Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|