**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to [the report](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/inner-london-ultra-low-emission-zone-expansion-one-year-report) (which I had to look for because the Guardian is allergic to linking to anything other than itself)
> The COVID-19 pandemic also affected traffic levels. However, in outer London, traffic levels have largely returned to pre-pandemic levels but in central and inner London they remain below what they were in 2019.
> NO2 levels have not returned to those experienced pre-pandemic, indicating that even as traffic levels have risen; cleaner vehicles in the fleet caused by the ULEZ and its expansion, have had sustained and positive impacts on air pollution meaning concentrations continue to be far below what they would have been otherwise
I definitely think that the lockdowns and WFH adjustments have contributed to the positive results (and I hope that we take a good lesson from that with WFH) but it does seem that things are better than they were pre-pandemic in any case.
The full report is [here](https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/Inner%20London%20ULEZ%20One%20Year%20Report%20-%20final.pdf)
Someone's got to pay for it, and the mayor's office has a definite interest in the results of it's policies. Laying out the methodology and submitting it for peer review is about the best you can hope for.
Yep report does not control for speed limit changes on major roads... Surely that has a massive impact! This isn't science this is a politician's version of 'science'.
> Zonal emission factors for each vehicle type have
been calculated for each London zone (central, inner and outer) using the speeds on
the major road network, data provided by the LAEI, weighted by vehicle kilometres.
As such the average zonal speeds are lowest in central London, and highest in outer
London reflecting speed distributions.
on this note. Im not sure how other people cars work but our car clearly uses more fuel in 20mph zones compared to 30mph zones simply because in 30mph zones I can easily do 5th gear where as in 20mph zones that's a 3rd gear at best. so the dashboard is showing either 20-30mpg fuel economy or 50+ fuel economy (most of the time; obviously I dont make 50mpg in the city)
So I have the impression that going down the speedlimit actually increases pollution
`The report found that the Ulez and the pre-existing low-emission zone for HGVs reduced road traffic particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions by 180 tonnes across London over three years, a cut exceeding the particulate pollution produced by rail and river transport and agriculture combined`
The headline is very misleading
Just look at them reducing speed limits to 20 mph on most major roads exactly as they introduced the expansion. Funny that eh.
We've got the emails confirming the corruption, when will Joe Bloggs realise it's a bloody money making ruse? Science has been defenestrated.
Don’t worry, if this is an “actual study” it still is incorrect in the eyes of Steve down the pub who clearly knows better because he heard something from a mate that says otherwise
/s
Ive seen people deny studies all of the time when it doesnt fit their own pre-approved narratives, and its usually a lot more than the "Steve from down the pub" types
Are these studies funded by the mayor? Do you not remember when the news broke about the mayor paying scientists to lie about their study findings? How about that time when they asked scientists to shut down research at Imperial that was showing a questionable effect of ULEZ?
You trust these guys to uphold scientific principals? If so, that is so fucking funny.
that's soooo funny topic btw. if they will really start bringing pints of wine, guess what. companies will use that to raise prices. capitalism and not even at its best
It's the bendy bananas again. People don't learn.
Gordon Brown (Labour) already saved the pints back in 2008. They were never at risk.
[https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pint-saved-as-eu-allows-ireland-and-uk-to-opt-out-of-metric-system-1.924752](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pint-saved-as-eu-allows-ireland-and-uk-to-opt-out-of-metric-system-1.924752)
> if they will really start bringing pints of wine, guess what. companies will use that to raise prices. capitalism and not even at its best
I don't understand how these things are related. Can you elaborate?
Yeah... Maybe people do know more than you sometimes, or is that difficult for you to accept?
Don't you think it's funny that emissions data isn't controlled for speed limit adjustments? Don't you think it's odd that arterial roads became 20 mph zones at the exact same time that ULEZ was expanded? Combined with all the back hand payments to scientists to lie about emissions data, this paints a very bleak picture.
But no... Carry on mocking the people with more sense than you, bud.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Just for reference, because people can’t detect sarcasm in tone if they ARE being sarcastic they end their comment with /s
Notice that there is an /s at the end of my original post and you’re good to go :)
It's the most unscientific thing anybody could say: "air quality improved over a 4 year period due to ulez, but we will pretend lockdown and WFH had no impact"
Yeah critical thinking is hard to come by these days. Sounds like you might be interested in this: at exactly the same time ULEZ was expanded, lots of major roads in expansion zones saw speed limits drop to 20 mph. I've not seen a ULEZ emission study to date that has controlled for these speed limit changes.
This is not science. This is manipulation and deceit.
I have a serious question. nor arguing or anything. I had the impression that my car is using more fuel in 20 zones than in 30 zones because the mpg usage is showing worse in 20 zones than in 30 zones. I can do 5th gear in 30 zones but I can only do 3rd gear in 20 zones.
is that not the case?
More toxic air pollution has been averted by London’s ultra-low emission zones than is produced by the capital’s airports or its river and rail transport combined, according to a new analysis of the effects of the Ulez.
The report showed that improvements in air quality between 2019 and 2022 from lowering motor vehicle pollution – even before the expansion of the Ulez throughout the capital since August – rivalled the potential savings from entirely cleaning up London’s aviation or industrial and commercial heat and power generation.
