"Mizter T" wrote:

---quote---
Van emission charge plan halted

Plans to extend a scheme preventing high polluting vehicles entering
London have been shelved by the city's mayor.

An expansion of London's Low Emission Zone (LEZ) would have seen
owners of heavily polluting vans and minibuses fined up to £500 a day
by October 2010.

Mayor Boris Johnson pulled the plug as he said it could damage
businesses already suffering in the recession.

Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson said it was
"condemning Londoners to more premature deaths".
[...]
The next phase would require owners of smaller vehicles such as vans
and minibuses to meet the same standards.

Good news. Small businesses don't need further financial burdens at this
time.

Presumably Darren Johnson is unconcerned with the emissions caused by the
vehicle manufacturing industry, and the 'premature deaths' this causes.

The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce consumption. You don't do that
by (effectively) condemning serviceable vehicles to the automotive graveyard
and insisting struggling businesses buy new ones.

Chris

On 3 Feb, 20:29, "Chris Read" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:

---quote---
Van emission charge plan halted
Plans to extend a scheme preventing high polluting vehicles entering
London have been shelved by the city's mayor.
An expansion of London's Low Emission Zone (LEZ) would have seen
owners of heavily polluting vans and minibuses fined up to £500 a day
by October 2010.
Mayor Boris Johnson pulled the plug as he said it could damage
businesses already suffering in the recession.
Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson said it was
"condemning Londoners to more premature deaths".
[...]
The next phase would require owners of smaller vehicles such as vans
and minibuses to meet the same standards.

Good news. Small businesses don't need further financial burdens at this
time.

Presumably Darren Johnson is unconcerned with the emissions caused by the
vehicle manufacturing industry, and the 'premature deaths' this causes.

The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce consumption. You don't do that
by (effectively) condemning serviceable vehicles to the automotive graveyard
and insisting struggling businesses buy new ones.

Chris

As I'm sure you either know or are capable of guessing Darren Johnson
is concerned with the whole horizon of emissions (to coin a rather
terrible phrase), including those from the vehicle manufacturing
industry.

It's a good point of course, but some of the I've come across about
replacing old equipment for new, more efficient and less emitting kit
is rather surprising in the way it often comes down in favour of the
new - taking into account so many years of the old kit continuing to
be used in its less efficient and more emitting glory. Sorry to be so
unspecific but I'm talking in a broad brush way about many fields.

The way you put 'premature deaths' in inverted commas as opposed to
full quotation could suggest you doubt the logic behind that statement
- do you?

Nonetheless, good to have a different take on this, particularly
regarding the small businesses. I obviously don't agree that it's
"good news", but I can see that it could be something of a burden on
small businesses. I just think I would prioritise it over these
concerns - harsh perhaps, but there you go - likewise I think it's
harsh that Londoners could have had cleaner air were it not for the
extension of this scheme being scrapped.

"Mizter T" wrote :
Nonetheless, good to have a different take on this, particularly
regarding the small businesses. I obviously don't agree that it's
"good news", but I can see that it could be something of a burden on
small businesses. I just think I would prioritise it over these
concerns - harsh perhaps, but there you go - likewise I think it's
harsh that Londoners could have had cleaner air were it not for the
extension of this scheme being scrapped.

I wouldn't worry too much either way; while California wants to cut
emissions by 30% within eight years, the UK aim is about that in 50 years,
and almost certainly the targets will be reduced and extended (again).

With or without small vehicle participation, UK efforts are a bad joke at
best, and planetary suicide at worst.

And, of course, Boris' contempt for green issues should be a salutary
warning for anyone who still believes a word that Cameron says on the issue.
Let's face it, the Tories are no more green than Blair was, and just as good
at making false promises.

The best thing Boris has done for the planet is to scrap the western
extension of the CC zone - once total gridlock sets in, some drivers might
consider turning off their engines. But don't hold your breath.
--
Andrew


If you stand up and be counted,
From time to time you may get yourself knocked down.
But remember this:
A man flattened by an opponent can get up again.
A man flattened by conformity stays down for good.
- Thomas J. Watson Jr.

"Andrew Heenan" wrote:

And, of course, Boris' contempt for green issues should be a salutary
warning for anyone who still believes a word that Cameron says on the
issue. Let's face it, the Tories are no more green than Blair was, and
just as good at making false promises.

Again, good.

I don't want a green Government, where this amounts to stopping poorer
people flying on holiday, and forcing self-employed tradesmen (or voluntary
groups) out of business because they can't afford new vehicles.

How about reducing the rate of population growth in the UK? That would be
more effective at dealing with green issues.

Chris

Mizter T wrote:
It's a good point of course, but some of the I've come across about
replacing old equipment for new, more efficient and less emitting kit
is rather surprising in the way it often comes down in favour of the
new - taking into account so many years of the old kit continuing to
be used in its less efficient and more emitting glory. Sorry to be so
unspecific but I'm talking in a broad brush way about many fields.

This is true, but it depends rather on usage. The problem I have with the
LEZ is that it's a very blunt instrument. The daily charges are very high,
so they're only worthwhile if you're using your vehicle all day. If you're
a delivery driver, for example.

If you're, say, a part-time builder who drives a van from your house to the
builder's yard to the job and home again, 200 pounds is a very steep burden
on a job where you might be earning 20 pounds an hour. Actually there might
be only an hour's driving per day. If I were in that situation, I'd give
up.

And then there are people driving vans, minibuses or motorhomes for
recreational purposes, who make no profit at all. How many community
projects have a minibus for occasional use? Will it really cost 200 quid to
drive the old ladies to church once a week?

Of course, some of this can be adjusted by changes in behaviour (eg use
three MPVs instead of the church minibus) but they'll probably increase
costs and the resulting pollution may not be reduced.

If the costs of conversion were also reasonable then I'd have less of an
objection (TfL's website makes no indication at all of how much this would
be).

Theo