Great idea, the air quality in London is dreadful.
I have to agree, even though I won't be able to take my 1997 TRX850 passed the end of the road when it expands to the South Circular. On the bright side, if I keep it another 18 years, it will get historic vehicle exemption.
Another 18 years and they will probably have banned the use of petrol and diesel...
But I'll still be able to push it along the road.
True, though it will probably have to be in a sealed case, not plastic, to ensure it doesn’t leak oil on the road...And somebody will have to walk in front with a red flag to warn others you are coming through
It's in part why I got rid of my Cayenne, although oddly the car I replaced it with has a higher Co2 but is fine......
My 90's Lotus Elise however isn't exempt, so when I take that out it'll be head south only, shame as good fun going through the blackball tunnel.
There's little logic to this really, if we don't want polluting cars, ban them, not make it a money spinner.
Also makes no sense on usage. Surely a car with low Co2 that drives in and around London all day is going to pollute more than an older, more polluting car, that goes out 3 times a month.
Ultimately those who can't afford new cars will be forced off the road. It does seem daft that usage is not taken into account.
It does seem daft that loads of relatively new diesels will be scrapped. This doesn't seem very green?
There is pollution from generating electricity for vehicles, building new vehicles, disposing of the batteries etc. I'm unclear how the infrastructure etc.
Something has to be done about air pollution but most of what I've heard from politicians so far sounds half-baked. Car manufacturers also need to take responsibility.
I’ve got two old classic cars and they are both exempt!
No logic to it all.
Mine’s exempt too. Probably base it on the assumption that they won’t be used that regularly.
I know a few who have old beetles etc as daily cars. MOT exempt too so god knows what pollution they are producing.
that said, the production of a new car produces as much pollution as driving it, so keeping these old ones on the road is probably more environmentally friendly.
It's in part why I got rid of my Cayenne, although oddly the car I replaced it with has a higher Co2 but is fine......
My 90's Lotus Elise however isn't exempt, so when I take that out it'll be head south only, shame as good fun going through the blackball tunnel.
There's little logic to this really, if we don't want polluting cars, ban them, not make it a money spinner.
Also makes no sense on usage. Surely a car with low Co2 that drives in and around London all day is going to pollute more than an older, more polluting car, that goes out 3 times a month.
But this is a daily charge, so the car owner driving in London will pay every day, whereas your other example will pay 3 times a month!
This isn't about CO2, it's about NOx and particulates anyway, which is why diesels are the main victims. I have a 2002 petrol Focus which is clean enough not to have to pay for example
It's in part why I got rid of my Cayenne, although oddly the car I replaced it with has a higher Co2 but is fine......
My 90's Lotus Elise however isn't exempt, so when I take that out it'll be head south only, shame as good fun going through the blackball tunnel.
There's little logic to this really, if we don't want polluting cars, ban them, not make it a money spinner.
Also makes no sense on usage. Surely a car with low Co2 that drives in and around London all day is going to pollute more than an older, more polluting car, that goes out 3 times a month.
But this is a daily charge, so the car owner driving in London will pay every day, whereas your other example will pay 3 times a month!
This isn't about CO2, it's about NOx and particulates anyway, which is why diesels are the main victims. I have a 2002 petrol Focus which is clean enough not to have to pay for example
You sure about that? Most petrol cars manufactured before 2007 will be caught by the charge.
Great idea, the air quality in London is dreadful.
I have to agree, even though I won't be able to take my 1997 TRX850 past the end of the road when it expands to the South Circular. On the bright side, if I keep it another 18 years, it will get historic vehicle exemption.
Same here ,my bikes got around 26.000 on the clock , lots of years left in it , basically obsolete now, makes you wonder what will happen to future historic Vehicles ?
It's in part why I got rid of my Cayenne, although oddly the car I replaced it with has a higher Co2 but is fine......
My 90's Lotus Elise however isn't exempt, so when I take that out it'll be head south only, shame as good fun going through the blackball tunnel.
There's little logic to this really, if we don't want polluting cars, ban them, not make it a money spinner.
Also makes no sense on usage. Surely a car with low Co2 that drives in and around London all day is going to pollute more than an older, more polluting car, that goes out 3 times a month.
But this is a daily charge, so the car owner driving in London will pay every day, whereas your other example will pay 3 times a month!