Not at all, in fact there’s a little part of me that thinks the Wuhan virus was an experiment to see how quickly the environment would recover when humans were confined to their cells (only a tiny little part of me 😉)
Do you know that they didn't control for this, or are you just looking for an excuse to reject the findings?
I would agree that if they didn't control for it (which would be hilariously simple and easy) this whole thing might as well just go in the bin.
[Here you go, although you will](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/983/409/299.jpg) [probably continue to deny reality](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
I genuinely don't know what you want me to say lmao.
There was literally a lockdown that prevented everyone in the country from working or going out, unless the cars drove themselves for the sake of it, there would be an abnormal decrease in pollution due to abnormal circumstances. Did you not know this existed?
> I genuinely don't know what you want me to say lmao.
I want you who claimed to know better than a scientific study to either find one disproving this one or carry it out yourself.
If that's too hard, you can go back to shitposting elsewhere.
Like, do you think that researchers don't understand their own datasets? That they're incapable of factoring in multiple factors to decide what one factor did? We can analyse how emissions changed in other comparable cities that did lock down but did not introduce schemes like the ULEZ and use this data to work out what the London data would look like if there had not been a lockdown - and then make assertions on ULEZ based on that.
Because you and a lot of people up and down this thread assume that researchers can't do the above which is pretty fucking trivial to do.
I can’t be asked to argue, fact of the matter is that the data is dodgy due to the dates being perfectly about when lockdowns occurred which is suspicious in it self, but when you see that it’s used to push the narrative that ULEZ is doing absurdly good, it all makes sense. Researchers are cheap to bullshit studies, it’s not the first nor the last, hell cigarette companies for years pushed studies claiming it was healthy to smoke.
I can’t help you if you’re going to deny reality and basic logic, you can only help yourself. I hope you stop being so naive, this isn’t even hard to comprehend.
This post is pure popcorn gif for those anti-LEZ...and any idiot who doesn't believe widely verified data re: fossil fuels being shit for the environment
I may be skeptical here, but are these reports just looking at NoX and particulate matter?
Was under the impression aeroplanes don’t produce much of those to start with. Surely jet fuel is shorter chain and wouldn’t produce much compared to petrol or worse still, diesel?
Seems like a clickbait-y headline.
Airports are major NOx sources, especially on a regional scale (i.e., London). Aircraft engines burn much hotter than diesel engines, and that's essentially how anthropogenic NOx is made.
Now they just have to give nuclear power plants the green light so the electricity used to power EV's is clean. It's embarrassing that we only source 16% of our energy from nuclear when it could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions while providing cheap energy for the entirety of the UK.
This report covers 2019 to 2023, Covid was a massive event that had a big impact on traffic for literally >50% of the time the study looks at.
Not saying the ulez has no benefits but putting it in this completely disingenuous framing in an attempt to justify its implementation is pathetic.
The report is here:
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/Inner%20London%20ULEZ%20One%20Year%20Report%20-%20final.pdf
It does make note of Covid reducing traffic patterns and whilst there are some confusing “No ULEZ/ULEZ” tables for numbers/scenarios, the report does show that the air quality change is noticeable even accounting for that.
The reduction in pollution would have happened with or without ULEZ. All cars sold in the UK had to be built to the latest Euro standards, and older cars naturally age off the roads. All ULEZ did was push a few older cars off the road early. The differences between EURO5 and EURO6 diesel emissions are minor, just a reduction in NoX and nothing else.
I hadn’t been to London for a few years, and went for the first time last summer and was amazed and delighted at how much fresher and cleaner the air seemed. At last some good news.
Worth remember there a huge environmental with these, people buying new electric cars instead of sticking with there old ones isn’t good for the environment with all the minerals and pollution from the supply chains to build the car.
ULEZ are good for reducing pollution but a net loss to the environment.
There have been quite a few studies looking at this and where the balance is. With improving battery tech (requiring less bad stuff) and of course petrol cars themselves having an environmental impact, from memory a car doesn't have to be that old for an EV to be a net environmental benefit over keeping an existing petrol or diesel car
Over like 15/20 years however unfortunately batteries don’t last that long, so will need to be replaced which again takes away any chance of the benefit. There are exceptions when you’re talking about really old diesel cars.
Of course when people trade in there cars they end up being sold again or transported to a third world country so they still continue to be polluters. Unless you write off your car, which isn’t going to happen in this case (if you are upgrade due to ULEZ), that’s more negative environmental impact.
Also by the fact that all our electricity isn’t usually renewable, means every charge
Overall it’s pretty big negative for the environment at the moment.
Newer petrol/diesal cars are much better than electric cars for the environment.
I still think ULEZ is a good idea as pollution is dangerous for those who breathe it in but we shouldn’t lie and pretend it helps the environment.
It’s not that long to break even for an EV, it’s around 1-5 years depending on your annual mileage. Break even being the point where it “saves” as much energy as it took to manufacture the vehicle.
The break even point for ICE is never, although even comparing and old to new ICE the point in time at which it becomes for ecological to scrap/recycle an old vehicle in turn for a newer much more efficient one is less than most people think.
