Forum Topic

Time to ban polluting vehicles from the centre of London?

I wanted to introduce this topic again (it was widely discussed here in 2016 and 2018 as a result of the studies that that Putney Society has been leading on locally) as in, some sense, a relief from the endless discussion on Brexit and the EU.It's well known that the air we breathe is heavily polluted, and although there has been an improvement in the last year or so (which Wandsworth blandly claim credit for, even though the improvement almost entirely comes as a result of TfL introducing hybrid buses), it is still very bad. Current figures from the London Air Quality Network show that the level of CO2 in Putney High Street (https://bit.ly/2SnFJE10) is still very high: the average for 2018 to date is 65 micrograms of NO2 per cubic metre; the current EU maximum (Oh dear, I mentioned the EU after all) is 40, so we are breathing air in PHS at over 60% higher than the legal limit.It hardly needs pointing out that this level of pollution is harmful to people right through the age spectrum, from children whose lung development is compromised to older people who are more liable to develop dementia: it's estimated that in the country as a whole, between 28,000 and 36,000 people die prematurely as a result, around 10,000 of them in London.So it's a serious issue that must be tackled: what is actually being done about it? Well, in London we will eventually get the ULEZ extended to the North and South Circulars, but not until October 2021, but that's nowhere near enough: serious action is needed. Other cities in Europe are much more radical in their approach: in Madrid, for example, all petrol vehicles registered before 2000 and diesel ones registered before 2006 will be banned from the area, unless they are used by residents of the area or meet other exemptions. There's a description here in Spanish: https://bit.ly/2vOV9sm and an article in the Guardian (WARNING: Guardianophobes look away now!) here: https://bit.ly/2Q6bPYs.However, I don't want to get bogged down in the detail as this post is long enough already. The real point I wanted to raise is this: that pollution is a very serious problem and that almost two thirds of it copies from vehicular transport. It kills far too many people, but public concern about it is too low. Knife crime is an awful problem and a serious worry, but to put it in perspective, the number of people killed by stabbing ion London so far this year is 127. That is not, of course, in any way to minimise the problem, but the justifiable concern about knife crime does not match the evident lack of real concern about deaths from pollution. (and, before anyone suggests it, I am NOT saying that we should concentrate on one and not the other: both are hugely important).Inevitably, some will say that they have to drive in London. Some who say that genuinely have to, but much larger numbers do not "have" to at all. And unless we start to reduce our reliance on the car in particular, many more people will suffer disabling illnesses and premature deaths. Are we up to the challenge? Are people prepared to accept real limitations on their - our - 'need' to drive, or are they happy to see thousands more dying prematurely?

Richard Carter ● 2418d49 Comments

Hello Richard,I do not disagree with you.What is more, I certainly do not disagree with Stephen Walker.The main points about diesel cars today (I will expand on this below) is that they have to be Euro 6 compliant to avoid charges on low or ultra low emission areas - with the proviso they were registered after September 2014.Without trying to be too cynical about this, it appears to me that the old time story of "through away and replace" is here.  If the car is Euro 6 compliant, why is it banned?  Have I missed something?Some years ago (expanding as indicated above), we bought a diesel car because we were driving over 200 miles every weekend and at the time it was thought that was the best "petrol" to have because reserves of oil were running low.Fast forward to today and diesel is evil.  OK, I will accept this.But, please do tell me.  If you need work done in your house and the workmen have diesel cars/vans that cannot reach you, what then?Apart from what you may consider my flippant remarks above, if diesel cars/vans/buses/lorries are such a menace (as are cigarettes by the way), why does the government not ban them altogether (meaning they cannot be sold and those recently sold deserve compensation?).There is a lot to be said for pollution (nothing positive by the way), but if the problem is so immense, why are governments not doing more about this and preventing people/companies from buying diesel vehicles? Or at least, ensuring idle traffic is never there?Rile you I did last time.  I bet you, hand in heart, you will not answer this message.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2367d

Yet more evidence of the need for restrictions on car use: The Times reports today on the rising costs of air pollution. It's behind their paywall, but these are the salient points:"Air pollution is costing Britain hundreds of millions of pounds more in damage to health than ministers had previously admitted.The government’s air pollution strategy, published today, includes for the first time the full costs of childhood asthma, heart disease and other debilitating conditions caused by toxic air.The strategy says the measures it contains will cut the health costs of air pollution by £1.7 billion a year by 2020 and £5.3 billion by 2030. These figures have been increased since the publication in May of a draft of the strategy, which estimated that the same measures would cut costs by £1 billion a year by 2020 and £2.5 billion by 2030.This suggests that for many years the government has been seriously underestimating the costs of air pollution to the NHS and the economy from sick days. The previous estimate was based on the effect air pollution has in shortening lives, which the government says is “equivalent to 28,000 to 36,000 deaths” a year. The new estimate adds in “day-to-day suffering” such as the effects of living with asthma.Although the strategy suggests how much could be saved by implementing the government measures, it does not spell out what the total cost of air pollution might be and a spokesman was unable to provide such a figure last night.The strategy does say that health costs could reach £18.6 billion by 2035 if other diseases linked to air pollution, such as diabetes, low birth weight, dementia and lung cancer, are included. It says there is weaker evidence linking these diseases to air pollution but the body of research is growing rapidly with several studies published last year."https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rising-cost-of-pollution-revealed-in-plan-to-tackle-toxic-air-nj9p7mxm8

Richard Carter ● 2374d