malumbu

Had two wowsy moments. Saw a kingfisher in the UK, I'd seen flashes of blue down rivers but never properly caught one. Fortunately someone pointed it out to me, although this was WWT Arundel not SE22 But..... I saw this massive bird fly off yesterday morning, from previous discussions it is most likely a sparrow hawk and from time to time we have a small mass of pigeon feathers in the garden. Sparras have gone but small group of starlings still around

What I see is a failure is the government not tackling air quality when they were ordered by the Supreme Court to sort this ASAP in 2015 What I see if a failure is the government not doing more to persuade the masses to reduce their personal motoring for environmental and health reasons What I see as a failure is the government not explaining to the masses that from the early 10s new emission standards were not delivering the expected reductions in roadside NO2 and gently pushing those driving in mainly urban environments to move to small petrol cars, on the understanding that diesel still made best sense for those doing long A road and motorway journeys. What I see as a failure is the Tories not backing their own policy (ie LTNs) and worse still Starmer and Sunak now competing who can be the best friend to the motorists. What I applaud is the local authorities trying to do something about vehicle emissions, whether they have the ideal solution or not, they are having a go.

Oh no another call for arms. The Beeb includes stories that they think will carry a bit of interest. Whilst it should be objective based on the current news there is one on a failed LTN and none on successful traffic reduction schemes. Therefore the Beeb is totally against LTNs. I also see that they are fully in support of criminalising nitrous oxide use, carrying the government's line without any broader discussion on the downsides (in harm terms it's relatively minor, 'enjoyed' by 100,000s who could now get a criminal record). Shame there isn't more on Scotland looking to ban disposable vapes which is now well down the Beeb pecking order. Hmm, I'm just saying that one scheme that was cancelled, heralded by the right wing rags, and picked up by the Beeb isn't a sign that all LTNs are bad and that they will all be cancelled. Looking forward to the time when this wont be news any more, sooner rather than later so we can put our energies towards more worthy matters. So no I don't think that there is any fight.

In deed Mr C. Do the Mail and Telegraph ever have positive stories about lefty councils and the environment or health? I doubt it.

Sorry won't read the Daily Mail which let's face it is totally pro car. Perhaps you may wish to summarise. Can you imagine if the Mail ever liked anything pro active travel/reduced motoring? No I can't either.

Go up three posts and I have given you some excellent information on how much Southwark has done. Park your prejudices and become better informed. (To save you doing some research Southwark are streets ahead in comparison with all other London boroughs in terms of on street parking, Please unconditionally acknowledge this positive result from your local authority). Out of interest have you not seen people charging their cars via a cable and a window on the street. The evil oil companies are also putting charge points in filling station forecourts as well as supermarkets.

Rocks you will find these stats on government's on street charging funding interesting: https://maps.dft.gov.uk/ev-charging-map/index.html Southwark is the star with over 1700 on street chargers per 100k, no other London borough comes close, its around fives times more than adjoining boroughs and ten times more than some of the outer boroughs. So how does this tie in with your view that Southwark doesn't want EVs? Would you agree that Southwark deserves a pat on the back for the provision of on street chargers?

Office of Zero Emission Vehicles is part of government responsible for delivering EV ambitions. Not doing a bad job. Southwark will have received funding eg for on street parking. Your time would be better spent on a little research rather than going off on one again, Labour complain complain, Southwark complain complain, Mayor Khan complain complain

If you can do a better job.... it's so easy to complain, more challenging to actually work for the public whether you agree with their policies ot not. Borderline defamation.....

Relevance to CPZ?