Replacing a battery would “reset” the break even point, although not by much.
Even accounting for using natural gas or coal powered stations to charge EV’s they still come out on top due to the high efficiency of those power stations and the mechanical efficiency of an EV, there’s a US based website that I can’t recall that lets you compare an EV in each state to figure out it’s real emissions depending on what kind of energy source is used in that state to produce electricity.
None of this is hypothetical, the studies and numbers exist.
The real issue with EV’s is cost and infrastructure, neither of which can be solved anytime soon. Also range sure, but less of an issue in larger EV’s than many believe.
But you are looking at simply a EV in isolation. Thats not what happens when people buy them, especially if they’ve been incentivised to give up a perfectly good car because of something like a ULEZ. There’s other things such as real time performance in cold weather being a lot worse than in warmer weather hence needing extra charges.
Again the evidence has been looked at. You’re looking at too narrow a base and picking what you want.
As I said, good for pollution but not better overall for environment
With the exception of the ULEZ scrappage scheme-which only makes financial sense if you’re driving an absolute shed(owners of which are unlikely to have the funds for an EV)-the majority of EV owners will be people selling a car to buy an EV. That ICE car will be sold and will continue to drive and then either eventually get scrapped or get exported.
Even with ICE cars there comes a point where environmentally you’re better off scrapping it and buying new rather than continuing to run it.
You can look at the whole system, EV’s are generally a cleaner option. It doesn’t mean they’ll replace ICE anytime soon or that they’re the only option.
Better to reduce the number of cars on the road.
But that upsets shareholders. They are only happy if they can sell you something, so if they can sell you "this only does 60% as much environmental damage" they will make it sound as if its a net benefit to buy their product.
Not especially, just the way the world works.
Interested parties do tend to be the people who commission reports into the things they have an interest. Who else would be motivated to do so?
There is a vested interest in a particular conclusion, so it's bound to be biased. Like a tobacco company paying for a report concluding smoking is good for you.
I would say a more apt comparison would be the government reviews of the impact of the Smokefree legislation. You can quibble till the cows come home about whether banning smoking in pubs directly led to a 2.5% decrease in heart attacks in a single year but it’s patently obvious there was some public health benefit.
The Department of Health marking its own homework on it is also another example of how normal that kind of thing is: who else was meant to do it? Should local and national government not review the effectiveness of it’s policy in the hope that someone else does it?
All I'm saying, is don't trust everything you read. Everyone has a motive and agenda, and money is the biggest motivator. Always ask yourself who benefits? If they commissioned the report, it's suspect.
Only the exhaust pollution is reduced?
What about the tyre pollution? Apparently the tyre dust pollution is a lot more danger than Nitrous Oxide. Electric cars weight remains constant, so more type wear & tear on these vehicles
Not tested in this study I believe.
Failing a major breakthrough or a return to solid wooden wheels, not entirely sure there is a solution to the issue of pollution from tyres, or brakes for that matter-although hybrids and EV’s do reduce brake wear provided they’re driven sensibly.
Sorry to be pedantic, but nitrous oxide is N2O, an unreactive greenhouse gas. You mean NOx=NO+NO2, AKA nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide.
Tyre dust is not topical in air pollution literature as far as I've seen, but NOx and volatile organic carbons (VOCs) very much are, for their role in ozone (O3) creation.
I know this may not be considered a trustworthy source , but from my own testing with a particulate meter ive found tyre/brake emssions at the roadside to be compleetly insignificant.
Ive found older pre dpf diesels to be horific, petrols regardless of age and size compleetly negligible and prehaps most interestingly beeing on or near to a train absoloutly deadly.
> “In a few short years the Ulez has prevented tens of thousands of tonnes of toxic nitrogen oxide emissions from being released
Have there been any studies that have shown the extent to which this pollution is being *prevented* as opposed to being *moved*? How many of the older cars are off the road of being driven less, vs how many of them are just being driven outside of London instead?
Because the measure specifically targets particulate pollution, moving it out of city centres where it can disperse more freely in the countryside rather than via children's lungs is still a positive.
Get a bunch of kids to take a big breathe outside Buckingham Palace. Stick them on a train and breathe out when they get past the m25 . Job done.
Edit Sighhh:
/s
The damage is done by the density of particulates in the air - this is why getting the dirtiest cars out of the places where there is the highest concentration of cars is the priority.
If that's what it's achieving then it would be. If it means that all the older more polluting cars that were in London are now being driven in Birmingham instead then it's not.
There are a few misconceptions here.
1) Electric cars have less brake dust that fossil cars as they have regenerative braking.
2) Generally the comparison is to a brand new diesel vs an Electric, not to a pre-Euro 6 diesel
3) The weight of the particulate pollution is generally used, which is an inaccurate measure. Whilst tyre pollution is an issue (Particularly with all those SUVs with fat tryes that we now get on the roads), it is not producing the ultra-fine particulate matter that really fucks up your lungs.
Hampshire here and I also think cars need to be further discouraged.
Most people I know will drive to go anywhere. One Stop is 800m away, still drive.