This isn't about CO2, it's about NOx and particulates anyway, which is why diesels are the main victims. I have a 2002 petrol Focus which is clean enough not to have to pay for example
You sure about that? Most petrol cars manufactured before 2007 will be caught by the charge.
On the website you can validate your car. The cutoff for petrol engined cars is Euro 4, and many cars from the early 2000s pass this
A pisstake of an idea that is just to raise revenue. Nearly new diesels will have to be scrapped.
It's a myth that electric cars are emissions free. Numerous flaws with this policy.
It's not just a myth that electric vehicles are "green" or "emission free", it's a flat out lie. The world's most efficient fossil fuel fuelled power stations are barely ever 33% efficient - i.e. at least 67% of the available energy goes up the chimney. Most of the world's fuel power stations rarely achieve 25% thermal efficiency. Until such time as a tiny fraction of our mains power comes from burning stuff, all electric vehicles do is displace some of the soot and shit and CO2 to wherever the smog belching power stations are located. That's sort of, momentarily, beneficial to city dwellers living up wind of the nearest power station but tough luck on everybody else. All the while the CO2 and the atmospherically critical steam/water vapour pours into the atmosphere. Gaseous emissions from the power sources and the vehicles themselves is only the beginning of the bullshit. Rechargeable batteries require all sorts of difficult and expensive to source ingredients like, cobalt. From fine upstanding countries like C.A.R, Russia and China. The mining operations for cobalt alone produce currently unquantified polution, at the behest of the some of the world's most loathsome and despicable regimes. "What about nuclear?" pipes up a shrill voice from behind the arras. That generates almost as much steam as fossil fuels. Mining for uranium, plutonium etc makes cobalt look like child's play. Two other words: Chernobyl, Fukushima. "What about hydrogen fuel cells?" thanks for that: only one problem - there can be no practical source of hydrogen on planet earth, it all escapes straight out the atmosphere, not to mention it combusts explosively in air. "But hydrolysis?" - yes very good, how do we do hydrolysis? Electricity through water - absolute fucking genius - use electricity (generated by whatever means) to split apart water so we can stick it back together to make electricity. The fuel cell technology is genuinely staggering scientific excellence - lacking only a fuel source and thereby any relevance at all for personal transport. Hybrid propulsion of personal transport could be a viable avenue in the search for increased efficiency in the consumption of the available resources. There are all the attendant problems, weight and toxicity attached to the batteries and their composition. The current generation of hybrid small vehicles are a very very long way from adding up environmentally, at best they are the least bad option from a litany of lunatic drivel. When the oil and coal run out, the future of personal transport (powered by anything other than its pilot) laddees and gennelmen will be domesticated herbivores - which should please the vegans. They'll be just as far from being 'carbon neutral' as anything else but our vegetable and flower gardens will be blooming.
The fact that certain schools in London don't let their children out to play at break and lunch as the air quality is so poor it will affect their developing lungs means something has to be done.
This seems a fair step.
Everybody was up in arms about the 5p plastic bag charge but look at how that has changed everyone's behavior for the better. Initial shock, but eventually it'll work itself out.
The fact that certain schools in London don't let their children out to play at break and lunch as the air quality is so poor it will affect their developing lungs means something has to be done.
This seems a fair step.
Everybody was up in arms about the 5p plastic bag charge but look at how that has changed everyone's behavior for the better. Initial shock, but eventually it'll work itself out.
Nobody is disagreeing that something needs to be done but this has not been thought out properly on many levels - it's shambolic.
Great idea, the air quality in London is dreadful.
I have to agree, even though I won't be able to take my 1997 TRX850 passed the end of the road when it expands to the South Circular. On the bright side, if I keep it another 18 years, it will get historic vehicle exemption.
Another 18 years and they will probably have banned the use of petrol and diesel...
But I'll still be able to push it along the road.
True, though it will probably have to be in a sealed case, not plastic, to ensure it doesn’t leak oil on the road...And somebody will have to walk in front with a red flag to warn others you are coming through
Sod that. I’ll wave the flag, the other person can push the bike.
The fact that certain schools in London don't let their children out to play at break and lunch as the air quality is so poor it will affect their developing lungs means something has to be done.
This seems a fair step.
Everybody was up in arms about the 5p plastic bag charge but look at how that has changed everyone's behavior for the better. Initial shock, but eventually it'll work itself out.
