ULEZ expansion ruled lawful by High Court

[Rockets]

Errrm, thanks Malumbu...did you actually read the article....? I was only posting it as I thought it was interesting that some now feel domestic and commercial heating will need some form of ULEZ not as an excuse for a snarky school lesson from you i had one of those from Mr Chicken on engineering....;-)

 

Research suggests most of the nitrogen dioxide pollution in the London air comes from burning fuels for heating, with action demanded from the government to tackle the problem.

[malumbu]

"Largest source of NO2" suggests that heating is the main cause of roadside pollution.  It's not, that is road transport.  It is nothing new that gas central heating leads to NO2 emissions. Mayor Johnson pushed for low NOx boilers, and I think that these had to be adopted in municipal buildings.  Not sure what Mayor Khan is doing.  Perhaps check it out and report back.  I'll post some government stuff in the morning that you can spend some time looking through.  

[Penguin68]

On 30/08/2023 at 13:11, malumbu said:

It's the CO2 that is the issue.

This has absolutely NO impact on air quality - and without it we'd all be dead because all the plants that we, or the animals we eat, would be dead. So not a cause in the mystery deaths of the Mayors 4000 annual casualties. Anthropogenic climate change may be an issue, but it isn't an ULEZ style air quality issue.

[Rockets]

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

"Largest source of NO2" suggests that heating is the main cause of roadside pollution.  It's not, that is road transport.  It is nothing new that gas central heating leads to NO2 emissions. Mayor Johnson pushed for low NOx boilers, and I think that these had to be adopted in municipal buildings.  Not sure what Mayor Khan is doing.  Perhaps check it out and report back.  I'll post some government stuff in the morning that you can spend some time looking through.  

No Malumbu - if you read the article you would realise it is saying heating is the largest source of NO2 in London air - it doesn't mention anything about roadside pollution - you've added that, not the journalist.

 

Anyway, before you take this thread off on a tangent I only posted it to show that some are lobbying for other polluting sources to be charged in the same way as the ULEZ operates. 

 

Maybe restart the thread on ideas to combat pollution that got deleted following posts by your esteemed fellow poster as that thread was going in the right direction before it got removed as this would be a good discussion point for that.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, mr.chicken said:

I'd love to see this chap if someone fell in the duck pond at the park. Instead of reaching for a life ring he'd start yelling at them about how are they drowning don't you know water is essential for life and you'd be dead without it.

And I'm sure that (were it to be in his power) if the Mayor said that he would intend to suppress rainfall throughout Greater London, within the M25, so that people might avoid drowning you would be the first to applaud. CO2 is not a gas which, at any likely atmospheric concentrations will directly impact health adversely. It does not cause asthma, or other lung conditions, or any cancers. There is no evidence offered by anyone that the existing North and South Circular ULEZ (or even the previous ULEZ just in Central London) had any impact on CO2 levels - mainly because no one was, or thought to, measure them. There are global (not local to London) arguments about CO2 levels certainly, but to pray-in-aid anything to do with CO2 as regards local lung health issues (the apparent driver and nothing to do with hating car owners or driving revenues) as an excuse for the ULEZ is simply laughable. ULEZ was always (from its initial, small scale, introduction by Boris Johnson) a one-trick pony about lung health in London.

[malumbu]

Rocks, I said I'd post some background documents on nitrogen oxide emissions

The attached report from government this year details sources.  

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-nitrogen-oxides-nox

Extracting from this provides a nice summary:

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a group of gases that are mainly formed during the combustion of fossil fuels. The dominant portion of these gases is nitric oxide (NO). However, NO can react with other gases in the atmosphere to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which is harmful to health. These reactions take place very quickly and are reversible, so the two gases are referred to together as NOx.

In the most recent annual air quality assessment (for 2021), the UK was non-compliant with the limit value [maxium ambient concentration] placed on the annual mean NO2 concentration at a number of roadside locations in urban areas. It has been estimated that on average 70 per cent of the NOx concentrations at the roadside originate as NOx emissions from road transport.

Short-term exposure to concentrations of NO2 can cause inflammation of the airways and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections and to allergens. NO2 can exacerbate the symptoms of those already suffering from lung or heart conditions. In addition, NOx can cause changes to the environment. Deposition of Nitrogen to the environment both directly as a gas (dry deposition) and in precipitation (wet deposition) can change soil chemistry and affect biodiversity in sensitive habitats.

Increases in road traffic accounted for the steep climb in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) between 1984 and 1989. The introduction of catalytic converters [three way cats for petrol cars, a result of stricter US controls following LA smogs] and stricter emissions regulations resulted in a downward trend in NOx emissions after 1990.

Road transport accounted for 27 per cent of emissions of nitrogen oxides in the UK in 2021, and other forms of transport (aviation, rail, and shipping) accounted for 14 per cent. There is a downward trend in emissions from road transport due to the replacement of older vehicles in the vehicle fleet with newer vehicles that meet stricter emissions standards. Annual emissions from road transport have fallen by 69 per cent between 2005 and 2021, and other forms of transport have reduced annual emissions by 45 per cent over the same period.