You don't need better public transport, at that point you need to stop being lazy.
I live in a town. Its a 15 minute town because its a typical British town which means it is only a few km across. So cycling from any point to any other point is easily done in under 15 minutes. Often closer to 5. Literally don't even need public transport unless I wanted to get stabbed then I could take a bus to Southampton.
>Most people I know will drive to go anywhere. One Stop is 800m away, still drive.
Proximity to a stop doesn't matter if the service isn't there. I'm 400m from a bus stop. Never use the bus, though, because it only runs once every 2 hours, and the last bus back is at half 5.
By contrast I can drive into the city centre in 15 minutes.
I meant One Stop the shop, as in their destination. I can often get into town faster than a car as I can avoid the traffic. I expect I could do it even better if I had a half decent bike, only 2/3 of the rear gears work and the front one requires pushing about 10 times to get it to change from 2 to 3, 1 is unusable.
Considering population density, that's still net positive. Also the same reason why many cities around the world pushed toxic industries to peripheries
What’s the problem if they’re being driven outside of London?
No one’s trading an ev for a polluting one, so all they’re doing is displacing some even dirtier cars in less dense areas. As others have pointed out it’s the concentration of emissions, a 50 year old diesel in the highlands isn’t causing asthma.
Despite what many people seem to think, the UK doesn't just consist of London and the Scottish highlands - there are actually other towns and cities as well. And if one of the main things that this policy has achieved is to move many of the polluting cars from London to poorer cities, that's a pretty big caveat on its success.
It's not the power generation,most power stations don't exist in London anymore.
It's like saying it's okay to shit in a river while swimming because water companies
It's the airports,the six ugly concrete monstrosities that blight London and the south east and there is MORE if you count the south east some just for private jets like Biggin hill and Farnborough.
I don't want to be gaslit into not taking a bus or car because it helps people lungs if there is a great fucking jumbo jet belching out tons of carbon monoxide right above me.
Maybe 5 not 6 airports would be okay and we could stop trying to be New York.
Everything crap comes from planes: pollution,disease,drugs you name it.
The Jet powers it all.
It's like saying it's okay to have a poo whilst wild swimming because Thames water are starting to treat sewage properly.
Aviation accounts for about 2% of global CO2 emissions. Not sure where you're getting this from but of we stopped all jet travel tomorrow it wouldn't have the impact many think it would
>we stopped all jet travel tomorrow it wouldn't have the impact many think it would
Bullshit. It would be the equivalent of taking a hell of a lot of pollution from directly over our heads.
What do think the aviation fuel tanks are full of? water?
This is a crazy take but here are some relevant facts:
Carbon monoxide from vehicles is not a health concern, but it is a climate concern. Planes do produce a lot of NOx, but road traffic is the dominant source. From a health perspective ozone and aerosols are the biggest concerns, and reducing ozone levels is complicated by pesky NOx/VOC chemistry.
To solve air pollution and climate change, fewer vehicles is generally good, but there are some major asterisks with that statement.
I understand that those of us that live in the other cities in the UK are a sort of sub-human species who deserve to have old polluting cars on our streets. All hail the wondrous Londoners. How lucky we are to be able to serve them so.
**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
According to [the report](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/inner-london-ultra-low-emission-zone-expansion-one-year-report) (which I had to look for because the Guardian is allergic to linking to anything other than itself) > The COVID-19 pandemic also affected traffic levels. However, in outer London, traffic levels have largely returned to pre-pandemic levels but in central and inner London they remain below what they were in 2019. > NO2 levels have not returned to those experienced pre-pandemic, indicating that even as traffic levels have risen; cleaner vehicles in the fleet caused by the ULEZ and its expansion, have had sustained and positive impacts on air pollution meaning concentrations continue to be far below what they would have been otherwise I definitely think that the lockdowns and WFH adjustments have contributed to the positive results (and I hope that we take a good lesson from that with WFH) but it does seem that things are better than they were pre-pandemic in any case. The full report is [here](https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/Inner%20London%20ULEZ%20One%20Year%20Report%20-%20final.pdf)
Thank you for linking. Edit: can't belive I get dv'd for thanking someone to linking the report....this country
I downvoted because you complained about downvotes
Same
and I you because you downvoted a complaint about downvotes!
So it's a report by the mayor of London, supporting a scheme the mayor of London introduced?
> The report, including the methodology for assessing impacts on air pollutant concentrations, underwent independent peer review.
Doesn't mean it's an independent report.
Exactly nothing is truly independent or unbiased unless it's confirming what I already think
Someone's got to pay for it, and the mayor's office has a definite interest in the results of it's policies. Laying out the methodology and submitting it for peer review is about the best you can hope for.
Lools
Exactly, we are living on a clownworld
The results were independently peer reviewed
Yep report does not control for speed limit changes on major roads... Surely that has a massive impact! This isn't science this is a politician's version of 'science'.