Nobody is disagreeing that something needs to be done but this has not been thought out properly on many levels - it's shambolic.
Several people on this thread have said they will get rid of their cars, seems to be working to me.
It needs to be followed up with massive improvements to the public transport system, this idea that everyone needs a car is totally unsustainable.
The fact that certain schools in London don't let their children out to play at break and lunch as the air quality is so poor it will affect their developing lungs means something has to be done.
This seems a fair step.
Everybody was up in arms about the 5p plastic bag charge but look at how that has changed everyone's behavior for the better. Initial shock, but eventually it'll work itself out.
Nobody is disagreeing that something needs to be done but this has not been thought out properly on many levels - it's shambolic.
Several people on this thread have said they will get rid of their cars, seems to be working to me.
It needs to be followed up with massive improvements to the public transport system, this idea that everyone needs a car is totally unsustainable.
Some people do need a car - fine for those that don't.
The fact that certain schools in London don't let their children out to play at break and lunch as the air quality is so poor it will affect their developing lungs means something has to be done.
This seems a fair step.
Everybody was up in arms about the 5p plastic bag charge but look at how that has changed everyone's behavior for the better. Initial shock, but eventually it'll work itself out.
Nobody is disagreeing that something needs to be done but this has not been thought out properly on many levels - it's shambolic.
Several people on this thread have said they will get rid of their cars, seems to be working to me.
It needs to be followed up with massive improvements to the public transport system, this idea that everyone needs a car is totally unsustainable.
Some people do need a car - fine for those that don't.
Indeed some do need a car, what he said was that everyone needing a car is not sustainable. In London, unless it's for actually doing your job, e.g. plumber, you probably don't need a car. Sure, it's convenient but it's not a necessity.
How can it be about emissions. I will have to get rid of my 2012 1.6litre low emmisions diesel car (99g/km) or pay the charge. Or I could buy a 14 year old gas guzzling shit spewing 4.8 petrol engine (324g/km) and not pay the charge!!!
The fact that certain schools in London don't let their children out to play at break and lunch as the air quality is so poor it will affect their developing lungs means something has to be done.
This seems a fair step.
Everybody was up in arms about the 5p plastic bag charge but look at how that has changed everyone's behavior for the better. Initial shock, but eventually it'll work itself out.
Nobody is disagreeing that something needs to be done but this has not been thought out properly on many levels - it's shambolic.
It's a fair point about it being shambolic. However I come from the place that this is actually "something" that is moving in the right direction, and in the absence of anything else I'm all for it.
I would hope there would be some common sense applied in the early months with regards to fining for not paying if people were unaware or forgot etc.
How can it be about emissions. I will have to get rid of my 2012 1.6litre low emmisions diesel car (99g/km) or pay the charge. Or I could buy a 14 year old gas guzzling shit spewing 4.8 petrol engine (324g/km) and not pay the charge!!!
Choice of your replacement vehicle is piss easy tho isn't it? In all seriousness, your 2012 diesel pumps out an ever increasing amount of noxious particulates, injurious to the health of all your fellow city dwellers plus its cynically misquoted amount of CO2. Cruising about the metropolis in your shiny petrol V8, with catalysed exhausts, you'll cough up a compensatory amount in fuel duty, feeling much much comfier and happier on your commute, with no trailing cloud of soot and free radicals. For the absence of doubt: the motor manufacturers' quoted CO2 figures are all cynically distorted perversions of a practically meaningless one-eyed measurement of nothing terribly relevant. There never was any real virtue in your clattery small capacity diesel. If you've kept it 6 years already you'll shortly be looking down the barrel of some significantly expensive parts replacement. Get thee with all haste to a purveyor of multi cylindered luxo barges, flipping your middle digit to the delusional enviromentalists - they'll thank you, eventually.
How can it be about emissions. I will have to get rid of my 2012 1.6litre low emmisions diesel car (99g/km) or pay the charge. Or I could buy a 14 year old gas guzzling shit spewing 4.8 petrol engine (324g/km) and not pay the charge!!!
