London ULEZ

Johno100

Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever.

This BBC fact check article probably explains things a bit more clearly and concludes with.

The key difficulty is that there is no way of checking whether this is the case and whether 40,000 people died earlier than they would otherwise have done as a result of air pollution in the UK. So instead we have to rely on statistical estimates to help us understand the severity of the problem.

Plus what is not touched on is that this isn't all down to vehicles, in fact the majority of particulate pollution doesn't come from motor vehicles.

AdrianC

Johno100 wrote: »

Plus what is not touched on is that this isn't all down to vehicles, in fact the majority of particulate pollution doesn't come from motor vehicles.

Very true. BUT... London DOES undoubtedly have a serious NOx problem - and the map of air quality shows a reasonably strong, if circumstantial, cause...

Norman_Castle

Johno100 wrote: »

That could just be a few days or a week at the end of a long life. It is is all theoretical.

Deaths aren't the only measure. Pollution worsens existing conditions so people can be in poor health for years or decades before an early death. I believe it can also cause development problems in children.

Johno100

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Deaths aren't the only measure. Pollution worsens existing conditions so people can be in poor health for years or decades before an early death. I believe it can also cause development problems in children.

And many of those pre-existing conditions are down to other life style choices not associated with pollution such as smoking.

Norman_Castle

Johno100 wrote: »

the majority of particulate pollution doesn't come from motor vehicles.

Possibly not but its likely to be the most easily preventable.

Norman_Castle

Johno100 wrote: »

And many of those pre-existing conditions are down to other life style choices not associated with pollution such as smoking.

Does that justify ignoring the problems caused by motor vehicles?

Johno100

AdrianC wrote: »

Very true. BUT... London DOES undoubtedly have a serious NOx problem - and the map of air quality shows a reasonably strong, if circumstantial, cause...

But those levels are something like a third of what they were just 20 years ago.

AdrianC

Perhaps it has. That doesn't mean it can't - shouldn't - fall further.



Edited: That graph you linked to, Johno, is misleading to look at.

%age compared to 1996 - fair enough. But baselining it at 60%? 70%ish of the 1996 values is not terribly great, given that changes to affect other vehicle emissions have moved the problem towards NOx in the time since the uptick post-2011...

Johno100

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Does that justify ignoring the problems caused by motor vehicles?

Nobody is ignoring it, each generation of motor vehicle technology is cleaner than the last and the downward trend in pollution levels will continue apace.

Johno100

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Possibly not but its likely to be the most easily preventable.

A ban on wood burning stoves, ironically favoured by the middle class eco-warrior types, would also go a long way to reducing particulate levels.

A new study shows how home wood burning is worsening air quality in UK towns and cities. Wood burning is adding between 24% and 31% to the particle pollution emitted in Birmingham and London.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/01/pollutionwatch-wood-burning-worsening-uk-air-quality