Bristol propose to ban diesel vehicles by March 2021

[MarkVw2017]

Yes, Greta.

You must feel very smug driving around in your electric California. Oh, they haven't built one yet! You've got a Diesel one.

Typical response

 

[MarkVw2017]

I think you miss the point.

There are two issues, CO2 and diesel particulates. While not mutually exclusive, they are very different in their consequence. CO2 is a universal issue: it affects all regions of our planet more or less equally. Particulates (from NOx, NH3 and SO2) are a particular problem where there is a high concentration of motor vehicles, especially diesel vehicles. Banning diesel engined vehicles from city centres by providing electric busses and electric cars for hire, and by transferring deliveries to electric vans is a very good short to medium term solution to the particular particulate problem in large cities. It won't solve the CO2 issue, but it is unlikely to make it any worse.

Ideally we would use a bicycle for short journeys, an electric car for medium journeys and our California for long distances. Unfortunately, an electric car was prohibitively expensive for us so we have compromised with a small petrol car for medium journeys. We are not perfect, but the will to change our habits is there.

In the future I look forward to driving into a car park on the outskirts of Bristol, hiring a self driving electric car and visiting the city in that. A sort of utopia perhaps, but what's the point in mocking the dream of a cleaner future? Greta Thunberg has done much to raise public awareness of the issues. She does not deserve to have her name used as a petty insult.

Here here. She is a 16 year old young girl who only wants the future of all our world to be healthy, and indeed @WelshGas, her name should not be used to try and insult or mock someone!

 

[mbenne]

Not really tackling the issue as its just moving the problem onto someone else's patch. Can they stop all other forms of pollution blowing into Bristol?

 

[Dunfermline]

Not really tackling the issue as its just moving the problem onto someone else's patch. Can they stop all other forms of pollution blowing into Bristol?

That doesn’t even warrant an answer. London LEZ highlights just how it can and does work with proceeds funding low emissions technologies. Truly staggering that anyone requires convincing in this day and age that any measure to discourage harmful activities in a closed environment (be it speeding, smoking, pollution) is a benefit.

 

[MarkVw2017]

That doesn’t even warrant an answer. London LEZ highlights just how it can and does work with proceeds funding low emissions technologies. Truly staggering that anyone requires convincing in this day and age that any measure to discourage harmful activities in a closed environment (be it speeding, smoking, pollution) is a benefit.

Did you just warrant that with an answer

 

[WelshGas]

Typical response

From you yes. Do what I say and not what I do.

 

[WelshGas]

Climate change will be resolved by technological and engineering advances not simply banning things. Everyone avoids criticising India, China and other 3 rd world countries who are some of the biggest polluters but they just want what we the western world already have. We should be concentrating on technological advancements to enable that which will lead to a reduction in their birthrate and a reduction in child mortality advances in life expectancy for them and a more stable world, climate and enviroment.
I note that Greta and Extinction Rebellion have not been to or demonstrated in these countries. No, just the Western World where their rights are protected and we have options. The developing countries do not have these options.
The UK accounts for about 1% of world climate emissions. By all means invest in climate friendly technology but instead of beating ourselves up we should be helping the underdeveloped nations to get to our level without increasing , but infact reducing their emissions.

 

[Lightning]

Climate change will be resolved by technological and engineering advances not simply banning things. Everyone avoids criticising India, China and other 3 rd world countries who are some of the biggest polluters but they just want what we the western world already have. We should be concentrating on technological advancements to enable that which will lead to a reduction in their birthrate and a reduction in child mortality advances in life expectancy for them and a more stable world, climate and enviroment.
I note that Greta and Extinction Rebellion have not been to or demonstrated in these countries. No, just the Western World where their rights are protected and we have options. The developing countries do not have these options.
The UK accounts for about 1% of world climate emissions. By all means invest in climate friendly technology but instead of beating ourselves up we should be helping the underdeveloped nations to get to our level without increasing , but infact reducing their emissions.