Emissions from power stations and industrial combustion plants have reduced substantially, reflecting a long-term trend away from the use of coal and oil in favour of natural gas and renewable energy sources. Annual nitrogen oxide emissions from energy industries have reduced by 74 per cent between 2005 and 2021, largely due to the closure or conversion to biomass fuel of coal-fired power stations.

[my added bits].

Can't find stuff on low NOx boilers in London (there used to be a lot on line) apart from a Policy Exchange document:  London has recently implemented an “Air Quality Neutral” policy which requires all major developments (e.g. 10 dwellings or more) to be assessed against emissions benchmarks, and for all newly fitted boilers to meet ultra-low NOx standards. However this policy only applies to new developments, and does not tackle the stock of existing boilers.

Government guidance to local authorities is a bit wishy washy and does not mention boilers as far as I can see.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-air-quality-strategy-for-england/air-quality-strategy-framework-for-local-authority-delivery

I expect government policy focuses on the phasing out of natural gas as a heating source in the next few years, modern condensing boilers only have a ten year or so life so turn round, when we get to the alternative which may be hydrogen (obviously coupled with heat pumps, and hopefully eventually a massive insulation programme).

Penguin.  Whilst ULEZ is primarily designed to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions there may well be climate change benefits too.

I expect some will diss this report but here it goes:

www.london.gov.uk/new-report-reveals-transformational-impact-expanded-ultra-low-emission-zone-so-far

[ULEZ] it helped reduce road transport nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 35 per cent and CO2 emissions by 6 percent in the zone

Any reduction in CO2 emissions are welcome to try and reduce the facking up of the planet (technical language).

 

[malumbu]

Saturday Guardian had a not particularly interesting article on air pollution, ULEZ and the like. Too late to write to them  but they could have been clearer.  Mayor Khan's estimate on 4000 deaths (which are the same that Mayor Johnson also gave)  due to air pollution is based on the official government figures loosely scaled down to the population of London,  A ten year old could work that out. Shame on Rees-Mogg for saying that only one person has died of air pollution.  Deaths are approximate lives saved if we could have air with no toxic pollutants and accounts for other contributing factors. 

[Spartacus]

There's a new report (first month figures) out from tfl / City Hall 

https://www.london.gov.uk/media/103225/download

Interesting in that it claims 95% compliant vehicles in London now.  However we know from the consultation where they measured vehicles seen by ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) that the number of vehicles owned is higher than seen through a limited number of cameras. 

Again, compliance in this report is taken from spotted vehicles and not actual registered vehicles. 

What is scary is that the expanded scheme made 52 million pounds in the first month.

Read the report and see if you agree or disagree with it, but my opinion is that if so many vehicles were compliant before its introduction (above 90%) and the increase in compliance (approx 4.8% since Nov 22) making £52 million a month it does feel like a tax on Londoners during a cost of living crisis for very little gain in compliant vehicles. (See table 4 page 20 for data on compliance) 

[malumbu]

Good to read that air quality is continuing to improve in London.  I've just thought of another benefit of ULEZ, if you have a non-compliant vehicle, assuming that you keep it for occasional use, few car thieves would consider stealing it.

[Spartacus]

12 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Good to read that air quality is continuing to improve in London.  I've just thought of another benefit of ULEZ, if you have a non-compliant vehicle, assuming that you keep it for occasional use, few car thieves would consider stealing it.

Sometimes Mal your logic escapes everyone 🤣

[Rockets]

Ha ha indeed....but it seems there is some argument about how much ULEZ expansion has contributed, despite what the mayor and his fan-boys claim!!!  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68533703

[Spartacus]

If there is any doubt that ULEZ is really a covert tax on Londoners, the BBC has uncovered that since the expansion 6 months ago, it has raised £130 million in fines or fees. 

🤔

BBC News - London mayoral elections: How will Ulez influence voters? - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6pyrpew857o

Edited April 15 by Spartacus

[malumbu]

It improves air quality.  When originally proposed under the Johnson government it was decided to allow much older petrol cars to help those less well off who needed to use a car regularly.  Like the child minder in the BBC article.  The scrappage scheme is generous.

Parties such as Reform have very few policies; they are essentially anti immigration, pro-car, pro climate change and do not want to take action to improve air quality.

Tories are opportunists.

[Spartacus]

I see you aren't denying it's a tax 🤔

Let's be honest the amount offered to scrap a car isn't enough whilst there is a cost of living crisis to allow lots of people to buy newer compliant models especially as demand artificially inflated the second hand car prices. 

With the ability to pay to drive in with a non compliant vehicle, its not a deterrent but a tax. 

Ps love your tactic to paint people who object to one thing as being members of wider antiestablishment parties. 

Believing one thing doesn't mean we believe that the world is flat 😂

[Penguin68]

41 minutes ago, malumbu said:

It improves air quality

I'm afraid there is no evidence that air quality has improved since, and as a consequence of, the most recent expansion of the ULEZ. Certainly London air quality has substantially improved over time (indeed even over the last 20 years) but this is not wholly attributable to, even, the initial ULEZ, let alone its two expansions. Build quality of vehicles has massively improved, even outwith the introduction of full and hybrid EV. This has led to lower emissions. Probably a ban on wood burning stoves would have had a greater impact on air quality than either of the two ULEZ expansions. Of course in theory removing older vehicles should have an impact on air quality, everything else being equal, but it isn't. And the less an area is built-up (thus trapping emitted particles etc.) the more any impact of ULEZ is dissipated away from London such that any concentration of emissions is lost, thus massively ameliorating their health (ill) effects.

