RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
Nomme de Plum said:
As I recall the average traffic speed in London is about 8mph and has been the same for as long as I can remember. Do you have a link that can evidence your anecdotal position?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64219939https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-most...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-10...
https://cities-today.com/london-tops-annual-conges...
https://its-uk.org.uk/inrix-2022-global-traffic-sc...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/08/life-s...
etc.
Nomme de Plum said:
How do you know what will happen? You can speculate all you want. I said probably 20 years so all polluting trucks taxis etc are removed. Buses will need to be free from emission also.
Diesel buses and taxis were an obvious major source of pollution in Central London - can you point to what might have changed in recent years? As for trucks, can you tell us what emissions regulations they need to comply with? Facts are not speculation.Nomme de Plum said:
We learned that smoking not only impacted the smoker but others as well. We now know vehicle emissions causes health problems for all in the area.
Please show your working. Vehicle emissions as a general health concern are an irrelevance in the UK. Nomme de Plum said:
I did not say it was the same as indoor smoking did I or even analogous to but we are now more knowledgeable as to the impacts of emissions and therefore are taking action. This is the principle of action after an impact becomes known so hardly ridiculous.
OK. “We rightly banned smoking in certain places which has had a significant health benefit. In principle this is little different. ”
Did cigarettes become hugely less detrimental to health after the risks were identified, but before the indoor smoking ban was imposed?
otolith said:
We have a bit of breathing room on population, because the populations which are high per capita emitters are not the ones with high levels of growth. We are going to have to deal with the developing world wanting more energy, and unless someone is planning a bit of genocide we're going to have to deal with it by helping them to do it in a lower carbon way.
Indeed..much of those high population growth/ low emission people are also the ones who will suffer the impact of climate change.Seems like their plight is somewhat worse than the petrolhead, who thinks he is being forced to buy an EV.
GT9 said:
Real life emissions of diesels is indeed the issue, they don't get looked after very well, and when they go bad, they go bad badly. 
Do the pollution monitoring stations generally lie? What levels of pollution are acceptable?
Which sources of pollution are acceptable?
(I think it’s just over a third of the total UK car fleet that is diesel)
otolith said:
We do have a coming problem of that poorest 50% wanting a better life, and we're going to have to help them get that without emitting more CO2, but it's that richest 10% who are emitting half the CO2 who are the current problem.
...and in case anyone is in doubt, everyone in this thread is in that 10%.
otolith said:
We have a bit of breathing room on population, because the populations which are high per capita emitters are not the ones with high levels of growth. We are going to have to deal with the developing world wanting more energy, and unless someone is planning a bit of genocide we're going to have to deal with it by helping them to do it in a lower carbon way.
I'm not so sure on your first point.Those nations represent >3/4 of the population of the world, and we need to (in proably this order)
- change their mindset about family size. BIG job. Need to start with people when they're kids, really.
- get their birth-rate below 2
- wait for decades for it to have an impact
How long it takes to achieve point-2 determines how long before their population peaks. So I think that is work that needs to be starting now. If we've got, say, 20 years (if we're lucky) before a lot of those 6.5bn people want Western lifestyles, but it takes 20 years to get the birth rate below 2, we're not going to have 6.5bn 3rd-world people after our lifestyles, it'll be 7.5bn or 8.5bn.
NomduJour said:
GT9 said:
Real life emissions of diesels is indeed the issue, they don't get looked after very well, and when they go bad, they go bad badly.
Do the pollution monitoring stations generally lie? What levels of pollution are acceptable?
Which sources of pollution are acceptable?
(I think it’s just over a third of the total UK car fleet that is diesel)
There is simply too much diesel being burned right now.
How do you address that?
Show me a diesel car that can't be powered by a petrol engine or a battery.
There aren't any.
And it won't be that long before you can remove petrol from that statement.
NomduJour said:
Nomme de Plum said:
As I recall the average traffic speed in London is about 8mph and has been the same for as long as I can remember. Do you have a link that can evidence your anecdotal position?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64219939https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-most...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-10...
https://cities-today.com/london-tops-annual-conges...
https://its-uk.org.uk/inrix-2022-global-traffic-sc...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/08/life-s...
etc.
Nomme de Plum said:
How do you know what will happen? You can speculate all you want. I said probably 20 years so all polluting trucks taxis etc are removed. Buses will need to be free from emission also.