What relevance do emissions in China have on NOx levels in Bristol city centre? Banning diesels from an area will directly impact NOx levels in that area.

 

[WelshGas]

What relevance do emissions in China have on NOx levels in Bristol city centre? Banning diesels from an area will directly impact NOx levels in that area.

Absolutely nothing, and neither will banning diesels in Bristol. Overall there will be little if any impact on the overall emissions worldwide.
40,000 people / yr have their lifespan shortened by 3 months due to vehicle emissions, so 3 months less in a nursing home. More people will die due to obesity and its effects but its easier to ban diesels than convice people to change their diets.
So we ban diesels and people buy petrol instead. Less particles but more CO2, a climate gas.
There is No joined up thinking, and electric has its dark side, but not in Bristol or the UK.

 

[Lightning]

Absolutely nothing, and neither will banning diesels in Bristol. Overall there will be little if any impact on the overall emissions worldwide.
40,000 people / yr have their lifespan shortened by 3 months due to vehicle emissions, so 3 months less in a nursing home. More people will die due to obesity and its effects but its easier to ban diesels than convice people to change their diets.
So we ban diesels and people buy petrol instead. Less particles but more CO2, a climate gas.
There is No joined up thinking, and electric has its dark side, but not in Bristol or the UK.

I think you are confusing local and global issues. The NOx levels in Bristol are illegally high and have to be reduced locally Banning diesels will address this location specific issue. NOx emissions are a localised air pollution problem affecting air quality.
CO2 emissions are associated with global climate change, and nobody is claiming that banning diesels from city centres will address this in a significant way. I agree that engineering and science will provide the key to this, however as fossil fuel vehicles become unattractive to consumers the commercial incentive to drive such solutions will increase and hopefully accelerate the advances in technology we need.

 

[Velma's Dad]

The UK accounts for about 1% of world climate emissions. By all means invest in climate friendly technology but instead of beating ourselves up we should be helping the underdeveloped nations to get to our level without increasing , but infact reducing their emissions.

I agree with your general point that emissions need to be limited in the developing world not just developed countries. But I think it's important to note that the 1% you reference only accounts for the UK's 'territorial emissions', ie emissions actually arising within the UK. Taking account of all our 'consumption emissions' (ie including the carbon used to make the products we import from, eg, China) takes us closer to 2%. That's still much better than say the USA or Australia, and helped by the big impact on our territorial emissions of the switch from coal to gas and renewables for electricity generation. But nevertheless we remain a bigger part of the problem than people living in the developing world, we have 'outsourced' much of our emissions to them in the form of manufacturing, while we're the ones with the most wealth available to invest in de-carbonisation technologies.

 

[WelshGas]

I think you are confusing local and global issues. The NOx levels in Bristol are illegally high and have to be reduced locally Banning diesels will address this location specific issue. NOx emissions are a localised air pollution problem affecting air quality.
CO2 emissions are associated with global climate change, and nobody is claiming that banning diesels from city centres will address this in a significant way. I agree that engineering and science will provide the key to this, however as fossil fuel vehicles become unattractive to consumers the commercial incentive to drive such solutions will increase and hopefully accelerate the advances in technology we need.

Oh, I'm not confusing local and global issues. This just Nimbism in another form.

 

[Lightning]

Oh, I'm not confusing local and global issues. This just Nimbism in another form.

Ok Boomer

 

[WelshGas]

I agree with your general point that emissions need to be limited in the developing world not just developed countries. But I think it's important to note that the 1% you reference only accounts for the UK's 'territorial emissions', ie emissions actually arising within the UK. Taking account of all our 'consumption emissions' (ie including the carbon used to make the products we import from, eg, China) takes us closer to 2%. That's still much better than say the USA or Australia, and helped by the big impact on our territorial emissions of the switch from coal to gas and renewables for electricity generation. But nevertheless we remain a bigger part of the problem than people living in the developing world, we have 'outsourced' much of our emissions to them in the form of manufacturing, while we're the ones with the most wealth available to invest in de-carbonisation technologies.

