air pollution - new legislative measures

[fl0wer]

For all interested in keeping city life healthy, a news item => here http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/07/supreme-court-air-pollution-legislation

[malumbu]

A group of rich single issue lawyers who could use their money much better by working with communities rather than spending 100s of thousands of pounds on the wrong pollutant.

I bet they will all get in their Chelsea tractors after the court case. It is as much about you dear readers, do you want a 21 century lifestyle with cheap flights, commodities moved around the globe, delivery vans leaving their engines running whilst they deliver your Amazon purchases to your door, and your right to drive? Or would you like to return to Victorian times with few of these benefits but ironically even worse air quality due to industry and coal smoke.

And as an occasional Grauniad reader it can be a load of wank at times. I know all you journalist live round here in any case so bring it on.

Its not a UK thing anyway, its global and is governed by European air quality standards. So when we have to close hospitals due to these clowns as money is diverted on less important public health issues you will know who to blame.

On a more positive note Boris is dead keen on air quality and we will all be in our electric cars in the next few years. Discuss.

[Huguenot]

An intriguing blend of what appears to be astute insight and complete nonsense, malumbu. :)

I'm interested in your insistence that less indulgence would lead to more air pollution. If we shut down Ocado, we get pea-soupers? The world deserves to know.

Devastating also to hear that hospital closures are the responsibility of EU clear air legislation - really? I haven't even seen the Daily Mail make that claim. This needs a wider platform surely?

[El Pibe]

I too am curious as to the logic behind a renascent coal based industry being comcomitant to enforcement of more stringent pollution regulations. Weird.

[malumbu]

OK some easy points. A bunch of rich lawyers want the government to spend much more on improving air quality and are going to the courts to try to make this happen. This is not Greenpeace of Friends of the Earth, this is a single issue group who seemed to be rather obsessed. My view here is rather than spend 100s of thousands of pounds on legal action, spend this on helping to directly improve air quality eg a publicity campaign.

Point 2, should they be successful then the extra money that is spent either at national or local government level comes out of your pocket, and is at the expense of other more worthy causes. So for example should money be spent on public health campaigns to reduce obesity, increase exercise, or tell people not to breath in polluted air. Of course incresaed expercise will often mean less driving.

Point 3. The media attention on air quality will hardly make the slightest bit of difference to the behavious of the public and business. I doubt whether there will be a rush at the Toyota dealers as people in ED trade in their SUVs

Point 4. There is a continued growth in urban deliveries. Urban delivery drivers may not be the most eco minded of people both in their choice of vehicles, and the way they drive them, and (with black cabs) these are a particularly big contributor to poor air quality. The growth of urban deliveries is because of? Guess what. There are some larger haulage companies out there that of course very eco aware as part of their business plan.

I did like how my comment on the Grauniad article got beeped out, next time I'll just say how swanky I find it at times.

Not quite sure where my point on coal came into it apart from a comment that air quality was poor in the cities before the motor car as well as after. Probably was that with domestic heating swithching from coal, and ditto with power (OK there are still some coal firec power stations but with much tighter emission standards) air quality has vastly improved since the 1950s. A decline in the UK's heavy industry has similarly contributed.

As you enjoyed my rant so much also look at what I had to say about wrong decisions on energy policy and the loss of nuclear capability (ie to build power stations).

[Huguenot]

Publicity campaigns 'directly' improve air quality? Eh what?

Advertising should tell people not to breathe polluted air? Which air do you think they should be breathing then?

Yes, white vans do emit more particulates than private cars - but a white van delivery service replaces 40 individual car journeys. There's no comparison. The more people that order for delivery the more efficient the process becomes.

As the article points out, polluted air is causing as many health problems as obesity and road accidents combined (there's no justification to claim that fatties deserve more advertising). In some ways these people are more deserving of attention, since many of them will have played no part in creating the pollution that's killing them.

I'm not sure your arguments hold out malumbu. It looks like a knee jerk reaction that you're trying to post rationalise - you can't even remember what you were talking about on coal after all ;-)

[uncleglen]

The UK is fined for not reaching EU standards on air pollution for example

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18617815

The population of the country rises year on year, the air pollution increases, the tax revenue increases.

Hence there is no political will, either in the UK or the EU, to curb vehicle use.

Things can only get much worse.

[Huguenot]

I'm not sure that political will would have much to do with it - I'm pretty sure that any government that tried to restrict private car usage would simply get voted out at the next election.

I think the problems are a bit more fundamental.

Firstly that the isn't a link between the polluter and the health costs. The people who pollute the most are not the ones that suffer (unlike, say, smoking or obesity).

Secondly that the people most affected by pollution (and other long term issues) are children and don't have the vote.

Thirdly that in an optional democracy (you have the choice to vote) the votes are disproportionately cast by old people whose primary goals are short term indulgence not long term benefits.