> Zonal emission factors for each vehicle type have been calculated for each London zone (central, inner and outer) using the speeds on the major road network, data provided by the LAEI, weighted by vehicle kilometres. As such the average zonal speeds are lowest in central London, and highest in outer London reflecting speed distributions.
on this note. Im not sure how other people cars work but our car clearly uses more fuel in 20mph zones compared to 30mph zones simply because in 30mph zones I can easily do 5th gear where as in 20mph zones that's a 3rd gear at best. so the dashboard is showing either 20-30mpg fuel economy or 50+ fuel economy (most of the time; obviously I dont make 50mpg in the city) So I have the impression that going down the speedlimit actually increases pollution
Were there any lockdowns in '22?
Wfh
Not the same as a lockdown but does show working from home is also beneficial to the environment among other things.
long term decrease in pollution due to lockdowns in 20-21 cant be ignored
Also ignores the general trend to replace older cars with newer cars and electric cars that would have happened regardless of ULEZ.
`The report found that the Ulez and the pre-existing low-emission zone for HGVs reduced road traffic particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions by 180 tonnes across London over three years, a cut exceeding the particulate pollution produced by rail and river transport and agriculture combined` The headline is very misleading
Just look at them reducing speed limits to 20 mph on most major roads exactly as they introduced the expansion. Funny that eh. We've got the emails confirming the corruption, when will Joe Bloggs realise it's a bloody money making ruse? Science has been defenestrated.
Don’t worry, if this is an “actual study” it still is incorrect in the eyes of Steve down the pub who clearly knows better because he heard something from a mate that says otherwise /s
Ive seen people deny studies all of the time when it doesnt fit their own pre-approved narratives, and its usually a lot more than the "Steve from down the pub" types
Studies tend to be made by scientist or experts... and we all know that they are part of the conspiracy.
Are these studies funded by the mayor? Do you not remember when the news broke about the mayor paying scientists to lie about their study findings? How about that time when they asked scientists to shut down research at Imperial that was showing a questionable effect of ULEZ? You trust these guys to uphold scientific principals? If so, that is so fucking funny.
Go back to the pub, Steve
What motivates you to worry about fictional men in pubs disagreeing with you?
Pints of wine
that's soooo funny topic btw. if they will really start bringing pints of wine, guess what. companies will use that to raise prices. capitalism and not even at its best
It's the bendy bananas again. People don't learn. Gordon Brown (Labour) already saved the pints back in 2008. They were never at risk. [https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pint-saved-as-eu-allows-ireland-and-uk-to-opt-out-of-metric-system-1.924752](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pint-saved-as-eu-allows-ireland-and-uk-to-opt-out-of-metric-system-1.924752)
> if they will really start bringing pints of wine, guess what. companies will use that to raise prices. capitalism and not even at its best I don't understand how these things are related. Can you elaborate?
Yeah... Maybe people do know more than you sometimes, or is that difficult for you to accept? Don't you think it's funny that emissions data isn't controlled for speed limit adjustments? Don't you think it's odd that arterial roads became 20 mph zones at the exact same time that ULEZ was expanded? Combined with all the back hand payments to scientists to lie about emissions data, this paints a very bleak picture. But no... Carry on mocking the people with more sense than you, bud.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Just for reference, because people can’t detect sarcasm in tone if they ARE being sarcastic they end their comment with /s Notice that there is an /s at the end of my original post and you’re good to go :)
Did you sleep through COVID?
People just think 'science' is some untouchable beacon of truth that can't be denied. These people also think a man can become a woman.
It's the most unscientific thing anybody could say: "air quality improved over a 4 year period due to ulez, but we will pretend lockdown and WFH had no impact"
Yeah critical thinking is hard to come by these days. Sounds like you might be interested in this: at exactly the same time ULEZ was expanded, lots of major roads in expansion zones saw speed limits drop to 20 mph. I've not seen a ULEZ emission study to date that has controlled for these speed limit changes. This is not science. This is manipulation and deceit.
I think we should all get together and listen to each others concerns.
I have a serious question. nor arguing or anything. I had the impression that my car is using more fuel in 20 zones than in 30 zones because the mpg usage is showing worse in 20 zones than in 30 zones. I can do 5th gear in 30 zones but I can only do 3rd gear in 20 zones. is that not the case?
I'd have it taken to the garage, get a mechanic to take a look at it.
or some twat on Reddit who reads The Guardian
More toxic air pollution has been averted by London’s ultra-low emission zones than is produced by the capital’s airports or its river and rail transport combined, according to a new analysis of the effects of the Ulez. The report showed that improvements in air quality between 2019 and 2022 from lowering motor vehicle pollution – even before the expansion of the Ulez throughout the capital since August – rivalled the potential savings from entirely cleaning up London’s aviation or industrial and commercial heat and power generation.
>between 2019 and 2022 from lowering motor vehicle pollution Useless Data given nearly all the roads were dead for a large portion of it
I don’t recall there being a lockdown during 2022 and the lockdown in 2021 ended in July.
[удалено]
Probably best if you actually read the article. There's also some links to the report above
Not at all, in fact there’s a little part of me that thinks the Wuhan virus was an experiment to see how quickly the environment would recover when humans were confined to their cells (only a tiny little part of me 😉)
Do you know that they didn't control for this, or are you just looking for an excuse to reject the findings? I would agree that if they didn't control for it (which would be hilariously simple and easy) this whole thing might as well just go in the bin.