Diesel buses and taxis were an obvious major source of pollution in Central London - can you point to what might have changed in recent years? As for trucks, can you tell us what emissions regulations they need to comply with? Facts are not speculation.Nomme de Plum said:
We learned that smoking not only impacted the smoker but others as well. We now know vehicle emissions causes health problems for all in the area.
Please show your working. Vehicle emissions as a general health concern are an irrelevance in the UK. Nomme de Plum said:
I did not say it was the same as indoor smoking did I or even analogous to but we are now more knowledgeable as to the impacts of emissions and therefore are taking action. This is the principle of action after an impact becomes known so hardly ridiculous.
OK. “We rightly banned smoking in certain places which has had a significant health benefit. In principle this is little different. ”
Did cigarettes become hugely less detrimental to health after the risks were identified, but before the indoor smoking ban was imposed?
I think 20/21 will always be slightly different due to the pandemic so one would anticipate 2022 onward to be returning to normal.
Why would i wish to know what emissions HGVs trucks etc need to comply with?
I've no idea what you are trying to say about cigarettes. My parents were smokers when young and there was no advice to say they were dangerous. This information was not available in the 40s and 50s. We learned and changed behaviours. This is not rocket science.
We are talking pollution in cities/towns where in fact most of the population live.
You can drive your ICE car for the next 20 years or so. After that you will be required to adhere to whatever the government legislation states at that time. Just like the rest of us.
otolith said:
NomduJour said:
Population is really for a different thread, but the developed nations aren’t the issue.
Right now, they very much are. The reductions in emissions will have to come from the developed nations (and I'm including China in that) because they currently have most scope to do so and are responsible for most of the current and historical emissions. The places with rapidly growing populations (principally sub-Saharan Africa) are dirt poor and don't emit much per capita or indeed in total. 
We do have a coming problem of that poorest 50% wanting a better life, and we're going to have to help them get that without emitting more CO2, but it's that richest 10% who are emitting half the CO2 who are the current problem.
TX.
havoc said:
otolith said:
We have a bit of breathing room on population, because the populations which are high per capita emitters are not the ones with high levels of growth. We are going to have to deal with the developing world wanting more energy, and unless someone is planning a bit of genocide we're going to have to deal with it by helping them to do it in a lower carbon way.
I'm not so sure on your first point.Those nations represent >3/4 of the population of the world, and we need to (in proably this order)
- change their mindset about family size. BIG job. Need to start with people when they're kids, really.
- get their birth-rate below 2
- wait for decades for it to have an impact
How long it takes to achieve point-2 determines how long before their population peaks. So I think that is work that needs to be starting now. If we've got, say, 20 years (if we're lucky) before a lot of those 6.5bn people want Western lifestyles, but it takes 20 years to get the birth rate below 2, we're not going to have 6.5bn 3rd-world people after our lifestyles, it'll be 7.5bn or 8.5bn.
It's also important to appreciate that there is a demographic lag which bakes in growth - by which I mean that if you currently have a population consisting of only 100 children, even with a 1 child policy, in 20 years you will have a population of 100 adults and 50 children and in another 20 years you will have 150 adults and 25 children.
GT9 said:
UK diesel consumption is over 25 billion litres a year compared to under 15 billion litres for petrol.
There is simply too much diesel being burned right now.
How do you address that?
Show me a diesel car that can't be powered by a petrol engine or a battery.
There aren't any.
And it won't be that long before you can remove petrol from that statement.
Replacing all diesel car engines by petrol would increase CO2 emissions.There is simply too much diesel being burned right now.
How do you address that?
Show me a diesel car that can't be powered by a petrol engine or a battery.
There aren't any.
And it won't be that long before you can remove petrol from that statement.
Nomme de Plum said:
None of those articles mention average speed declination as far as I can see
Nor did my “anecdotal position”.Nomme de Plum said:
I think 20/21 will always be slightly different due to the pandemic so one would anticipate 2022 onward to be returning to normal
Lockdowns made little difference. Euro 6 buses and cabs (and trucks) did.Nomme de Plum said:
Why would i wish to know what emissions HGVs trucks etc need to comply with?
Because you assumed they are a major source of pollution to be addressed.Nomme de Plum said:
I've no idea what you are trying to say about cigarettes. My parents were smokers when young and there was no advice to say they were dangerous. This information was not available in the 40s and 50s. We learned and changed behaviours. This is not rocket science.