Choice of your replacement vehicle is piss easy tho isn't it? In all seriousness, your 2012 diesel pumps out an ever increasing amount of noxious particulates, injurious to the health of all your fellow city dwellers plus its cynically misquoted amount of CO2. Cruising about the metropolis in your shiny petrol V8, with catalysed exhausts, you'll cough up a compensatory amount in fuel duty, feeling much much comfier and happier on your commute, with no trailing cloud of soot and free radicals. For the absence of doubt: the motor manufacturers' quoted CO2 figures are all cynically distorted perversions of a practically meaningless one-eyed measurement of nothing terribly relevant. There never was any real virtue in your clattery small capacity diesel. If you've kept it 6 years already you'll shortly be looking down the barrel of some significantly expensive parts replacement. Get thee with all haste to a purveyor of multi cylindered luxo barges, flipping your middle digit to the delusional enviromentalists - they'll thank you, eventually.
If you bought a relatively new vehicle in good faith and then shortly after buying it are informed you can no longer use it due to a change in the law unless you pay a daily fee then you're going to feel aggrieved. Some diesels run happily for 15-20 years.
Not everyone can afford to replace a vehicle so what compensation is on offer?
How can it be about emissions. I will have to get rid of my 2012 1.6litre low emmisions diesel car (99g/km) or pay the charge. Or I could buy a 14 year old gas guzzling shit spewing 4.8 petrol engine (324g/km) and not pay the charge!!!
Choice of your replacement vehicle is piss easy tho isn't it? In all seriousness, your 2012 diesel pumps out an ever increasing amount of noxious particulates, injurious to the health of all your fellow city dwellers plus its cynically misquoted amount of CO2. Cruising about the metropolis in your shiny petrol V8, with catalysed exhausts, you'll cough up a compensatory amount in fuel duty, feeling much much comfier and happier on your commute, with no trailing cloud of soot and free radicals. For the absence of doubt: the motor manufacturers' quoted CO2 figures are all cynically distorted perversions of a practically meaningless one-eyed measurement of nothing terribly relevant. There never was any real virtue in your clattery small capacity diesel. If you've kept it 6 years already you'll shortly be looking down the barrel of some significantly expensive parts replacement. Get thee with all haste to a purveyor of multi cylindered luxo barges, flipping your middle digit to the delusional enviromentalists - they'll thank you, eventually.
If you bought a relatively new vehicle in good faith and then shortly after buying it are informed you can no longer use it due to a change in the law unless you pay a daily fee then you're going to feel aggrieved. Some diesels run happily for 15-20 years.
Not everyone can afford to replace a vehicle so what compensation is on offer?
This is a very good question. Personally, I have no qualms with government employing punative measures to dissuade undesirable behaviour, bur surely these have to be balanced with incentives for good behaviour.
How can it be about emissions. I will have to get rid of my 2012 1.6litre low emmisions diesel car (99g/km) or pay the charge. Or I could buy a 14 year old gas guzzling shit spewing 4.8 petrol engine (324g/km) and not pay the charge!!!
Choice of your replacement vehicle is piss easy tho isn't it? In all seriousness, your 2012 diesel pumps out an ever increasing amount of noxious particulates, injurious to the health of all your fellow city dwellers plus its cynically misquoted amount of CO2. Cruising about the metropolis in your shiny petrol V8, with catalysed exhausts, you'll cough up a compensatory amount in fuel duty, feeling much much comfier and happier on your commute, with no trailing cloud of soot and free radicals. For the absence of doubt: the motor manufacturers' quoted CO2 figures are all cynically distorted perversions of a practically meaningless one-eyed measurement of nothing terribly relevant. There never was any real virtue in your clattery small capacity diesel. If you've kept it 6 years already you'll shortly be looking down the barrel of some significantly expensive parts replacement. Get thee with all haste to a purveyor of multi cylindered luxo barges, flipping your middle digit to the delusional enviromentalists - they'll thank you, eventually.
If you bought a relatively new vehicle in good faith and then shortly after buying it are informed you can no longer use it due to a change in the law unless you pay a daily fee then you're going to feel aggrieved. Some diesels run happily for 15-20 years.
Not everyone can afford to replace a vehicle so what compensation is on offer?
This is a very good question. Personally, I have no qualms with government employing punative measures to dissuade undesirable behaviour, bur surely these have to be balanced with incentives for good behaviour.
Something has to be done to compensate people as lots of people bought vehicles unaware they would be rendered worthless due to forthcoming legislation. Diesels were sold as the solution at one stage when the concern was C02 and now advisors have changed tack.
