Extension to ultra-low emission zone to north/south circulars

[kford]

Removing all those unnecessary traffic lights that sprung up under Ken Livingstone's tenure would also reduce emissions across the city.

[alex_b]

How is the existing Low Emmision Zone for heavy vehicles monitored and enforced?

[Abe_froeman]

There are 342 ANPR cameras across the whole of the area inside the m25 to enforce it (compared to 646 for the congestion charge). Not many of those cameras are already inside the north / south circular.

[rendelharris]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Banning wood stoves in London would reduce mkre

> NOx than this diesel tax but Khan wont contemplate

> it for some reason. His green logic is hard to

> fathom.

A) No it wouldn't and please show any evidence you have to the contrary, because I've searched the first six pages of Google results for anything which supports this statement and there's nothing; B) Mr.Khan wrote to the Environment Secretary in November asking for powers to ban woodburning stoves in areas of high pollution - still awaiting response. How exactly is that not contemplating it?

[James Barber]

Hi B+,

It isn't the diesel that's the problem but the engines combusting it.

Plenty of diesels producing less particulates than petrol cars.

B+ Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is no need to have zones, cameras, a small

> army of enforcers and staff.

> Just increase the Tax on diesel fuel then those

> that do the most mileage with their diesel

> vehicles will pay the most, and if the extra

> revenue raised is used to fund a diesel vehicle

> scrappage scheme then it would be a tax that

> phases itself out as diesel vehicles gradually

> leave our roads.

[Abe_froeman]

That's exactly right James, but sadly people have stopped buying those cars in favour of more polluting petrol engines because they no longer have any trust at all in diesel. Its a shocking case of unintended consequences and the Mayor ought to address it.

Rendel,see here:

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1

[rendelharris]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rendel,see here:

>

> http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2757/rr-1

That article is solely about PM2.5 (particulate) emissions, nothing to do with your (erroneous) claim that woodburners emit more NOx than diesels, which they don't. No comment on your equally erroneous accusation that Mr.Khan "won't contemplate" banning woodburners?

[B+]

Having read this article from the bbc news website today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42666596

I have to admit that it would appear that the new generation of

Diesel vehicles are probably no more polluting than petrol vehicles

and therefore are being demonised unfairly.

That said, there is a definite shift in public and government opinion to

move towards electric vehicles, so getting rid of the most

polluting vehicles through a scrappage scheme paid for by

a separate fuel tax would be the fairest and fastest way

forward in my opinion.

[Penguin68]

I have to admit that it would appear that the new generation of

Diesel vehicles are probably no more polluting than petrol vehicles

and therefore are being demonised unfairly.

That's not quite what the article is saying, I believe. They pollute in different ways, particularly around particulates and NOx. Do please remember that CO2 is NOT a pollutant (nor does it directly harm health) - indeed it is vital to the growth of plants, without which we would all be dead, as these form the basis of our food chains. It is telling that attempts to reduce CO2 emissions in cars may lead to an increase in particulates - which are definitely health threatening, according to the article. Also please remember that, whilst I don't agree with the proposal for reasons I have gone into above, it is directed at old generation engines. New (genuinely cleaner) diesels will not be impacted by this.

[uncleglen]

Lest we forget

http://www.sustainablebuild.co.uk/pollutionfromconstruction.html

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> please remember that CO2 is NOT a pollutant

Sure about that? Because there's this thing called global warming...

[Penguin68]

It's a greenhouse gas, sure, as is water vapour, but it's not a pollutant.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's a greenhouse gas, sure, as is water vapour,

> but it's not a pollutant.

You'd better write to National Geographic and point out the error of their ways then:

Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. Though living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when associated with cars, planes, power plants, and other human activities that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas. In the past 150 years, such activities have pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to raise its levels higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years.

[ianr]

Then this forum is a pollutant.

[Penguin68]

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 in the atmosphere is estimated around 4% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, which is itself a comparatively small amount compared to water vapour. Water vapour forms 80& of greenhouse gas mass (and 90% by volume). https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/ . CO2 is CO2 - just because it's breathed out by animals (and us) doesn't make it any 'better' or more or less of a pollutant than CO2 sourced in any other way. Without CO2 we would have no green plants.

If the National Geographic is concerned about greenhouse gases then its statement about CO2 is simply wrong, it's not the 'main' 'pollutant' water vapor is. If it wants to make a point about CO2 having a greater warming effect that water vapour (it does, per given quantity) then methane is considerably worse.

It is like saying that my breath is sweetness and light, but yours is toxic. It's all breath.

Whereas NOx (from diesels) actually is toxic. As are unburnt hydrocarbons from other fuel sources deposited as particulates.