And so we should be promoting and helping these other countries, especially those suppling the rare elements need for our fancy batteries and solar panels etc. Are we?

 

[Velma's Dad]

40,000 people / yr have their lifespan shortened by 3 months due to vehicle emissions, so 3 months less in a nursing home. More people will die due to obesity and its effects but its easier to ban diesels than convice people to change their diets.

There are numerous 'competing' estimates of mortality from air pollution. The one you chose looks to be at the optimistic end. I've also seen recent figures (a University of Mainz study) that claim an average 1.5 years loss of life expectancy for the whole population.

But surely there's another, moral, point here: death from obesity is, broadly speaking (ha ha) within the control of the individual. But most people have no control over the air pollution to which they're exposed. It's done to them by other people... ie us in our polluting vehicles.

 

[Velma's Dad]

And so we should be promoting and helping these other countries, especially those suppling the rare elements need for our fancy batteries and solar panels etc. Are we?

Well yes, to some limited degree anyway. A significant chunk of the UK's overseas aid budget is spent on promoting clean technologies.

(Although - ironically in the context of this discussion - a large portion of that is actually focused on achieving a reduction in the estimated 3.8 million deaths annually from indoor air pollution from solid fuel and kerosene cooking stoves. As usual, what actually kills most people is poverty.)

 

[GrannyJen]

No one knows the full effects of NOx.

We do know it's there though, and it's an invisible danger to the health of our children. We therefore need to do something about it.

I was 5 when the Great smog of 1952 prompted the clean air act which came into statute in 1956, 12 when my 4 mile round trip walk to school was through the great smog of 1959 that was the last of the visible smogs, that choking, yellow-black haze that smeared windows, soiled clothes and choked lungs.

The clean air act in 1956 was far more radical than proposals to limit diesel burning in our city centres. It must have seemed fantasy when first proposed, coal was the backbone of the nation since the industrial revolution and powered just about everything. As a child breathing that foul air I thank the people who pushed it through and made it work for my own children. The least I can do now is to think the same for my children's children.

 

[Trevor Brown]

Like others here, I have begun parking outside cities.
It means I can be more careful as to where I park, to ensure as much as I can that it won't be damaged.
It also means that I can find my way to more touristy parts of cities that I might otherwise miss in my endeavours just to find suitable parking.

 

[WelshGas]

No one knows the full effects of NOx.

We do know it's there though, and it's an invisible danger to the health of our children. We therefore need to do something about it.

I was 5 when the Great smog of 1952 prompted the clean air act which came into statute in 1956, 12 when my 4 mile round trip walk to school was through the great smog of 1959 that was the last of the visible smogs, that choking, yellow-black haze that smeared windows, soiled clothes and choked lungs.

The clean air act in 1956 was far more radical than proposals to limit diesel burning in our city centres. It must have seemed fantasy when first proposed, coal was the backbone of the nation since the industrial revolution and powered just about everything. As a child breathing that foul air I thank the people who pushed it through and made it work for my own children. The least I can do now is to think the same for my children's children.

Not a very good comparison as there were alternative fuels available and people didn't have to change their coal fires or boilers.
Just as now, if an alternative fuel became available that could be used, even if more expensive then people would change. Instead certain vehicle types are summarily banned without the infrastructure or economic viability being in place or examined/supported by those in charge.

 

[Lightning]

Not a very good comparison as there were alternative fuels available and people didn't have to change their coal fires or boilers.
Just as now, if an alternative fuel became available that could be used, even if more expensive then people would change. Instead certain vehicle types are summarily banned without the infrastructure or economic viability being in place or examined/supported by those in charge.

There is an alternative fuel available in this case with a complete supporting infrastructure, petrol. The mayor was on the radio explaining that there proposal took so long as they were carefully considering all implications and mitigations. They chose this approach over a blanket Low Emission Zone charging scheme, so that it would not disproportionately affect low income families.