If you're having to get rid of a car there should be compensation.
If this is such a good idea, how comes you can still use your air polluting vehicles in London provided you pay £20? So, it's ok to keep polluting provided you give the government £20. It just doesn't make sense.
Change is always disruptive and often painful but the bottom line is that emissions are killing people. We will all now be aware of the tragic news story from yesterday where a young girl has now had her death from asthma changed to reflect the impact that air pollution had on her death.
Something has to change going forward and because the technology we are all used to and most using isn’t yet good enough we are going to pay the price of the necessary change.
Is it fair ? To be honest I think it is because the end justifies the means. Without hard hitting incentives like charges nothing would change or at least not quickly enough.
We are just the generation that’s having to face the brunt of this change but those that follow us will be better off as a consequence.
How can it be about emissions. I will have to get rid of my 2012 1.6litre low emmisions diesel car (99g/km) or pay the charge. Or I could buy a 14 year old gas guzzling shit spewing 4.8 petrol engine (324g/km) and not pay the charge!!!
Choice of your replacement vehicle is piss easy tho isn't it? In all seriousness, your 2012 diesel pumps out an ever increasing amount of noxious particulates, injurious to the health of all your fellow city dwellers plus its cynically misquoted amount of CO2. Cruising about the metropolis in your shiny petrol V8, with catalysed exhausts, you'll cough up a compensatory amount in fuel duty, feeling much much comfier and happier on your commute, with no trailing cloud of soot and free radicals. For the absence of doubt: the motor manufacturers' quoted CO2 figures are all cynically distorted perversions of a practically meaningless one-eyed measurement of nothing terribly relevant. There never was any real virtue in your clattery small capacity diesel. If you've kept it 6 years already you'll shortly be looking down the barrel of some significantly expensive parts replacement. Get thee with all haste to a purveyor of multi cylindered luxo barges, flipping your middle digit to the delusional enviromentalists - they'll thank you, eventually.
If you bought a relatively new vehicle in good faith and then shortly after buying it are informed you can no longer use it due to a change in the law unless you pay a daily fee then you're going to feel aggrieved. Some diesels run happily for 15-20 years.
Not everyone can afford to replace a vehicle so what compensation is on offer?
This is a very good question. Personally, I have no qualms with government employing punative measures to dissuade undesirable behaviour, bur surely these have to be balanced with incentives for good behaviour.
Something has to be done to compensate people as lots of people bought vehicles unaware they would be rendered worthless due to forthcoming legislation. Diesels were sold as the solution at one stage when the concern was C02 and now advisors have changed tack.
If you're having to get rid of a car there should be compensation.
How can it be about emissions. I will have to get rid of my 2012 1.6litre low emmisions diesel car (99g/km) or pay the charge. Or I could buy a 14 year old gas guzzling shit spewing 4.8 petrol engine (324g/km) and not pay the charge!!!
Choice of your replacement vehicle is piss easy tho isn't it? In all seriousness, your 2012 diesel pumps out an ever increasing amount of noxious particulates, injurious to the health of all your fellow city dwellers plus its cynically misquoted amount of CO2. Cruising about the metropolis in your shiny petrol V8, with catalysed exhausts, you'll cough up a compensatory amount in fuel duty, feeling much much comfier and happier on your commute, with no trailing cloud of soot and free radicals. For the absence of doubt: the motor manufacturers' quoted CO2 figures are all cynically distorted perversions of a practically meaningless one-eyed measurement of nothing terribly relevant. There never was any real virtue in your clattery small capacity diesel. If you've kept it 6 years already you'll shortly be looking down the barrel of some significantly expensive parts replacement. Get thee with all haste to a purveyor of multi cylindered luxo barges, flipping your middle digit to the delusional enviromentalists - they'll thank you, eventually.
Don't get me wrong. I will get another diesel car that's 3/4 years old and be compliant, although I will probably hang on for an extra year now. (I usually buy a low mileage 3/4 year old car and keep it for 3 years anyway). Was really saying how is it about emmisions when a 14 year old 4.8ltr petrol car is acceptable but a 6 year old 1.6ltr diesel isn't.
If pollution was a roaming gang of *insert group of people here* shooting 40,000 people in the face a year I can't help but think that some of the people on here would be calling for change and clutching their pearls 39,999 deaths ago.
