Do you support the ULEZ expansion?

[icecream99]

Just curious as it is due to start at midnight tonight and could potentially cause a lot of chaos. I don't support it.

YANBU - I DON'T support ULEZ expansion

YABU - I DO support ULEZ expansion

Hi there, a report by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, COMEAP NO2 2018 (Google it) reveals on page 69 that a 1 μg/m3 reduction in NO2 emissions should increase life expectancy by 8 days.

The official Jacobs Integrated Impact Assessment estimates (p47) that ULEZ expansion will reduce NO2 pollutant levels by just 0.3 μg/m3 in outer London. 0.3 x 8 = 2.4, so that gives a 2.4 day lifetime increase thanks to ULEZ, or + 0.008%.

The new zone is outer London, not inner. Inner London has better transport, here I live next to downs, farms and the rolling countryside. Planting more trees, stopping astroturfing gardens and outlawing wood burners would be better for the environment in this area.

I am not sure I know what you mean about it being imposed on people who didn't vote for it? The ULEZ area is all London boroughs and the City of London. All those areas vote for London Mayor.

Bath, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Tyneside all have Clean Air Zones. I didn't vote for any of them but have to pay if I drive into their cities. What is the difference with ULEZ?

If I have misunderstood your point, sorry, and please do explain.

Interesting report, thank you.

planting more trees - this is happening (someone linked above)
stopping astroturfing gardens - agree! Why do people do it?

outlawing wood burners - some work starting to happen (I linked above)

Here is a link to C40 for those interested: https://www.c40.org/

I am not sure what I am supposed to be concerned about? It looks like cities collaborating to share research and ideas to combat climate change. Isn't this a good thing?

Of course non-compliant cars should be banned completely in the zone if they are so dangerous and toxic to health. It's a no-brainer. Either non-compliant cars are dangerous and cause pollution and deaths or actually if you can afford to pay £12.50 none of that really matters and you can carry on driving your diesel car - kerching. It's illogical. Just ban them completely if they are so polluting. I don't understand why you find it so strange that people question the scheme when there is an easy workaround for those that can afford it.

I support it as a second best option. Better to have a national scheme to get rid of polluting cars and do much more to reduce car mileage in general. I'd also make it very expensive or difficult to have an SUV, smaller cars have usually smaller engines.

Ellenellewell, society has been divided for years by those who choose to drive every where

Won’t make any difference, even with the new wood when tested they still produce a huge amount of particulate pollution (I heard the equivalent of around 12 diesel cars). Like you say though the new rules aren’t policed at all anyway (have you ever heard of anyone actually being prosecuted for burning the wrong wood?), so it’s pretty irrelevant.

The politicians won’t do anything about this as it’s a vote loser and they can’t monetise it in same way they can with their various anti car policies.

Waronslugs, i don't remember being asked to vote on the increase in traffic over the last 30 years

100% against and in full support of the gardeners.
I don't live near an affected area, but the more fighting people do against this one, the better for other areas.

Bollocks. They're not banning petrol cars from being used in 2030, they're just stopping manufacture.

Still, if you're at all worried about that then buy a bicycle instead.

All cars, and buses, and motorbikes cause local air pollution, even electric ones. All of them are liable to cause excess deaths. Banning them all would be disproportionate in the opinion of almost everybody. Instead we tax their ownership and use.

Some cause more local pollution per mile than others. You could ban them, or you could incentivise people to limit their use in problematic areas.

If you were going to ban everything that poses any risk whatsoever to any third party, regardless of its utility, then we'd be living a very quiet life.

So in other words, you’re against measures to clean up dirty air you don’t have to breathe. How selfless of you.

@Ginmonkeyagain

Blue badge holders. And blue badge holders are not exempt

The air in the outer London boroughs scores green pretty much every day of the year across the bulk of boroughs.

There is no evidence that ULEZ will have a significant effect on health in the outer london boroughs. It will have a significant negative impact on the poorer families in the boroughs and just outside where poor families commute in by car. There has been no improvement in public transport to try and mitigate it (timetables materially unchanged in my area).

Something targeted on the few areas of poor air quality might make sense - blanket regressive taxes on the poorest for no air quality benefit is virtue signalling by the lycra clad MC SPADs in Hoxton who infest city hall.

This is largely a rebadging of existing schemes. Every London borough has tree replenishment schemes and always has. Lumping them all together and claiming credit for the whole when the increase in real funding is minimal is just spin.

Nope because it effects the poorest of our society as per usual. I think it's disgusting timing too.

The FT reported this morning that every single borough exceeds WHO limits.

Mmm... Good start and you'd think so but you need to dig a bit deeper. Then you'll find the link to the WEF page - you know, the organisation that wants us to 'own nothing' and 'be happy'. And if you look under funding partners, who should be listed... the UK Government! Which in turn means it's highly unlikely that the Tories are as againt ULEZ as they claim...

If this doesn't concern you, that's fair enough. But many of us are very concerned that we're being systematically lied to in order to fulfil a very specific agenda.

The new WHO limits which pretty much nowhere meets, including ULEZ areas? Or the limits which are actually used to determine policy which the outer London boroughs already meet? There simply isn't the evidence on health in the outer boroughs that was clearly there in Central London.

The reality is that the car industry is doing very nicely out of legislation pushing people into replacing cars frequently. The greenest car is still the car which is run until it stops (and in many areas that is exactly what happens - its wealthier areas where cars are replaced frequently).

So which measures do we use? Do we increase global warming by accelerating car production to new cars and EVs, do we reduce NO2 by supporting diesels, do we reduce C02 by reducing certain classes of car?

Its worth noting that some of the older non compliant cars produce lower emissions than some of the newer exempt cars - that isn't a policy about emissions, its a policy design to virtue signal.

@JanesBlond and yet here are current air pollution levels in the part of Greater London that I live in 🤷‍♀️

Back in March this year, Sadiq Khan tweeted:

"There is not a single place in London where the air quality is safe.".

That would suggest that the ULEZ in place at that time was not working, surely. So why bother extending it? He contradicts himself so often, I've lost count.

I support it.
But it's hitting poorer people the hardest without cheaper and more available public transport.

The ULEZ was inevitable. People have had years of warning to do something about non-compliant cars. Whenever it was introduced, there would always be people complaining, so may as well get on with it sooner rather than later.

All the whataboutery about banning wood burners / no fake grass / plant more trees -YES! But we need to do this AS WELL. It's not a case either / or.

Also, the argument about the environmental impact of scrapping vehicles. Again yes - but those vehicles would eventually be scrapped anyway, whether it's now, five years, twenty years, whenever. The only difference is, how much longer we allow these non-compliant vehicles to pollute our environment with no consequences.

The ULEZ had to happen. It's inevitable. No question. Soon it will be the entire U.K. so people need to get ready. While I sympathise with people on the ULEZ borders who say they can't afford to change their car, the simple fact remains that the bigger picture is more important. They have had years to plan for this - when exactly would the right time have been for them?

It's not just motor vehicles.
Log burners and open fires in major cities should be banned.
I'm fed up of the smoke that comes into my house form my neighbour's log burner. My washing ends up stinking too.