[rendelharris]

Do you understand the feedback relationship between water vapour and manmade CO2 in increasing global temperatures? If not it's easily googled. Briefly, water vapour is not a "pollutant" as it is part of the natural self-regulation of the biosphere. When you inject artificially created CO2 from industry, transport etc, that's where the problems arise (and surely you're not going to keep banging on that tired old trope that because animals emit CO2 then manmade CO2 is no different?). But then as you know better than the National Geographic, perhaps you don't need to bother...

P.S. Straight question Penguin, do you accept that manmade global warming exists?

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you want to reduce the number of car journeys within London, put suburban rail services under the control of TFL. The Conservatives were all in favour of just this until a Labour Mayor was elected https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/07/chris-grayling-accused-of-putting-politics-over-people-in-rail-letter-leak .

It will do more to ensure that service improvements happen and that the network is run in the interests of Londoners and encourage more people out of their cars than just upping the cost of driving, without any good alternatives.

[BrandNewGuy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you want to reduce the number of car journeys

> within London, put suburban rail services under

> the control of TFL. The Conservatives were all in

> favour of just this until a Labour Mayor was

> elected

> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/07/ch

> ris-grayling-accused-of-putting-politics-over-peop

> le-in-rail-letter-leak .

Grayling has changed his mind, so hopefully this will happen sooner rather than later:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/southern-rail-to-be-hit-by-major-overhaul-of-londons-commuter-routes-after-years-of-misery-chris-a3704721.html

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you understand the feedback relationship

> between water vapour and manmade CO2 in increasing

> global temperatures? If not it's easily googled.

> Briefly, water vapour is not a "pollutant" as it

> is part of the natural self-regulation of the

> biosphere. When you inject artificially created

> CO2 from industry, transport etc, that's where the

> problems arise (and surely you're not going to

> keep banging on that tired old trope that because

> animals emit CO2 then manmade CO2 is no

> different?). But then as you know better than the

> National Geographic, perhaps you don't need to

> bother...

>

> P.S. Straight question Penguin, do you accept that

> manmade global warming exists?

I'm curious. CO2 is also part of the "natural self-regulation of the biosphere" (see GCSE chemistry, the carbon cycle etc.) but obviously human activities have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So anthropogenic CO2 is a pollutant, which as a definition is fine with me.

However, if you consider anthropogenic CO2 to be a pollutant, where do you stand on anthropogenic water vapour? Is that a pollutant as well?

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm curious. CO2 is also part of the "natural

> self-regulation of the biosphere" (see GCSE

> chemistry, the carbon cycle etc.) but obviously

> human activities have increased the amount of CO2

> in the atmosphere. So anthropogenic CO2 is a

> pollutant, which as a definition is fine with me.

>

> However, if you consider anthropogenic CO2 to be a

> pollutant, where do you stand on anthropogenic

> water vapour? Is that a pollutant as well?

You could call it a pollutant if you wish but as 99.999% of the water vapour in the earth's atmosphere is from non-anthropogenic sources I think we can agree that pollutant or not, anthropogenic water vapour is pretty unimportant. It's pretty meaningless to call water vapour a pollutant when it is part of a natural cycle, you might as well say oxygen is a pollutant when it enters water. The thing is, water vapour does not control the earth's temperature, it is controlled by the temperature; as anthropogenic gases (CO2, methane, NOx and methane) are released into the atmosphere they cause temperatures to rise, which increases the amount of water vapour, which increases the greenhouse effect. Remove the anthropogenic pollutants and (eventually) water vapour levels will rebalance. Water vapour is much loved by climate change deniers because they can claim it's nature, not humans, causing global warming - which is like claiming it was the wall that caused the crash, not the fact that I drove my car into it.

P.S. Of course CO2 is part of the natural self-regulation of the biosphere, and it would work pretty well without our interference, but our production of CO2 has wrecked that natural balance, so that a rise of 100ppm which would normally occur over 20,000 years has occurred in the last 120.

[micromacromonkey]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm curious. CO2 is also part of the "natural

> self-regulation of the biosphere" (see GCSE

> chemistry, the carbon cycle etc.) but obviously

> human activities have increased the amount of CO2

> in the atmosphere. So anthropogenic CO2 is a

> pollutant, which as a definition is fine with me.

>

> However, if you consider anthropogenic CO2 to be a

> pollutant, where do you stand on anthropogenic

> water vapour? Is that a pollutant as well?

In short, no, it doesn't count. There is only so much water on the planet, and it's been cycling around in and out of the atmosphere and oceans for hundreds of thousands of years. 'Anthropogenic' water vapour might have small short term effects (e.g. clouds near cooling towers) but they will dissipate. While water vapour is a greenhouse gas (accounts for 90% of the greenhouse effect or something like that) any particular effects are short term and relatively localised.