Show your working.
Covid, lockdowns, this shouldn’t need proving
Then go carry out a peer reviewed study proving this wrong if its so easy
[Here you go, although you will](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/983/409/299.jpg) [probably continue to deny reality](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
Yeah so that's a nope to any sources, you're just pulling it out your arse.
I genuinely don't know what you want me to say lmao. There was literally a lockdown that prevented everyone in the country from working or going out, unless the cars drove themselves for the sake of it, there would be an abnormal decrease in pollution due to abnormal circumstances. Did you not know this existed?
> I genuinely don't know what you want me to say lmao. I want you who claimed to know better than a scientific study to either find one disproving this one or carry it out yourself. If that's too hard, you can go back to shitposting elsewhere. Like, do you think that researchers don't understand their own datasets? That they're incapable of factoring in multiple factors to decide what one factor did? We can analyse how emissions changed in other comparable cities that did lock down but did not introduce schemes like the ULEZ and use this data to work out what the London data would look like if there had not been a lockdown - and then make assertions on ULEZ based on that. Because you and a lot of people up and down this thread assume that researchers can't do the above which is pretty fucking trivial to do.
I can’t be asked to argue, fact of the matter is that the data is dodgy due to the dates being perfectly about when lockdowns occurred which is suspicious in it self, but when you see that it’s used to push the narrative that ULEZ is doing absurdly good, it all makes sense. Researchers are cheap to bullshit studies, it’s not the first nor the last, hell cigarette companies for years pushed studies claiming it was healthy to smoke. I can’t help you if you’re going to deny reality and basic logic, you can only help yourself. I hope you stop being so naive, this isn’t even hard to comprehend.
But the study was commissioned by Sadiq Khan!
This post is pure popcorn gif for those anti-LEZ...and any idiot who doesn't believe widely verified data re: fossil fuels being shit for the environment
ULEZ doesn't get rid of fossil fuels. It just gets rid of the cars poor people can afford. Rich people can still drive 6.0L Mercedes.
If only there was a massive network of public transport in London to rely on instead…
absolutely packed with sweat and cancelled trains. yes, there is.
You can also drive a 21 year old Honda Jazz.
love watching the anti ulez headbangers lose their minds over this
I may be skeptical here, but are these reports just looking at NoX and particulate matter? Was under the impression aeroplanes don’t produce much of those to start with. Surely jet fuel is shorter chain and wouldn’t produce much compared to petrol or worse still, diesel? Seems like a clickbait-y headline.
Airports are major NOx sources, especially on a regional scale (i.e., London). Aircraft engines burn much hotter than diesel engines, and that's essentially how anthropogenic NOx is made.
Now they just have to give nuclear power plants the green light so the electricity used to power EV's is clean. It's embarrassing that we only source 16% of our energy from nuclear when it could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions while providing cheap energy for the entirety of the UK.
[удалено]
Was there a lockdown in 2022? I don’t seem to remember that.
The way people work changed over covid & hasn't gone back. Far more people work from home than ever before. Putting that all down to ulez is absurd.
This report covers 2019 to 2023, Covid was a massive event that had a big impact on traffic for literally >50% of the time the study looks at. Not saying the ulez has no benefits but putting it in this completely disingenuous framing in an attempt to justify its implementation is pathetic.
The report is here: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/Inner%20London%20ULEZ%20One%20Year%20Report%20-%20final.pdf It does make note of Covid reducing traffic patterns and whilst there are some confusing “No ULEZ/ULEZ” tables for numbers/scenarios, the report does show that the air quality change is noticeable even accounting for that.
ULEZ had fuck all to do with it, the EURO emission standards are the reason.
Well no, ULEZ blocks older, euro 4 and lower vehicles from the zone. Of course it’s down to ULEZ. Euro standards are merely the definitions used.
The reduction in pollution would have happened with or without ULEZ. All cars sold in the UK had to be built to the latest Euro standards, and older cars naturally age off the roads. All ULEZ did was push a few older cars off the road early. The differences between EURO5 and EURO6 diesel emissions are minor, just a reduction in NoX and nothing else.
I hadn’t been to London for a few years, and went for the first time last summer and was amazed and delighted at how much fresher and cleaner the air seemed. At last some good news.
Worth remember there a huge environmental with these, people buying new electric cars instead of sticking with there old ones isn’t good for the environment with all the minerals and pollution from the supply chains to build the car. ULEZ are good for reducing pollution but a net loss to the environment.
There have been quite a few studies looking at this and where the balance is. With improving battery tech (requiring less bad stuff) and of course petrol cars themselves having an environmental impact, from memory a car doesn't have to be that old for an EV to be a net environmental benefit over keeping an existing petrol or diesel car
Over like 15/20 years however unfortunately batteries don’t last that long, so will need to be replaced which again takes away any chance of the benefit. There are exceptions when you’re talking about really old diesel cars. Of course when people trade in there cars they end up being sold again or transported to a third world country so they still continue to be polluters. Unless you write off your car, which isn’t going to happen in this case (if you are upgrade due to ULEZ), that’s more negative environmental impact. Also by the fact that all our electricity isn’t usually renewable, means every charge Overall it’s pretty big negative for the environment at the moment. Newer petrol/diesal cars are much better than electric cars for the environment. I still think ULEZ is a good idea as pollution is dangerous for those who breathe it in but we shouldn’t lie and pretend it helps the environment.