[malumbu]

If one drives an older vehicle less, or changes that older vehicle for a cleaner one, why would that not result in cleaner air?  Changes may be small and difficult to measure - which is why government uses modelling, backed up by monitoring, to report air quality.

The main issue is nitrogen oxides, there are not trapped on foliage, or surfaces of buildings, being a gas rather than small particles of pollution.

Now you could say there are better options. The best option is if we all took the environment and air quality more seriously, and changed our habits accordingly.  But for many driving is habitual and a difficult to get voluntary behavior change,

The Mayor is aware of the impact of wood burners, as I have reported before this is well  known about for the last ten years or so but successive governments have ducked the issue; particularly shame on Defra

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-and-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/guidance-wood-burning-london

But can you imagine the uproar if local or national government banned wood burners.

Edited April 15 by malumbu

[Rockets]

The climate crisis is being used by authorities to generate revenue - it's a convenient excuse/catch-all to help them justify revenue generation plans and, unfortunately, many lap it up and parrot it verbatim - CPZs were probably the last straw for many as they saw through the ludicrous narrative put out by the council that there were brought in to help the climate emergency which is clearly, utterly misleading greenwashing nonsense - but of course some drank the Kool-Aid.

 

ULEZ is a revenue generation tool that may have a minimal (probably unmeasurable) impact on climate change and that is why so many challenged Sadiq on his claims that ULEZ had improved air quality in London after Sadiq and his team clearly tried to mislead Londoners: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68533703

[malumbu]

Government were ordered by the Supreme court to sort out air quality.  Government came up with the concept of Clean Air Zones (CAZ).  The ULEZ is a CAZ, announced by Mayor Johnson, before the Supreme Court published their verdict, and government published their revised national plans.

Before the first extension two thirds of the parked cars in my street were older diesels.  Now 95 percent are compliant 

Similar schemes have been introduced in other European cities, some such as Paris have gone further.

[Spartacus]

12 minutes ago, malumbu said:

 

Before the first extension two thirds of the parked cars in my street were older diesels.  Now 95 percent are compliant 

 

I find it amazing that 2 out of 3 cars were diesel 

Especially given that diesel was already seen as dirty and polluting years ago. 

You live and learn or are you just exaggerating the stats to suit your narrative ? (are you sure you don't work for a council / TfL ? ) 

[Rockets]

So I guess the £224m raised in 2022 was just a fringe-benefit to the mayor.....who then decided, during the worst cost of living crisis in living memory, to expand it to the outer boroughs as well...how wonderfully socialist! 😉 It's amazing how quickly socialist principles are forgotten when it comes to money and revenue generation.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65778065

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

The climate crisis is being used by authorities to generate revenue 

ULEZ is a revenue generation tool that may have a minimal (probably unmeasurable) impact on climate change and that is why so many challenged Sadiq on his claims that ULEZ had improved air quality in London after Sadiq and his team clearly tried to mislead Londoners: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68533703

This is tin foil hat stuff. The climate crisis is very real and governments have to take action.

ULEZ isn't primarily about climate change, but air quality. The pro-high emission vehicle gang want to argue that drivers of the most polluting cars are being priced off the road, and also that the ULEZ is having no impact on removing older, dirtier vehicles from the road. Can't really be both. 

And yes, at the least, it also helps raise money. Pollution does costs money. Why should the bill (as well as the terrible health costs to individuals) of private car pollution be entirely externalised? In London, 9,400 premature deaths are attributed to poor air quality and are estimated to cost between £1.4 and £3.7 billion a year to the health service.

The evidence shows that even small improvements in air quality can have health benefits.

Edited April 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

At the very least, it helps raise money to cover some of the externalised costs of private car pollution (in London, 9,400 premature deaths are attributed to poor air quality and are estimated to cost between £1.4 and £3.7 billion a year to the health service).

A fair point, with the exception that the money raised by ULEZ doesn't go to the health service as that's not part of the Mayors remit. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

At least a small part of the externalised costs are being pushed back to the polluters, and more money can be invested in public transport.

Edited April 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Again fair point, except buses in Central London have been cut over the past year* thete are no new tube lines planned or coming south and network rail is outside the Mayors remit. 

 * we almost lost the no 12 route last year but now it is less frequent than before. 

[malumbu]

Funny thing is many people only got excited when it was extended to the outer boroughs, yet hardly said a word when it came to within the North and South Circulars, which was always Johnson's expectation. What a fair charge is, is subjective, but if you ask people nicely not to drive their older cars few would take any notice.  How about an acknowledgement for the scrappage scheme, surely most would approve.  It's about the same cost as early revenue so it's quits.

And the new bus Superloop?  No scare stories on line so must be good.