Rocks, I said I'd post some background documents on nitrogen oxide emissions The attached report from government this year details sources. www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-nitrogen-oxides-nox Extracting from this provides a nice summary: Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a group of gases that are mainly formed during the combustion of fossil fuels. The dominant portion of these gases is nitric oxide (NO). However, NO can react with other gases in the atmosphere to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which is harmful to health. These reactions take place very quickly and are reversible, so the two gases are referred to together as NOx. In the most recent annual air quality assessment (for 2021), the UK was non-compliant with the limit value [maxium ambient concentration] placed on the annual mean NO2 concentration at a number of roadside locations in urban areas. It has been estimated that on average 70 per cent of the NOx concentrations at the roadside originate as NOx emissions from road transport. Short-term exposure to concentrations of NO2 can cause inflammation of the airways and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections and to allergens. NO2 can exacerbate the symptoms of those already suffering from lung or heart conditions. In addition, NOx can cause changes to the environment. Deposition of Nitrogen to the environment both directly as a gas (dry deposition) and in precipitation (wet deposition) can change soil chemistry and affect biodiversity in sensitive habitats. Increases in road traffic accounted for the steep climb in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) between 1984 and 1989. The introduction of catalytic converters [three way cats for petrol cars, a result of stricter US controls following LA smogs] and stricter emissions regulations resulted in a downward trend in NOx emissions after 1990. Road transport accounted for 27 per cent of emissions of nitrogen oxides in the UK in 2021, and other forms of transport (aviation, rail, and shipping) accounted for 14 per cent. There is a downward trend in emissions from road transport due to the replacement of older vehicles in the vehicle fleet with newer vehicles that meet stricter emissions standards. Annual emissions from road transport have fallen by 69 per cent between 2005 and 2021, and other forms of transport have reduced annual emissions by 45 per cent over the same period. Emissions from power stations and industrial combustion plants have reduced substantially, reflecting a long-term trend away from the use of coal and oil in favour of natural gas and renewable energy sources. Annual nitrogen oxide emissions from energy industries have reduced by 74 per cent between 2005 and 2021, largely due to the closure or conversion to biomass fuel of coal-fired power stations. [my added bits]. Can't find stuff on low NOx boilers in London (there used to be a lot on line) apart from a Policy Exchange document: London has recently implemented an “Air Quality Neutral” policy which requires all major developments (e.g. 10 dwellings or more) to be assessed against emissions benchmarks, and for all newly fitted boilers to meet ultra-low NOx standards. However this policy only applies to new developments, and does not tackle the stock of existing boilers. Government guidance to local authorities is a bit wishy washy and does not mention boilers as far as I can see. www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-air-quality-strategy-for-england/air-quality-strategy-framework-for-local-authority-delivery I expect government policy focuses on the phasing out of natural gas as a heating source in the next few years, modern condensing boilers only have a ten year or so life so turn round, when we get to the alternative which may be hydrogen (obviously coupled with heat pumps, and hopefully eventually a massive insulation programme). Penguin. Whilst ULEZ is primarily designed to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions there may well be climate change benefits too. I expect some will diss this report but here it goes: www.london.gov.uk/new-report-reveals-transformational-impact-expanded-ultra-low-emission-zone-so-far [ULEZ] it helped reduce road transport nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 35 per cent and CO2 emissions by 6 percent in the zone Any reduction in CO2 emissions are welcome to try and reduce the facking up of the planet (technical language).

"Largest source of NO2" suggests that heating is the main cause of roadside pollution. It's not, that is road transport. It is nothing new that gas central heating leads to NO2 emissions. Mayor Johnson pushed for low NOx boilers, and I think that these had to be adopted in municipal buildings. Not sure what Mayor Khan is doing. Perhaps check it out and report back. I'll post some government stuff in the morning that you can spend some time looking through.