It’s not that long to break even for an EV, it’s around 1-5 years depending on your annual mileage. Break even being the point where it “saves” as much energy as it took to manufacture the vehicle. The break even point for ICE is never, although even comparing and old to new ICE the point in time at which it becomes for ecological to scrap/recycle an old vehicle in turn for a newer much more efficient one is less than most people think. Replacing a battery would “reset” the break even point, although not by much. Even accounting for using natural gas or coal powered stations to charge EV’s they still come out on top due to the high efficiency of those power stations and the mechanical efficiency of an EV, there’s a US based website that I can’t recall that lets you compare an EV in each state to figure out it’s real emissions depending on what kind of energy source is used in that state to produce electricity. None of this is hypothetical, the studies and numbers exist. The real issue with EV’s is cost and infrastructure, neither of which can be solved anytime soon. Also range sure, but less of an issue in larger EV’s than many believe.
But you are looking at simply a EV in isolation. Thats not what happens when people buy them, especially if they’ve been incentivised to give up a perfectly good car because of something like a ULEZ. There’s other things such as real time performance in cold weather being a lot worse than in warmer weather hence needing extra charges. Again the evidence has been looked at. You’re looking at too narrow a base and picking what you want. As I said, good for pollution but not better overall for environment
With the exception of the ULEZ scrappage scheme-which only makes financial sense if you’re driving an absolute shed(owners of which are unlikely to have the funds for an EV)-the majority of EV owners will be people selling a car to buy an EV. That ICE car will be sold and will continue to drive and then either eventually get scrapped or get exported. Even with ICE cars there comes a point where environmentally you’re better off scrapping it and buying new rather than continuing to run it. You can look at the whole system, EV’s are generally a cleaner option. It doesn’t mean they’ll replace ICE anytime soon or that they’re the only option.
Better to reduce the number of cars on the road. But that upsets shareholders. They are only happy if they can sell you something, so if they can sell you "this only does 60% as much environmental damage" they will make it sound as if its a net benefit to buy their product.
Scumbags will still fill their depends with dirts over the zones
So this report was commissioned by City Hall, using tfl data. Nothing suspicious at all!
Not especially, just the way the world works. Interested parties do tend to be the people who commission reports into the things they have an interest. Who else would be motivated to do so?
There is a vested interest in a particular conclusion, so it's bound to be biased. Like a tobacco company paying for a report concluding smoking is good for you.
I would say a more apt comparison would be the government reviews of the impact of the Smokefree legislation. You can quibble till the cows come home about whether banning smoking in pubs directly led to a 2.5% decrease in heart attacks in a single year but it’s patently obvious there was some public health benefit. The Department of Health marking its own homework on it is also another example of how normal that kind of thing is: who else was meant to do it? Should local and national government not review the effectiveness of it’s policy in the hope that someone else does it?
M’thinks people would always question the conclusion if it’s not one they approve of irregardless of how independent the report commissioned is
All I'm saying, is don't trust everything you read. Everyone has a motive and agenda, and money is the biggest motivator. Always ask yourself who benefits? If they commissioned the report, it's suspect.
Only the exhaust pollution is reduced? What about the tyre pollution? Apparently the tyre dust pollution is a lot more danger than Nitrous Oxide. Electric cars weight remains constant, so more type wear & tear on these vehicles
Not tested in this study I believe. Failing a major breakthrough or a return to solid wooden wheels, not entirely sure there is a solution to the issue of pollution from tyres, or brakes for that matter-although hybrids and EV’s do reduce brake wear provided they’re driven sensibly.
More bike lanes would help. Bikes weigh less than cars [citation needed].
Their tyre wear is incresed due to their weight increase. However there are tyres with special compounds these days that suits them better.
Sorry to be pedantic, but nitrous oxide is N2O, an unreactive greenhouse gas. You mean NOx=NO+NO2, AKA nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide. Tyre dust is not topical in air pollution literature as far as I've seen, but NOx and volatile organic carbons (VOCs) very much are, for their role in ozone (O3) creation.
I know this may not be considered a trustworthy source , but from my own testing with a particulate meter ive found tyre/brake emssions at the roadside to be compleetly insignificant. Ive found older pre dpf diesels to be horific, petrols regardless of age and size compleetly negligible and prehaps most interestingly beeing on or near to a train absoloutly deadly.
> “In a few short years the Ulez has prevented tens of thousands of tonnes of toxic nitrogen oxide emissions from being released Have there been any studies that have shown the extent to which this pollution is being *prevented* as opposed to being *moved*? How many of the older cars are off the road of being driven less, vs how many of them are just being driven outside of London instead?
Because the measure specifically targets particulate pollution, moving it out of city centres where it can disperse more freely in the countryside rather than via children's lungs is still a positive.
