Mayor’s Dubious Gesture and Taxi Age Consultation

Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, has announced more money for his “scrap for cash” fund. Previously this trade-in scheme for older more polluting vehicles had funds allocated of £25 million but it’s now £48 million. This is particularly designed to help small business owners to replace vans and to help “low-income Londoners scrap older cars”, i.e. the vast majority of vehicle owners will not be eligible.

However, details of the additional scrappage scheme won’t be available until later in the year, despite the fact that the central zone ULEZ commences in April. Details of even the first scheme for vans do not seem to be available from TfL. In reality the amount of money being offered will not cover the vast majority of costs incurred by people in replacing cars and vans, so this looks like a token gesture.

The Mayor did of course promote this scheme at a recent Clean Air Summit meeting where he had children support his actions in the audience. Likewise at a recent London Assembly Committee meeting. They had clearly been well-rehearsed by their teachers. Some of these children came from Henry Maynard Primary in Walthamstow. If you think it is wrong for uneducated children to be used to promote dubious policies which are primarily aimed at raising taxes rather than solving real air pollution issues, you could contact the school here: http://www.henrymaynardprimary.co.uk/contact-details/

The Mayor is a serial offender in using children to support his political campaigning as the ABD has covered previously. Does he have no ethics?

The Mayor has also launched a public consultation on changes to the age limits of taxis – see https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tph/taxi-age-limits/?cid=taxi-age-limit . Older diesel taxis are undoubtedly some of the most polluting vehicles in central London, but will his changes actually have an impact on pollution? There is a very long phase in time which means that the taxi vehicle fleet might change substantially anyway. There is also still only one electric charging point for taxis in central London so any taxi owner would be unlikely to move to an electric vehicle until that issue is resolved.

Note that these proposals replace previous ones that have not worked. As the Consultation says: “in spite of previous steps to reduce taxi emissions, the required reduction in emissions has not been achieved”. But there is no clear estimate provided of the impact of the new proposed measures on air pollution. And as usual with TfL consultations of late, no cost/benefit justification provided as there should be.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Advertisements

Mayor Sadiq Khan Refuses to Answer Questions

At a recent session of the Greater London Assembly where Sadiq Khan was supposed to answer questions, he repeatedly refused to answer simple questions about the ULEZ and his view on road pricing.

You can see the session here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqCrWcZIF7I and it’s well worth watching to see just how bad is the current Mayor. He also grandstands to children who were in the audience and makes totally false allegations about the impact of air pollution.

The meeting was badly chaired by Tony Arbour but Sadiq Khan even abused him for being partial.

Bluster, pomposity and personal abuse is the approach of the Mayor to quite simple questions. I hope the general public will learn just what this man is like sooner or later.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Air Pollution – A Crisis Created by Politicians?

biggs - paul 3

The following article is by Paul Biggs, ABD Director and Environment Spokesperson. It first appeared in Local Transport Today, the magazine for local road traffic engineers.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”  H L Mencken

Imaginary might be a little harsh, but exaggerated certainly isn’t. The latest hobgoblin is the air quality ‘crisis’, which is being used to justify more taxes on some drivers in the guise of clean air zones (CAZ) such as the ULEZ scheme in London. If the much-delayed carbon dioxide hobgoblin doesn’t get us, which we were previously using diesel to help slay, then NOx and particulates (dust) certainly will, according to the likes of London mayor Sadiq Kahn.

In fact, London is where the hobgoblin meets the ‘zombie’ statistic in the form of the mayor’s false 40,000 air pollution deaths claim, which has been shot down by the likes of respiratory physiologist Professor Tony Frew, a former member of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) (http://tinyurl.com/y7coye43 ). This Frankenstein’s monster of statistical constructs doesn’t refer to real people, but is derived from the estimated 340,000 life years lost by everyone in the UK as a result of an average ‘early death’ of around three days due to air pollution, all things being equal, which in reality they are not.

In fact, there are a number of factors that can influence life expectancy in positive or negative ways. These include the likes of genetics, wealth, lifestyle, diet, environment, medical advances, etc. It’s clear from the increased life expectancy from birth that we enjoy as a developed nation driven by carbon fuels that the balance of all factors is strongly positive in favour of increased longevity.

