Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution

[Mark R]

Yes, I've been following it with great interest.

My first reaction was 'how depressingly predictable that they should seek a further delay'. Although having thought about it some more, perhaps the Tories are worried that in an election situation the likes of UKIP will opportunistically claim to be fighting on behalf of "hard pressed diesel drivers" (this assumes the Government have a plan that will go some way to actually tackling the problem).


My biggest worry is that people will end up being allowed to scrap an old diesel in exchange for a voucher they can use against a new EURO6 diesel, this would be a massive mistake in terms of storing up future problems, but it is exactly what the industry is lobbying for .

One tory MP is on the record as saying drivers should be given the option to scrap their old diesel in exchange for rail season tickets. Now that WOULD be a step forward.

[Lance Dopestrong]

I was at the scenario where I was driving less than 3000 miles a year, so bought a Twizy.

Replacing an old diesel with a shiny new diesel, then driving it about in the urban environment on shortish journeys where the anti pollution systems don't work effectively, is not going to solve anything

[reohn2]

I was at the scenario where I was driving less than 3000 miles a year, so bought a Twizy.

Replacing an old diesel with a shiny new diesel, then driving it about in the urban environment on shortish journeys where the anti pollution systems don't work effectively, is not going to solve anything

Quite right and a very good reason all ICE powered cars shouldn't be allowed into cities,large towns and other densely populated areas at all.

[Lance Dopestrong]

^^^ we need a 'like' function for posts on this forum

[Psamathe]

I do think it was pretty poor the way the Gov. waited until after close of business on the day the report was due before applying to the court for an extension. So typical of the political games and "strategy" governments play and how they lose sight of what it is really about. They make so much fuss about how GCHQ should be allowed to snoop on everybody's communications to "keep us safe" but fight like mad to do nothing to "keep us safe" from the impacts of air pollution.

And I do wonder how any scrappage scheme would operate without giving some unfair advantage. Why should those living in towns and villages without air pollution have their taxpayers money given to those living in affected cities so the worst polluters can get new cars ? And why should those who have had the benefits of cheaper fuel bills for many years now be further helped by those suffering the higher bills/causing less pollution.

The issue of diesel and air pollution has been known about for years. 8 years ago when I was buying a (2nd hand) car I considered both and selected petrol for reasons of avoiding pollution. So I've been bearing higher fuel bills so I create less pollution and now I'm expected to further subsidise those who decided to go for cheaper fuel bills and higher pollution. If I was aware of the impacts of diesel 8 years ago and made "the right decision" then why couldn't others?

So any scrappage scheme is likely to be decidedly unfair on those who would not be receiving the subsidy.

I will be interested to see why they don't just re-start the fuel tax escalator for diesel fuel.

Ian

[mjr]

Do we still have many towns without pollution? Nowhere over 40,000 population I suspect.

[Psamathe]

Do we still have many towns without pollution? Nowhere over 40,000 population I suspect.

I thought it was a question of degree and that most people interviewed on radio/news seem to only be considering a scrappage scheme for drivers in the major cities that are so often over the EU air safety limits (5 from memory).

Ian

[Cyril Haearn]

^^^ we need a 'like' function for posts on this forum

"+1" is shorthand for like I think

Why do you call yourself Lance Dopestrong?
(I named myself after a YH near Llandovery)

[Lance Dopestrong]

Because my real name is Shirley.

[1gunsalute]

So the action plan is out. Or do I mean "inaction"?

[Psamathe]

It looks like the Government will be back in court as many consider the publish plans inadequate

Government set to be taken back to court over air pollution plans
...
“This latest plan is even worse than the previous effort, which has already been ruled illegal by the high court,” said Thornton [Chief Executive of ClientEarth who took the Government to court before]. “The government should be ashamed of itself. It has dragged its heels for seven years while we choke on illegal and poisonous air; it’s been hauled through the supreme and high courts and had to be forced by a judge to publish this delayed plan.

Ian

[Mark R]

The plans are a disgrace no debate to be had about that.

Would it have been a stronger plan if it had been released AFTER the election?

No doubt it will end up back in court with the government defending its (indefensible) position at taxpayers expense. Wouldn't it be nice if the ministers responsible for pandering endlessly to the motor lobby could actually be fined personally and banned from public office, or better still, sent to prison, for failing to protect public health.

In a separate case asthma suffers are suing the UK government in a class action. No doubt the government will loose again with the taxpayer picking up the bill and no personal consequences for those responsible .

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/04/government-faces-class-action-on-air-pollution-in-landmark-case

[Psamathe]

The plans are a disgrace no debate to be had about that.

Would it have been a stronger plan if it had been released AFTER the election?

No doubt it will end up back in court with the government defending its (indefensible) position at taxpayers expense. Wouldn't it be nice if the ministers responsible for pandering endlessly to the motor lobby could actually be fined personally and banned from public office, or better still, sent to prison, for failing to protect public health.

In a separate case asthma suffers are suing the UK government in a class action. No doubt the government will loose again with the taxpayer picking up the bill and no personal consequences for those responsible :twisted: .

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/04/government-faces-class-action-on-air-pollution-in-landmark-case

What I find quite shocking is the money, Parliamentary time, Government Time, societal impacts, etc. that our politicians will put into the ineffective Snooper's Charter in the name of "keeping us safe" (ineffective because it is so easy for those who wish to avoid such surveillance to avoid it). But when something we know how to sort out is causing premature deaths of many thousands each year they have no interest and fight through the courts to avoid doing anything. We have the technology, we know what needs to be done, we understand the problem, we have the "tools" we need, etc. it is a simple matter of doing it.

Another example of our politicians being "not fit for purpose".

Ian

[Psamathe]

People are blaming all these "old polluting diesels", but out riding today (in a rural area) with the size of vehicles passing I wondered if there is also an element of the increased size of cars contributing to the problems.

For me vehicles should be about transport i.e. getting people to and from where they need to be. What is needed is a device to get you e.g. home->supermarket->home (with shopping). A small hatch back is in most cases just as effective as a Range Rover at achieving what is needed to be achieved. But compare emissions per mile from a small diesel hatch back with a large diesel Range Rover (or SUV or similar) and I bet the bigger status symbol emits worse pollutant levels.

These days there seem far more larger vehicles on the road. Many times today squeezing past an oncoming car or being followed by a car waiting to get past I thought "if you'd have been in a small hatch back you'd have got past sooner and easier because there would have been plenty of room on the road for us both!".

Lots of Range Rovers, Discoveries, large wide shiny BMWs, Merc's, Audi's, etc. all taking up loads of space on the roads turning just 2 way roads into single way roads and I guess all emitting more pollutants than a small hatch back of similar age.

Ian

[mjr]

I can think of an even smaller device to get you e.g. home->supermarket->home (with shopping)!