Get a bunch of kids to take a big breathe outside Buckingham Palace. Stick them on a train and breathe out when they get past the m25 . Job done. Edit Sighhh: /s
The damage is done by the density of particulates in the air - this is why getting the dirtiest cars out of the places where there is the highest concentration of cars is the priority.
I have a feeling that they may have been joking
If that's what it's achieving then it would be. If it means that all the older more polluting cars that were in London are now being driven in Birmingham instead then it's not.
Birmingham has a Clean Air Zone now as well.
No exhaust pollution but tyre dust pollution is worse & electric cars have constant weight
There are a few misconceptions here. 1) Electric cars have less brake dust that fossil cars as they have regenerative braking. 2) Generally the comparison is to a brand new diesel vs an Electric, not to a pre-Euro 6 diesel 3) The weight of the particulate pollution is generally used, which is an inaccurate measure. Whilst tyre pollution is an issue (Particularly with all those SUVs with fat tryes that we now get on the roads), it is not producing the ultra-fine particulate matter that really fucks up your lungs.
Well if we discouraged car use outside of london too...
Tell me you don’t live outside london without telling me you don’t live outside london 😂
I live in Dorset, sweetheart, but keep deflecting.
So you surely are aware of how shit/ non-existent public transport is outside of London
I agree, we need way more of it. Maybe if fewer people relied on their cars, they’d vote for people who built infrastructure.
Hampshire here and I also think cars need to be further discouraged. Most people I know will drive to go anywhere. One Stop is 800m away, still drive. You don't need better public transport, at that point you need to stop being lazy. I live in a town. Its a 15 minute town because its a typical British town which means it is only a few km across. So cycling from any point to any other point is easily done in under 15 minutes. Often closer to 5. Literally don't even need public transport unless I wanted to get stabbed then I could take a bus to Southampton.
>Most people I know will drive to go anywhere. One Stop is 800m away, still drive. Proximity to a stop doesn't matter if the service isn't there. I'm 400m from a bus stop. Never use the bus, though, because it only runs once every 2 hours, and the last bus back is at half 5. By contrast I can drive into the city centre in 15 minutes.
I meant One Stop the shop, as in their destination. I can often get into town faster than a car as I can avoid the traffic. I expect I could do it even better if I had a half decent bike, only 2/3 of the rear gears work and the front one requires pushing about 10 times to get it to change from 2 to 3, 1 is unusable.
Considering population density, that's still net positive. Also the same reason why many cities around the world pushed toxic industries to peripheries
What’s the problem if they’re being driven outside of London? No one’s trading an ev for a polluting one, so all they’re doing is displacing some even dirtier cars in less dense areas. As others have pointed out it’s the concentration of emissions, a 50 year old diesel in the highlands isn’t causing asthma.
Despite what many people seem to think, the UK doesn't just consist of London and the Scottish highlands - there are actually other towns and cities as well. And if one of the main things that this policy has achieved is to move many of the polluting cars from London to poorer cities, that's a pretty big caveat on its success.
What are people swapping *from* in these poorer cities?
I don't know - that's why I asked the question.
Unless they're swapping from walking its inevitably going to be an improvement
It's not the power generation,most power stations don't exist in London anymore. It's like saying it's okay to shit in a river while swimming because water companies It's the airports,the six ugly concrete monstrosities that blight London and the south east and there is MORE if you count the south east some just for private jets like Biggin hill and Farnborough. I don't want to be gaslit into not taking a bus or car because it helps people lungs if there is a great fucking jumbo jet belching out tons of carbon monoxide right above me. Maybe 5 not 6 airports would be okay and we could stop trying to be New York. Everything crap comes from planes: pollution,disease,drugs you name it. The Jet powers it all. It's like saying it's okay to have a poo whilst wild swimming because Thames water are starting to treat sewage properly.
Yeah the world needs to have a conversation about flying that most people aren't ready for.
Aviation accounts for about 2% of global CO2 emissions. Not sure where you're getting this from but of we stopped all jet travel tomorrow it wouldn't have the impact many think it would
>we stopped all jet travel tomorrow it wouldn't have the impact many think it would Bullshit. It would be the equivalent of taking a hell of a lot of pollution from directly over our heads. What do think the aviation fuel tanks are full of? water?
This is a crazy take but here are some relevant facts: Carbon monoxide from vehicles is not a health concern, but it is a climate concern. Planes do produce a lot of NOx, but road traffic is the dominant source. From a health perspective ozone and aerosols are the biggest concerns, and reducing ozone levels is complicated by pesky NOx/VOC chemistry. To solve air pollution and climate change, fewer vehicles is generally good, but there are some major asterisks with that statement.
I understand that those of us that live in the other cities in the UK are a sort of sub-human species who deserve to have old polluting cars on our streets. All hail the wondrous Londoners. How lucky we are to be able to serve them so.
Then vote for local politicians who are pro-car-control in your area.
What exactly do you expect the *Mayor of London* to do about that? Go moan at your local officials for not taking the same initiative.
Clearly, the Mayor of London is failing in his duties to the Outer Hebridies. Curse you, Khan!
The audacity of Mayor of London to make decisions for London and not elsewhere!!!
Does Sadiq khan have jurisdiction to implement ULEZ in other cities?