Professor Frew also points out that just because pollution levels have been made illegal doesn’t mean that they are dangerous. There’s a lack of publicity for the latest report from COMEAP where experts can’t agree on any link between NOx and mortality, and the latest Office for National Statistics data shows that the North-South divide for life expectancy is clearly wealth-related rather than related to air quality.

Dates of birth and death are ‘hard’ data compared to junk epidemiological guesswork. Making people richer, rather than poorer with unjustified taxes, is the best way to make their lives longer and happier.

As for asthma, it was identified by the ancient civilisations of Egypt, Greece and China BC – Before Cars. There are many potential attack triggers for people who are genetically predisposed to asthma and it’s a well-known fact that indoor air quality, where we spend 90 per cent of our time, can be many times worse than outdoors. Also, individuals with compromised respiratory systems are susceptible to spikes in poor air quality due to very specific combinations of weather conditions.

To mayor Khan’s credit, he has recognised the stupidity of wood-burning stoves, which can emit 18 times as much pollution as a modern diesel car and six times as much as a diesel truck. But there is no sign yet of any wood tax or recognition of the impact of the ‘prettiest pollutant’ known as fireworks. It’s ironic that London bus shelters carry posters side-by-side advertising the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) and firework displays. If there really was an air pollution emergency or crisis, wood-burning stoves and fireworks would be top of the banned list.

Regressive taxes, which is what CAZ charges are, target the less well-off who can’t afford new or newer vehicles. CAZ policies also fail to pass any cost-benefit analysis. Close to home for me personally, but not affecting my Euro 6 car, the planned Birmingham CAZ is projected to provide purely theoretical health and environmental benefits of £38m over ten years against a negative overall cost of £122m. This makes Birmingham’s EU-threatened fine of £60m for failing to tackle levels of air pollution declared illegal (by an EU we were supposed to be leaving) look like a bargain. Additionally, areas outside the Birmingham CAZ are likely to lose thousands of free parking spaces and the 6,000 free parking spaces within the zone could also face charges or restrictions.

UK vehicle emissions have declined significantly over the past 40 years against a background of increased vehicle usage. The fact that urban pollution ‘hot spots’ remain can to a large extent be blamed on deliberate congestion-causing policies, which have been designed to obstruct and slow traffic.

Banning all transport in London, for example, would only reduce particulate levels from the current average 14 micrograms per cubic metre to 12, the worldwide background level being 7 micrograms per cubic metre.

The potential air quality benefits of a ULEZ or CAZ will therefore be insignificant. We should instead be pleased with the significant improvements in air quality that have been achieved thanks to advances in vehicle technology and look forward to continued improvement from reduced vehicle emissions driven by technology.

Our tax- and restrictions-obsessed politicians should recognise the longer, happier lives that people in the UK are enjoying largely due to the economic benefits of carbon fuels. But we won’t be holding our breath waiting for that to happen!

Paul Biggs is environment spokesman for the Alliance of British Drivers. He is a biological sciences graduate and retired cancer researcher.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Motorists Fuming and Heathrow Expansion

The SUN newspaper has reported on the concerns of London drivers over the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) under the headline “FUMING!”. The article says that London diesel motorists will have to buy a new car or face paying thousands in a new pollution tax – see https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/8241278/motorists-new-car-pollution-tax/ . The article includes good quotes from me and from Howard Cox, Gareth Bacon and Shaun Bailey.

Interesting to note that TfL previously claimed that the capital cost of extending the ULEZ to the North/South Circular was £38 million. But it seems that TfL Manager Paul Cowperthwaite is now suggesting it could be between £90 million and £130 million. On a cost/benefit analysis that will make it even more uneconomic than was even forecast previously (see our previous articles on that issue). Mr Cowperthwaite’s comments about the alleged air quality crisis and his estimate of what it costs are just figments of his imagination that bear no relation to reality. As I am quoted in the SUN article, “The ULEZ is a giant con to raise more taxes to fix the Mayor’s budget problems”.

A big contributor to air pollution, particularly in west London is from aircraft landing and taking off at Heathrow airport. The airport is planning to increase the number of such aircraft numbers even prior to their proposed construction of a third runway. They plan to do this by using new technology to alternate runway use. This could mean an additional 25,000 flights per year with the associated pressure on the road network as most passengers arrive via vehicles.

