the roads regardless of whether the owner is poor or rich. For the tax to be equally effective on rich as poor, the tax might need to be means tested. A £100 tax disproportionately affects poor people over rich people.
  - philjohn 2y ago
    ULEZ compliant cars are dirt cheap - there's a scrappage sceheme as well that will give more than a ULEZ compliant car costs. It's a non issue turned into one by the "culture warriors" on the right.
ein0p 2y ago
The poor do not live in the center of London. It’s one of the most expensive places in the world.
- aimazon 2y ago
  London, like most major cities, has significant wealth disparity: central London is filled with high-earning transplants living side by side with impoverished locals. Southwark is the London borough containing The Shard, Tate Modern, Borough Market, Tower Bridge yet almost 30% of children in Southwark live in poverty. Poverty touches every part of London. Even the City of London has housing estates.
  - literallycancer 2y ago
    Living in an apartment rather than a house is a strange definition of poverty.
    - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
      some people don’t know poverty and equate not being rich to being poor
    - rr808 2y ago
      Its common in British cities for most owners/renters to have terraced or detached housing while council houses (public housing) are in tower blocks or smaller apartment buildings.
      - torginus 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure anyone around there who owns his apartment does not fit the definition of poor - in fact most of the so-called rich would take more than a decade of saving up just so that they could own the same property. The great tragedy of Europe is that asset wealth has far outpaced the earnings potential of the population.
        2y ago
ambicapter 2y ago
Why do you think emissions levels are what the kids detected that changed their behavior? I would posit reducing emissions levels had a knock-on effect that had some other effect, etc. until the last effect in the chain was what made the kids change their behavior.
_visgean 2y ago
The article never claims that the children notice the emission decrease. The claim is simply that more of them use active transport to school.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
boredpeter 2y ago
And is car dependency not a tax on the poor as well? If the government only builds car-based infrastructure that requires a car then that is a tax on everyone is it not?
resoluteteeth 2y ago
Despite "emission" being in the name of the ULEZ, I don't think the article is necessarily implying that the mechanism is specifically that kids were more willing to go outside because there was less pollution. There are various other possible mechanisms: parents decided not to drive their kids based on the fees, there were fewer cars on the road which made it more pleasant for kids to walk to school, etc.
QasimK 2y ago
I don’t know if kids notice, but I can smell the air pollution every time I drive into outer London from outside London. It’s how I know I’m entering London.
CalRobert 2y ago
Reality doesn’t care about your beliefs

fragmede 2y ago

Like, at all? pictures of LA smog in the 80's, or Beijing air pollution now should be enough to convince you that the problem is real, even if you don't believe in the latest round of it.

jprete 2y ago

> Four in 10 London children stopped driving and started walking to school a year after the city's clean air zone went into effect. I had the same interpretation of the headline as you. But, based on the quote, I think the change is that their parents stopped driving them to school.

aimazon 2y ago

Vehicle ownership in London has always been expensive. Poor people have never driven in London, poor people use public transport. For all London's faults (of which there are many) the high population density makes public transport useful. Please share evidence for your assertion that the "ULEZ is a tax on being poor". Only half of households in London have a vehicle.

AdamN 2y ago
They're probably referring to poor (working class really) people living in outer London who have cars and are now basically frozen out of central London unless they use mass transit or pay for entry. There are also legacy car owners who are poor (rent stabilized, etc...). Anyway, the car has a major negative externality on the city's residents and usage should be taxed to reduce the over-usage of the roads regardless of whether the owner is poor or rich.
- harry_ord 2y ago
  Congestion charge and parking availability would have already frozen out most lower owners driving into Central London (zone 1 and 2). What does rent stabilised mean here? Not a phrase I've ever heard regarding council housing in the UK.
  - hkt 2y ago
    Probably council housing or housing association tenants. My guess is that the person who said "rent stabilised" is American, as it is an American term - I know new yorkers in rent stabilised housing.
    - chgs 2y ago
      One of the many problems with the internet is the export of American culture. Given the time of day it’s likely OP was just repeating YouTube talking points from outrage bait videos, rather than being an actual American, but the infection remains regardless, the whole “hands up don’t shoot” nonsense where people in the U.K. acted like the police were armed for example
      - hkt 2y ago
        The following is not a class bound remark: some people don't have culture, so they absorb americanisms more easily. Hands down, worst bit of the Internet is that it provides those americanisms.
- oarsinsync 2y ago
  > usage should be taxed to reduce the over-usage of the roads regardless of whether the owner is poor or rich. For the tax to be equally effective on rich as poor, the tax might need to be means tested. A £100 tax disproportionately affects poor people over rich people.
- philjohn 2y ago
  ULEZ compliant cars are dirt cheap - there's a scrappage sceheme as well that will give more than a ULEZ compliant car costs. It's a non issue turned into one by the "culture warriors" on the right.

ein0p 2y ago

The poor do not live in the center of London. It’s one of the most expensive places in the world.

aimazon 2y ago
London, like most major cities, has significant wealth disparity: central London is filled with high-earning transplants living side by side with impoverished locals. Southwark is the London borough containing The Shard, Tate Modern, Borough Market, Tower Bridge yet almost 30% of children in Southwark live in poverty. Poverty touches every part of London. Even the City of London has housing estates.
- literallycancer 2y ago
  Living in an apartment rather than a house is a strange definition of poverty.
  - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
    some people don’t know poverty and equate not being rich to being poor
  - rr808 2y ago
    Its common in British cities for most owners/renters to have terraced or detached housing while council houses (public housing) are in tower blocks or smaller apartment buildings.
    - torginus 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure anyone around there who owns his apartment does not fit the definition of poor - in fact most of the so-called rich would take more than a decade of saving up just so that they could own the same property. The great tragedy of Europe is that asset wealth has far outpaced the earnings potential of the population.
      - 2y ago

ambicapter 2y ago

Why do you think emissions levels are what the kids detected that changed their behavior? I would posit reducing emissions levels had a knock-on effect that had some other effect, etc. until the last effect in the chain was what made the kids change their behavior.

_visgean 2y ago

The article never claims that the children notice the emission decrease. The claim is simply that more of them use active transport to school.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

boredpeter 2y ago

And is car dependency not a tax on the poor as well? If the government only builds car-based infrastructure that requires a car then that is a tax on everyone is it not?

resoluteteeth 2y ago

Despite "emission" being in the name of the ULEZ, I don't think the article is necessarily implying that the mechanism is specifically that kids were more willing to go outside because there was less pollution. There are various other possible mechanisms: parents decided not to drive their kids based on the fees, there were fewer cars on the road which made it more pleasant for kids to walk to school, etc.

QasimK 2y ago

I don’t know if kids notice, but I can smell the air pollution every time I drive into outer London from outside London. It’s how I know I’m entering London.

CalRobert 2y ago

Reality doesn’t care about your beliefs