Something about cars turns normally sane people into morons. Both on the road and off it.
Take things about compensation, cash cow accusations, legislation, and the fact that Wayne and Waynetta will be most affected and look at that, but look at the deaths caused by our terrible air first and foremost.
Market forces work in 99.9% of cases. When you are doing harm to others through your consumption of a good or service, that is when the market needs intervention.
If pollution was a roaming gang of *insert group of people here* shooting 40,000 people in the face a year I can't help but think that some of the people on here would be calling for change and clutching their pearls 39,999 deaths ago.
Something about cars turns normally sane people into morons. Both on the road and off it.
Take things about compensation, cash cow accusations, legislation, and the fact that Wayne and Waynetta will be most affected and look at that, but look at the deaths caused by our terrible air first and foremost.
Market forces work in 99.9% of cases. When you are doing harm to others through your consumption of a good or service, that is when the market needs intervention.
It won’t affect the Wayne and Waynetta’s though will it. Not many drive into Central London for the fun of it. Those most affected will be small businesses - market traders, builders, decorators etc. The large companies won’t be affected because they’ll change their fleets anyway. There are many small businesses who have vans as new as 2014 which will now be obsolete unless the owners decide to pay the charge, adding to their many overheads.
If pollution was a roaming gang of *insert group of people here* shooting 40,000 people in the face a year I can't help but think that some of the people on here would be calling for change and clutching their pearls 39,999 deaths ago.
Something about cars turns normally sane people into morons. Both on the road and off it.
Take things about compensation, cash cow accusations, legislation, and the fact that Wayne and Waynetta will be most affected and look at that, but look at the deaths caused by our terrible air first and foremost.
Market forces work in 99.9% of cases. When you are doing harm to others through your consumption of a good or service, that is when the market needs intervention.
It won’t affect the Wayne and Waynetta’s though will it. Not many drive into Central London for the fun of it. Those most affected will be small businesses - market traders, builders, decorators etc. The large companies won’t be affected because they’ll change their fleets anyway. There are many small businesses who have vans as new as 2014 which will now be obsolete unless the owners decide to pay the charge, adding to their many overheads.
Then everybody wins, I'm still not sure how this can be seen as a bad thing.
If pollution was a roaming gang of *insert group of people here* shooting 40,000 people in the face a year I can't help but think that some of the people on here would be calling for change and clutching their pearls 39,999 deaths ago.
Something about cars turns normally sane people into morons. Both on the road and off it.
Take things about compensation, cash cow accusations, legislation, and the fact that Wayne and Waynetta will be most affected and look at that, but look at the deaths caused by our terrible air first and foremost.
Market forces work in 99.9% of cases. When you are doing harm to others through your consumption of a good or service, that is when the market needs intervention.
It won’t affect the Wayne and Waynetta’s though will it. Not many drive into Central London for the fun of it. Those most affected will be small businesses - market traders, builders, decorators etc. The large companies won’t be affected because they’ll change their fleets anyway. There are many small businesses who have vans as new as 2014 which will now be obsolete unless the owners decide to pay the charge, adding to their many overheads.
Then everybody wins, I'm still not sure how this can be seen as a bad thing.
Why have you ignored the sentence before the bit in bold
Comments
It does seem daft that loads of relatively new diesels will be scrapped. This doesn't seem very green?
There is pollution from generating electricity for vehicles, building new vehicles, disposing of the batteries etc. I'm unclear how the infrastructure etc.
Something has to be done about air pollution but most of what I've heard from politicians so far sounds half-baked. Car manufacturers also need to take responsibility.
This policy ultimately will target the poor.
that said, the production of a new car produces as much pollution as driving it, so keeping these old ones on the road is probably more environmentally friendly.
This isn't about CO2, it's about NOx and particulates anyway, which is why diesels are the main victims. I have a 2002 petrol Focus which is clean enough not to have to pay for example
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/cars
Some before had it early
The world's most efficient fossil fuel fuelled power stations are barely ever 33% efficient - i.e. at least 67% of the available energy goes up the chimney. Most of the world's fuel power stations rarely achieve 25% thermal efficiency.