Pay per mile is the fairest way of collecting revenue from motorists but HAS to be a national scheme. Rocks can you just say "yes Mayor Khan has a great record on reducing emissions from buses including roll out of electric buses.". Much appreciated. Electric taxis were a nationally supported scheme by the now Office of Zero Emission Vehicles". The high cost and low range were issues for full EV at the time of launch. it was therefore mandated that these had to be zero emission capable (can't remember if there was a minimum range) and government supported the London Black Cab company (can't remember the name) with the hope that this would be rolled out nationally and internationally. So any complaint should be aimed at government although black cabbies have too much influence in London, are self and over regulated including blanket requirements for turning circles and accessibility - latter should be a certain percentage. This makes black cabs expensive to buy, with a high cost of the 'plate' and therefore at a disadvantage Vs minicabs and Uber leading to regular taxi wars. The queues at major ranks and Heathrow often with engines idling (not a problem with EVs) shows that this is not a market working well for consumers but the industry and TfL are not receptive to any liberalisation of the market. Yes I do know lots about this subject and this post is off the top of my head not from Wiki. Dunno why I have red text above

A basic lesson Rocks. There are total emissions that are dealt with at source. UK is doing fairly well here apart from agriculture and ignoring aviation. Much of this is diluted in the atmosphere so contributes to background pollution, and transboundary ie other countries. Then there is ambient air quality limits, this is the stuff we breathe in, so for NO2 is dominated by traffic sources as exhausts pipes are close to the ground as opposed to 70 metre high stacks from a power station. A cold still day will lead to higher concentrations of vehicle emissions at street level as there is less turbulence ie mixing with the air and less upwards mixing due to the lower inversion/boundary height. Happy to give you a dispersion for dummies workshop if this helps.

When I went to the 2015 Mansion House event when Mayor Johnson announced his plans for the ULEZ he spoke about his ambitions for a zero emission zone for the Congestion Charging Zone. Not heard the current Mayor supporting this. Would you support this Rocks? And you've not answered my question on another thread about Mayor Khan's excellent record on electric buses. Surely you must welcome this.

I have the same response when I ask people to name a Ramones track when they are wearing the t shirt and similarly for Joy Division unknown pleasures. I of course have seen both bands. I understand Hooky often uses the cafe at Sainsbury's. Dave Formula used to live in Herne Hill, but that was before Sainsbury's was built but maybe he popped in when he did one of his two gigs at the Ivy

Just out of interest Rocks what do you like? You dislike most cyclists. Schemes to discourage less driving and pollution. And public transport. I'm the complete opposite. Go on amaze me.

Coz government is too scared. It's the CO2 that is the issue. Nitrogen Oxides are similar in density to air and mix/dilute. Air traffic has to be addressed

I couldn't give a monkeys about PTAL scores Rocks, I've lived in SE London for a long time and public transport has been fine, there are routes that are better, there are less good ones, Oyster made buses faster, the Overground connected us to the tube from HOP or Peckham, the single fare for multiple buses changing within an hour, it's probably the cheapest public transport in the UK, yes some routes have been cut, in particular post Covid but my glass is very much half full, whilst you dropped yours and it smashed on the ground.

It's not exactly an informed or balanced campaign "....very limited local transportation." Well that's bollox" "This is clearly nothing more than a money-making scheme and is already causing stress and anxiety to many of our residents" And that is a bit knee jerk. It's also not clear what the grounds are. So like the ULEZ challenge may be a waste of time and money. I'm probably one of the few people who has made a Judicial Review application, not getting past the first hurdle, despite encouragement from a solicitor and barrister (and the ££££S a few of us paid to them, me being the majority funder). It was a planning decision, and I don't regret what we went through (ironically the build never went ahead but that is for another thread). Unless you get pro bono legal support I expect you are talking £20 to 30k I'll watch with interest

No thanks. The question is, if the council goes ahead, what sort of CPZ do you want?

Heartbeat, I was agreeing with the line of yours I quoted. But you have to admit that some on this thread have seized on the Telegraph article to oppose the ULEZ extension and/or attack the authorities and/or academics. Have a look at the COMEAP link I posted Rocks - I welcome your opinion on Prof Kelly. My apologies it is only 3 days to go.