It may also mean more aircraft noise affected more London residents as landing and take-off flight paths will change. There will still be no ban on night flights that disturb residents. Will the Mayor and TfL be objecting? I hope so.

See https://afo.heathrowconsultation.com/ for more information and to respond to the public consultation.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

ABD Press Release: The UK Government Should Follow French Lead and Ban Local Congestion Charges

The French government have swiftly reacted to recent riots and scrapped plans to introduce urban tolls or congestion charges as we know them (1).  It is not in the British driver’s nature to protest and riot but the ABD urges the UK government to follow the French lead and scrap the rights given to local authorities to intruduce local tolls and parking fees ad hoc with no regulation whatsoever.

ABD spokesman Nigel Humphries comments:    Councils all over Britain are looking at plans to punish and fine those they perceive as ‘polluters’ with no scientific evidence of a problem (2).  These are often set to trap even recent ‘economy cars’.  This will be a disastrous effect of ‘localism’ and is totally unjustified.  The London ULEZ is already an example of this.  It must be stamped out now or the British habit of rolling over and accepting all could change come election time.

  1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-environment/france-drops-plan-for-urban-tolls-amid-fuel-price-protests-idUSKCN1NV1PZ
  2. http://www.abd.org.uk/air-quality-and-vehicles-the-truth/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Sadiq Khan Exploiting Children Again

TFL-ToxicAir-2018-10-20.jpgThe photograph left of an advertisement from TfL, soon to appear in a bus shelter near you, is the latest example of TfL and the Mayor using children to promote his policies. He has done this repeatedly in the past. He calls London’s air “toxic” which is a gross exaggeration and suggests that air pollution is “mainly” caused by road vehicles. The latter statement is doubtful because it was 50% of NO2 in 2013 but has probably fallen since then – see the ABD’s recently published document that gives the real facts here: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/Air-Quality-and-Vehicles-The-Truth.pdf

I don’t think the Mayor of London should be using children to promote his policies which appear to be driven more by the desire for financial gain than concern for the environment. No doubt it makes for good photo-shoot opportunities with the national media but children should not be exploited in this way.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Air Quality and Vehicles – The Truth

The Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) has been very concerned of late with the misinformation that has been spread by the national media about the impact of air pollution from vehicles on the health of the population. We believe it is not a major health crisis but simply a major health scare fed to a gullible public by a few politicians and by journalists wanting a story.

The promotion of such stories has also led to Government over-reaction and a number of local councils proposing “Clean Air Zone” schemes aimed at restricting some vehicles from entering some roads, or charging them extra to do so in the name of reducing pollution. London is in the forefront of charging drivers using pollution as an excuse (e.g. from the ULEZ), but many other cities are planning similar schemes.

The prime objective often appears to be simply the desire to extract money from car drivers and other vehicle users.

The ABD has now published a full analysis of the issues that actually gives the truth about the claims made for air pollution, and rebuts many of the allegations. It can be downloaded from here: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/Air-Quality-and-Vehicles-The-Truth.pdf

Is there actually a public health crisis? The simple answer is NO. The evidence does not support such claims.

In reality air quality has been steadily improving and will continue to do so from technical improvements to vehicles. Meanwhile life expectancy has been increasing. There is no public health crisis!

Life expectancy might be improved slightly, for example by a few days if all air pollution was removed. But air pollution does not just come from vehicles but from many other sources of human activity such as heating, industrial processes, farming, building, cooking and domestic wood burners. Only about 50% comes from transport. The air outside is typically cleaner than in people’s own homes or in offices and that is where they spend most of the time.

Removing all air pollution would be economically very expensive and leave us with no transport (buses, trains, aeroplanes or cars) and also stop all deliveries of food and other goods. You would not want to live in such a world.

We give all the evidence on our claims above in the aforementioned paper.

But the ABD does accept that air pollution does need to be improved, particularly in certain locations, and we recognise public concern about it. However we argue that measures taken to improve matters should be proportionate and cost effective. There needs to be a proper cost/benefit analysis before imposing restrictions or charges.

There are many measures that can be used to reduce vehicle emissions without restricting motorists or imposing major extra costs on them.

There is certainly no need to panic over air pollution!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.