Until such time as a tiny fraction of our mains power comes from burning stuff, all electric vehicles do is displace some of the soot and shit and CO2 to wherever the smog belching power stations are located. That's sort of, momentarily, beneficial to city dwellers living up wind of the nearest power station but tough luck on everybody else. All the while the CO2 and the atmospherically critical steam/water vapour pours into the atmosphere.
Gaseous emissions from the power sources and the vehicles themselves is only the beginning of the bullshit. Rechargeable batteries require all sorts of difficult and expensive to source ingredients like, cobalt. From fine upstanding countries like C.A.R, Russia and China. The mining operations for cobalt alone produce currently unquantified polution, at the behest of the some of the world's most loathsome and despicable regimes.
"What about nuclear?" pipes up a shrill voice from behind the arras. That generates almost as much steam as fossil fuels. Mining for uranium, plutonium etc makes cobalt look like child's play. Two other words: Chernobyl, Fukushima.
"What about hydrogen fuel cells?" thanks for that: only one problem - there can be no practical source of hydrogen on planet earth, it all escapes straight out the atmosphere, not to mention it combusts explosively in air. "But hydrolysis?" - yes very good, how do we do hydrolysis? Electricity through water - absolute fucking genius - use electricity (generated by whatever means) to split apart water so we can stick it back together to make electricity. The fuel cell technology is genuinely staggering scientific excellence - lacking only a fuel source and thereby any relevance at all for personal transport.
Hybrid propulsion of personal transport could be a viable avenue in the search for increased efficiency in the consumption of the available resources. There are all the attendant problems, weight and toxicity attached to the batteries and their composition.
The current generation of hybrid small vehicles are a very very long way from adding up environmentally, at best they are the least bad option from a litany of lunatic drivel.
When the oil and coal run out, the future of personal transport (powered by anything other than its pilot) laddees and gennelmen will be domesticated herbivores - which should please the vegans. They'll be just as far from being 'carbon neutral' as anything else but our vegetable and flower gardens will be blooming.
This seems a fair step.
Everybody was up in arms about the 5p plastic bag charge but look at how that has changed everyone's behavior for the better. Initial shock, but eventually it'll work itself out.
It needs to be followed up with massive improvements to the public transport system, this idea that everyone needs a car is totally unsustainable.
I would hope there would be some common sense applied in the early months with regards to fining for not paying if people were unaware or forgot etc.
In all seriousness, your 2012 diesel pumps out an ever increasing amount of noxious particulates, injurious to the health of all your fellow city dwellers plus its cynically misquoted amount of CO2.
Cruising about the metropolis in your shiny petrol V8, with catalysed exhausts, you'll cough up a compensatory amount in fuel duty, feeling much much comfier and happier on your commute, with no trailing cloud of soot and free radicals.
For the absence of doubt: the motor manufacturers' quoted CO2 figures are all cynically distorted perversions of a practically meaningless one-eyed measurement of nothing terribly relevant. There never was any real virtue in your clattery small capacity diesel. If you've kept it 6 years already you'll shortly be looking down the barrel of some significantly expensive parts replacement. Get thee with all haste to a purveyor of multi cylindered luxo barges, flipping your middle digit to the delusional enviromentalists - they'll thank you, eventually.
Not everyone can afford to replace a vehicle so what compensation is on offer?
If you're having to get rid of a car there should be compensation.
So, it's ok to keep polluting provided you give the government £20.
It just doesn't make sense.
We will all now be aware of the tragic news story from yesterday where a young girl has now had her death from asthma changed to reflect the impact that air pollution had on her death.
Something has to change going forward and because the technology we are all used to and most using isn’t yet good enough we are going to pay the price of the necessary change.
Is it fair ? To be honest I think it is because the end justifies the means. Without hard hitting incentives like charges nothing would change or at least not quickly enough.
We are just the generation that’s having to face the brunt of this change but those that follow us will be better off as a consequence.
Something about cars turns normally sane people into morons. Both on the road and off it.
Take things about compensation, cash cow accusations, legislation, and the fact that Wayne and Waynetta will be most affected and look at that, but look at the deaths caused by our terrible air first and foremost.
Market forces work in 99.9% of cases. When you are doing harm to others through your consumption of a good or service, that is when the market needs intervention.
There are many small businesses who have vans as new as 2014 which will now be obsolete unless the owners decide to pay the charge, adding to their many overheads.