Nice one, hit the nail on the head, "the ULEZ is one of many policies implemented to tackle air pollution in London, and in combination these have led to improvements in air quality that are clearly observable." It will reduce the number of polluting vehicles on London roads, improving health, which is important to the outer boroughs as the population is older and therefore more vulnerable to the effects of poor air quality. It's desperate to use an e-mail chain to try to discredit the scheme. If you could be bothered to look at Prof Kelly's background you will see that he chaired the government's Committee on the medical effects of air pollution where he would have to balance the views of the hawks and the doves (epidemiological studies can be interpreted in a number of ways, as well as getting government on board https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/committee-on-the-medical-effects-of-air-pollutants-comeap Governments of all colours and sizes will have conversations with bodies they fund about exact wording during the publication of reports they fund. No doubt Prof Kelly would have experienced that when he chaired the committee for example in advice about the impact of NO2 - does this interact with particulate matter or are the effects separate? Is there the potential for double counting?? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/734799/COMEAP_NO2_Report.pdf There is no smoking gun out there. Here's some more views from the specialist publication Air Quality News, which does what it says on the tin, ie provides news on air quality https://airqualitynews.com/health/what-a-waste-of-time-and-money-reactions-to-ulez-decision-pour-in/ Extracting from this: Dr Anna Moore, a respiratory doctor based in London: ‘Today’s verdict will help to deliver cleaner air for 5 million more Londoners. As a doctor, I see patients suffer from the effects of toxic air week in and week out. There is no organ in the body which is not harmed by air pollution. Our health service is under extraordinary pressure; waiting lists are too long, emergency services are overwhelmed. Cleaning up the air we all breathe would prevent or reduce so much illness – from diabetes to cardiovascular disease, strokes to dementia, asthma to COPD. Today’s decision will help lessen the terrible burden air pollution puts on our city’s health and healthcare system.’Dr Mark Hayden, a consultant paediatrician from London, said: ‘What a waste of time and money that could have been better spent on improving cycling and walking infrastructure and new bus routes. We need more YIMBYs and less NIMBYs if we want clean air and a liveable planet.’ Sarah Woolnough, chief executive at Asthma + Lung UK: ‘We’re pleased that the ULEZ expansion will go ahead as planned. The ULEZ scheme has successfully lowered levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air and expanding it to greater London will mean more Londoners will experience the health benefits of reduced pollution. Road transport is the leading cause of air pollution in our towns and cities. For people living with lung conditions, such as COPD and asthma, harmful pollutants trigger symptoms including breathlessness, coughing and wheezing, and in more severe cases these flare-ups can result in hospitalisation. The ULEZ expansion is a positive step towards cleaner air across the city, allowing Londoners to breathe more easily.’ Andrew Pendleton, Deputy CEO and Director of Strategy and Advocacy, said: I am delighted to hear of today’s verdict, which is a win for common sense and a fantastic step in the right direction towards the kind of London we all want to see: one which is fairer, more thriving and more sustainable for generations to come. The expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone to outer London will protect millions more people from the devastating health impacts of toxic air, which include heart disease, strokes, asthma and dementia. All Londoners deserve clean air, and today’s decision is a promise of a better, healthier future for London.” Larissa Lockwood, Director of Clean Air, said: ‘All Londoners deserve clean air. Today’s verdict is fantastic news for our health, our city Toxic air affects every organ in the human body, harming our physical and mental health from the first breath we take to the last. Levels of air pollution in our capital are still too high, and London will continue to be a global leader on tackling this problem with the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone. This is a vital next step to ensuring we live in the type of city we all want to share: one which is healthy, thriving and sustainable.’ UK Health Alliance on Climate Change: ‘The ULEZ expansion decision is a win for health, all our health. Today we’ve taken a step further towards a cleaner, greener & healthier London. We now call on councils to come together to make London a better place to live… by supporting active travel wherever possible. Further, we call on the national government to provide further support for TfL and the scrappage scheme etc.’ Are you going to find dirt on all these people or organisations? 6 days to go.

So correct me if I am wrong Rocks, you are very interested in this thread. Can I assume that you and many others signed? Good stuff.

Nonsense generalisations again Rocks. Where do you get this all from? A few people will never be happy but this is by no means all people who believe that there should be restrictions on private vehicle use. Ask yourself why you are so incredibly blinkered.