 

[Lightning]

There is an alternative fuel available in this case with a complete supporting infrastructure, petrol. The mayor was on the radio explaining that there proposal took so long as they were carefully considering all implications and mitigations. They chose this approach over a blanket Low Emission Zone charging scheme, so that it would not disproportionately affect low income families.

Their...

 

[Whistler]

There is an alternative fuel available in this case with a complete supporting infrastructure, petrol. The mayor was on the radio explaining that there proposal took so long as they were carefully considering all implications and mitigations. They chose this approach over a blanket Low Emission Zone charging scheme, so that it would not disproportionately affect low income families.

Sorry for most people that is not an affordable alternative. People don't have the money to go out and buy a new car to satisfy a local government policy.

It also doesn't acknowledge that cars are used for multiple purposes. Electric/Petrol may be good for low NOx emissions but it's fuel economy/range is well below that of a diesel. Are we being expected to have an electric/Petrol car for running errands and a Diesel for longer trips?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

 

[WelshGas]

There is an alternative fuel available in this case with a complete supporting infrastructure, petrol. The mayor was on the radio explaining that there proposal took so long as they were carefully considering all implications and mitigations. They chose this approach over a blanket Low Emission Zone charging scheme, so that it would not disproportionately affect low income families.

Have yet to come across a Diesel engine that can run on Petrol. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[GrannyJen]

Not a very good comparison as there were alternative fuels available and people didn't have to change their coal fires or boilers.
Just as now, if an alternative fuel became available that could be used, even if more expensive then people would change. Instead certain vehicle types are summarily banned without the infrastructure or economic viability being in place or examined/supported by those in charge.

No one was making a comparison, except to mindset.

The 1952 smog claimed an immediate 5,000 lives, most historians now agree on something over 10,000. The effect was to focus minds. Out of the blue this smog descended, choked the life out of people, and suddenly "something has to be done" rang bells.

To dismiss the 1956 act is to dismiss one of the bravest and most radical pieces of legislation seen in the Western world. It proved to the then developed world what can be done if minds were focussed. The results were dramatic.

We are facing a similar challenge but because it does not descend out of the sky as a totally obscuring yellow/black cloud we ignore it. It is not a war on diesel, or a search for alternative fuels, it is simply where emissions are being pumped into static air then Nox is pretty unpleasant so let's limit it's impact. It's not a war on diesel, on consumers, on the motor car, on lorries... just a common sense demand of let's protect our most vulnerable people in our most vulnerable areas.

 

[Lightning]

Sorry for most people that is not an affordable alternative. People don't have the money to go out and buy a new car to satisfy a local government policy.

It also doesn't acknowledge that cars are used for multiple purposes. Electric/Petrol may be good for low NOx emissions but it's fuel economy/range is well below that of a diesel. Are we being expected to have an electric/Petrol car for running errands and a Diesel for longer trips?

Sent from my HUAW

Sorry for most people that is not an affordable alternative. People don't have the money to go out and buy a new car to satisfy a local government policy.

It also doesn't acknowledge that cars are used for multiple purposes. Electric/Petrol may be good for low NOx emissions but it's fuel economy/range is well below that of a diesel. Are we being expected to have an electric/Petrol car for running errands and a Diesel for longer trips?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

You don’t have to buy a new car, you can exchange it or downgrade to a petrol car of equal or less value.l, or work around the time restrictions.

If you need to use a car regularly in the affected area at the affected times then it will no longer bevacceptable to have a diesel. The council are legally obligated to improve the air quality. I think not poisoning people takes priority over fuel economy. The higher CO2 emissions of petrol engines are a problem which will no doubt be targeted by governments as soon.as, or possibly before electric cars become a viable alternative.

Bristol is a great place except for the traffic. I let my flat out there now but lived there for years, I also have a petrol Cali, so I don’t see any problem with their plans.