Conversely most CO2 that we emit has been trapped underground for AGES, and so is effectively a new addition to the atmosphere, hence considered a pollutant. It won't disappear in a rain shower like water vapour will.

It's not quite as simple as that though, since higher temperatures (caused by gradual CO2 concentration increase) cause more water vapour on average, hence amplifying the effect from CO2 alone.

As an aside CO2 from burning wood, for example, would not seem to fall into this category, since it existed in the atmosphere as CO2, was absorbed by a tree and laid down, then released when burnt. So that is analogous to the water cycle really, the only anthropogenic effects of this would arise from burning trees faster than we plant them (which may also be happening, I don't know what the figures are).

[Earl Aelfheah]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If you want to reduce the number of car

> journeys

> > within London, put suburban rail services under

> > the control of TFL. The Conservatives were all

> in

> > favour of just this until a Labour Mayor was

> > elected

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/07/ch

>

> >

> ris-grayling-accused-of-putting-politics-over-peop

>

> > le-in-rail-letter-leak .

>

> Grayling has changed his mind, so hopefully this

> will happen sooner rather than later:

> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/southern

> -rail-to-be-hit-by-major-overhaul-of-londons-commu

> ter-routes-after-years-of-misery-chris-a3704721.ht

> ml

That would be great. I really think it would make a big difference, especially in South London where our services play second fiddle to commuter belt, season ticket holders interests.

[PollyG]

Definitely time to address the issue of pollution in London and agree that any expansion of the ULEZ should come with improved public transport facilities, even some new bus routes would be great for encouraging people to ditch their cars.

One of my concerns with the route being extended up to, but not including, the north and south circulars is that there are many schools (state and private- not that debate please) along/near the south circular and it seems likely that by extending the ULEZ it will result in an increased amount of traffic along these routes. It seems at odds with wanting to improve air quality for London`s children to then potentially push more traffic past their schools. Anyone know if there will be a corresponding fund for green screens/ planting solutions to help detoxify the air past the affected schools?

Calsug- you are spot on with the Edinburgh tram situation. I know lots of people there- it has been hugely expensive, incredibly disruptive, the locals generally considered it a council vanity project and the trams now are frequently seen under utilised.

[rendelharris]

PollyG Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One of my concerns with the route being extended

> up to, but not including, the north and south

> circulars is that there are many schools (state

> and private- not that debate please) along/near

> the south circular and it seems likely that by

> extending the ULEZ it will result in an increased

> amount of traffic along these routes. It seems at

> odds with wanting to improve air quality for

> London`s children to then potentially push more

> traffic past their schools. Anyone know if there

> will be a corresponding fund for green screens/

> planting solutions to help detoxify the air past

> the affected schools?

The trouble is, London is so dense that anywhere you draw a line will have a lot of schools around it. Hopefully the benefits of cleaner air as people start to ditch their old diesels will outweigh any extra traffic on the south circular - if there is an increase, I'd guess that those wanting to avoid London already use the south circular and those wanting to go in will have to pay the charge or change vehicle. Does anyone know if the line will be on the south or north side of the road?

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The thing is, water vapour does not

> control the earth's temperature, it is controlled

> by the temperature; as anthropogenic gases (CO2,

> methane, NOx and methane) are released into the

> atmosphere they cause temperatures to rise, which

> increases the amount of water vapour, which

> increases the greenhouse effect. Remove the

> anthropogenic pollutants and (eventually) water

> vapour levels will rebalance. Water vapour is

> much loved by climate change deniers because they

> can claim it's nature, not humans, causing global

> warming - which is like claiming it was the wall

> that caused the crash, not the fact that I drove

> my car into it.

Water vapour does both. It both controls and is controlled by the temperature. For example, increased cloud cover increases the proportion of solar radiation reflected back into space and has a net cooling effect. But that's besides the point.

Water vapour has an effect on Earth's climate, and the science behind this is as solid as the science behind CO2 having an effect on Earth's climate. When we burn (for example) petrol, we release one molecule of water into the atmosphere for every molecule of CO2 which also gets released. Without the combustion engine, neither the CO2 nor the water would be in the atmosphere. Both gases are greenhouse gases, with water being worse than CO2. I'm being deliberately picky here, but you criticised Penguin for saying the Nat Geo statement was wrong. It is wrong, mainly because both gases - provided they come from anthropogenic sources - are pollutants. They shouldn't be there, but human activities have put them there. And they are affecting the Earth's climate.