Pollution and its potential effects aren’t a new thing, but London’s air has likely never, ever been cleaner. Nomme de Plum said:
We are talking pollution in cities/towns where in fact most of the population live
So we can qualify the point by saying that vehicle emissions as a general health concern are largely an irrelevance in UK urban areas.
Nomme de Plum said:
You can drive your ICE car for the next 20 years or so. After that you will be required to adhere to whatever the government legislation states at that time. Just like the rest of us.
Without questioning that legislation, obviously.bigothunter said:
GT9 said:
UK diesel consumption is over 25 billion litres a year compared to under 15 billion litres for petrol.
There is simply too much diesel being burned right now.
How do you address that?
Show me a diesel car that can't be powered by a petrol engine or a battery.
There aren't any.
And it won't be that long before you can remove petrol from that statement.
Replacing all diesel car engines by petrol would increase CO2 emissions.There is simply too much diesel being burned right now.
How do you address that?
Show me a diesel car that can't be powered by a petrol engine or a battery.
There aren't any.
And it won't be that long before you can remove petrol from that statement.
NomduJour said:
Nomme de Plum said:
We are talking pollution in cities/towns where in fact most of the population live
So we can qualify the point by saying that vehicle emissions as a general health concern are largely an irrelevance in UK urban areas.
Could you explain the logic please?
bigothunter said:
Pardon
Could you explain the logic please?
Logic? Facts. Could you explain the logic please?
Check the live pollution maps. Areas of pollution around roads are generally very localised. London’s “toxic” air is a fantasy (particularly when the focus seems to be NOx, and there is no sensible consensus on PM).
NomduJour said:
Why? It’s not about pollution, so what is it about?
For me, it's the ability to switch over to something more efficient, making use of the resources we have available to us. If we can replace something that's 20% efficient with something that's 90% efficient, then why wouldn't we do that? Just like me made the switch to LED bulbs. They still light up a room, but use less energy doing so.NomduJour said:
Logic? Facts.
Check the live pollution maps. Areas of pollution around roads are generally very localised. London’s “toxic” air is a fantasy (particularly when the focus seems to be NOx, and there is no sensible consensus on PM).
NOx and particulate emissions are characteristically localised. Problem becomes more acute in densely populated areas exacerbated by their close proximity to heavy traffic.Check the live pollution maps. Areas of pollution around roads are generally very localised. London’s “toxic” air is a fantasy (particularly when the focus seems to be NOx, and there is no sensible consensus on PM).
NOx and particulate levels are generally acceptable in open rural areas. They get blown away and dispersed before causing harm.
Edited by bigothunter on Wednesday 22 March 16:34
TheBinarySheep said:
For me, it's the ability to switch over to something more efficient, making use of the resources we have available to us. If we can replace something that's 20% efficient with something that's 90% efficient, then why wouldn't we do that? Just like me made the switch to LED bulbs. They still light up a room, but use less energy doing so.
Laudable. What else have you stopped consuming in the name of efficiency and the environment? How are you measuring the impact of your changes?TheBinarySheep said:
For me, it's the ability to switch over to something more efficient, making use of the resources we have available to us. If we can replace something that's 20% efficient with something that's 90% efficient, then why wouldn't we do that? Just like me made the switch to LED bulbs. They still light up a room, but use less energy doing so.
That is a very good point....and if I ever buy a new car, it probably WILL be an EV.
...but (ignoring pollution for now), buying something 2nd hand is (arguably) an even better use of resources. Or keeping your older car running rather than chucking it at a scrappage scheme is better than requiring 2 tonnes more of resources to be used to get you a shiny new car.
this obsession with 'new' every couple of years (cars, phones, TVs, consoles, clothes, etc.) has to stop if we're to get serious about resources and what we're doing to the planet.
GT9 said:
NomduJour said:
GT9 said:
I don't have a lot of time for those arguing for the continuation of production of diesel cars, if the ban was just on that fuel for cars, I'd be ok with that.
Which pollutants, and at which levels, do you think warrant a Euro 6 diesel being banned? Is it the real-life emissions of nitrogen dioxides?
And so are all the trucks and buses.
Two thirds of all fuel consumed is therefore diesel.
Replacing all the diesel cars with EV will go further than any alternative single step to address CO2, particulates and NOx all at once.
Real life emissions of diesels is indeed the issue, they don't get looked after very well, and when they go bad, they go bad badly.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff