If you thought changing to an EV would be the end of the matter. Beware.

[Beaker]

We are no longer subject to EU standards now we resigned our membership. I wonder if the 2025 Labour government will adopt Euro 7 anyway.

We took Vinnie to the Italian Lakes last year via Northern Milan. Sooooo much slow traffic! If anyone needs reduced emissions it those poor Milanians.

Not really the point as it is the manufacturers that have to design and meet the requirement, so we will be getting it by default. I am sure any system that uses the emissions from a vehicle to limit pollution in a city will use EURO7 as a standard to set the charge to as well.

 

[clarinetbcn]

Sorry @WelshGas but you are not going to convince with reason and facts the religiously infatuated EV supporters.
Not even if you or the govt would address the big elephant in the room which is the CO2 production at the beginning of the life of an EV, starting from the extractions of the material needed. Unfortunately the break even point of 80,000mi (when EVs were beginning to be really emitting less CO2 in their lifetime compared to ICE vehicles) has been pushed further up by the complaint of range limitations of BEVs, leading to an increase of battery' size and relevant quantity and cost of raw material needed and CO2 to source them. Of course the bigger batteries do impact weight an that impacts PM2,5 emissions too.
This is all irrelevant, because the mass just want an EV no matter what. It is a big group who also vote, hence the dumbest decisions from the Govt and ever dumber in EU-rope.

You haven't addressed that it is the auto manufactures who are now driving the change to electric, because they are so much cheaper to make and assemble and they can be sold at a premium. Volkswagen has already announced that the switch to electric will result in a 30% reduction of the their work force due to simplification of manufacture and assembly.

 

[Kenny Marsh]

Good, I barely use my brakes in the Tesla

Good point, I've had a Lexus ct200h Hybrid from new, the brake pads lasted over 8 years and 125k, I'm convinced its down to regenerative braking as with EV's.

 

[The Tall Luthier]

You haven't addressed that it is the auto manufactures who are now driving the change to electric, because they are so much cheaper to make and assemble and they can be sold at a premium. Volkswagen has already announced that the switch to electric will result in a 30% reduction of the their work force due to simplification of manufacture and assembly.

I think added to this, there is a huge push by manufacturers to make cars out of renewables. Manufacturers seem to be aware that eventually raw materials will be in decline so they will become more expensive, as a result they are making them with a view to recycling them after use.

Electric engines make this task easier still.

 

[Adno]

Future of European caravanning.
We allow our freedom to be taken away piece by piece, People in Europe are increasingly enslaved by technocrats from Brussels, in the name of misunderstood ecology

 

[Adno]

I wonder if tanks and other military vehicles meet Euro 6 standards during the war in Ukraine. Wake up Europe!!!

 

[flying banana]

i see khans trying to bring in a 'pay as you drive' scheme now into the massive london ulez. that will include every vehicle i'm assuming.

 

[clarinetbcn]

Future of European caravanning.
We allow our freedom to be taken away piece by piece, People in Europe are increasingly enslaved by technocrats from Brussels, in the name of misunderstood ecology

View attachment 105615

"enslaved." Someone did not receive an education in critical analytical thinking.

Perhaps we should follow the UK's example of leaving Europe in order to be free to dump raw sewage on our beaches and rivers without pesky regulation from Brussels. The UK's privatized water companies are "free" to divert income away from maintainance and improved infrastructure to paying stockholder dividends while the general public tries to avoid clumps of feces.

Raw sewage dumped into English and Welsh beaches '2,900 times this year'

Exclusive: public health and environment at risk as water companies overuse emergency overflows, says pressure group

www.theguardian.com

Southern Water ‘dumps sewage 493 times in eight days at bathing beaches’

Campaigners condemning ‘environmental vandalism’ say equivalent of five months of discharges made so far in November

www.theguardian.com

How much raw sewage is being released into the sea?

As the rain returns to drought-parched England and Wales, so has the sewage.

www.newstatesman.com

 

[WelshGas]

"enslaved." Someone did not receive an education in critical analytical thinking.

Perhaps we should follow the UK's example of leaving Europe in order to be free to dump raw sewage on our beaches and rivers without pesky regulation from Brussels. The UK's privatized water companies are "free" to divert income away from maintainance and improved infrastructure to paying stockholder dividends while the general public tries to avoid clumps of feces.

Raw sewage dumped into English and Welsh beaches '2,900 times this year'

Exclusive: public health and environment at risk as water companies overuse emergency overflows, says pressure group

www.theguardian.com

Southern Water ‘dumps sewage 493 times in eight days at bathing beaches’

Campaigners condemning ‘environmental vandalism’ say equivalent of five months of discharges made so far in November

www.theguardian.com

How much raw sewage is being released into the sea?

As the rain returns to drought-parched England and Wales, so has the sewage.

www.newstatesman.com

Swimming in sewage: How can we fix Europe’s smelly rivers?

Europe’s cities are struggling to keep untreated sewage out of their rivers, and the impacts of climate change are making it worse. But one company has come up with a solution.

www.euronews.com

Tourists in Europe are swimming in raw sewage despite 'Blue Flags' • Water News Europe

Despite blue flags tourists on several European coasts are swimming in raw sewage due to summer peaks and illegal discharges.

www.waternewseurope.com

Press corner

Highlights, press releases and speeches

ec.europa.eu

MALAGA & COSTA DEL SOL: WASTEWATER PURIFICATION | C&D Solicitors

The situation of wastewater purification in Costa del Sol, environmental consequences for municipalities like Nerja and Coín. The purification in the DAFO.

www.cdsolicitors.com

Inquiry ramps up into raw sewage illegally dumped in the sea or rivers by town councils

The minister for the Interior has confirmed that a judge has now taken over the investigation into some members, past and present, of two local councils and the dumping of untreat

www.surinenglish.com

 

[clarinetbcn]

Thanks for these articles, which show that Southern Europe continues to struggle to improve treatment of sewage. The contrast with the UK couldn’t be starker: whereas once the UK was the example to be followed, under the current government the UK has “loosened its bowels” on its public waterways.

 

[Amarillo]

Thanks for these articles, which show that Southern Europe continues to struggle to improve treatment of sewage. The contrast with the UK couldn’t be starker: whereas once the UK was the example to be followed, under the current government the UK has “loosened its bowels” on its public waterways.

Effluent flowing into Britain’s rivers and beaches has been going on for decades during heavy rain. Treatment plants have never been able to cope with storm water which uses the same sewers as domestic waste.

London’s solution is a massive 25km, 7.2m diameter super sewer under the Thames to hold storm water until it can be treated in Beckton.

The more serious charge against the water companies, not yet proven, is the dumping of raw sewage into the waterways, under the cover of storms, to save treatment costs.

But water companies love an excuse for big projects. Being a monopoly they can seek the regulator’s permission to hike prices to pay for the capital expenditure, and thus raise profits for their shareholders. So it is probably in the better interests of water companies to build huge storm water holding tanks (as Thames Water in London is doing) than save a few pence by emptying small concentrated holding tanks whenever a thunderstorm passes.

 

[Digger]

Are the water companies not foreign owned?

 

[WelshGas]

Are the water companies not foreign owned?

Many are.

 

[The Tall Luthier]

i see khans trying to bring in a 'pay as you drive' scheme now into the massive london ulez. that will include every vehicle i'm assuming.

It’s certainly a radical move to put residents health above out ‘right to drive’. I guess the polls will determine the success rate.

TFL believe that 80% of the cars would be exempt at the moment and that the purpose is to get the other 20% out of London.

I assume that as time goes on all ICE cars will be subject to charging.

 

[The Tall Luthier]

Are the water companies not foreign owned?

Some are, some are owned by banks, some by other country’s water companies.

We have a strange relationship with who owns our National infrastructure. E hate the idea of it being state owned, cos reasons, but we are happy for other states to own it.

Water companies have taken over £60 BILLION in dividends out of our bills in 30 years. This is money that should have been used to invest in infrastructure.

Anyway this is a thread hijack, let’s get back to EVs

 

[WelshGas]

It’s certainly a radical move to put residents health above out ‘right to drive’. I guess the polls will determine the success rate.

TFL believe that 80% of the cars would be exempt at the moment and that the purpose is to get the other 20% out of London.

I assume that as time goes on all ICE cars will be subject to charging.

This is where Kahn is being deliberately confusing.
IC cars contribute to climate change via CO2 and N20 production + Enviromental Pollution via PM 2.5 particles which cause Health Problems.
EV cars contribute to Enviromental Pollution via PM 2.5 particles only if the electricity used for charging is green.
So The London ULEZ will do nothing for PM 2.5 Enviromental Pollution, unless ALL vehicles are taxed for every mile covered.

 

[Amarillo]

This is where Kahn is being deliberately confusing.
IC cars contribute to climate change via CO2 and N20 production + Enviromental Pollution via PM 2.5 particles which cause Health Problems.
EV cars contribute to Enviromental Pollution via PM 2.5 particles only if the electricity used for charging is green.
So The London ULEZ will do nothing for PM 2.5 Enviromental Pollution, unless ALL vehicles are taxed for every mile covered.

While undoubtedly an improvement on the blonde bimbo that preceded him, Khan is being a little disingenuous about the ULEZ expansion. Once the cameras are in place London will have three concentric rings of ANPR cameras under the stewardship of the Mayor and their successors.

This will lead to very powerful revenue raising possibilities:
1. £5 to enter Greater London
2. Plus £5 to enter Inner London
3. Plus £10 to enter Central London

Or something like that.

But London, and specifically TfL, will receive nothing from central Government for roads, once the post pandemic bail out funding ends. This means that road users would pay NOTHING for the upkeep of London’s roads outside the congestion zone.

TfL’s main source of funding is from fare paying passengers. It cannot be right that fare paying passengers subsidise those using London’s roads (though the opposite: road users subsidising public transport is acceptable).

As a Londoner I fully support any future plan to charge motorists for using London’s roads. But I do think Khan should be honest about what he is trying to achieve.

 

[The Tall Luthier]

While undoubtedly an improvement on the blonde bimbo that preceded him, Khan is being a little disingenuous about the ULEZ expansion. Once the cameras are in place London will have three concentric rings of ANPR cameras under the stewardship of the Mayor and their successors.

This will lead to very powerful revenue raising possibilities:
1. £5 to enter Greater London
2. Plus £5 to enter Inner London
3. Plus £10 to enter Central London

Or something like that.

But London, and specifically TfL, will receive nothing from central Government for roads, once the post pandemic bail out funding ends. This means that road users would pay NOTHING for the upkeep of London’s roads outside the congestion zone.

TfL’s main source of funding is from fare paying passengers. It cannot be right that fare paying passengers subsidise those using London’s roads (though the opposite: road users subsidising public transport is acceptable).

As a Londoner I fully support any future plan to charge motorists for using London’s roads. But I do think Khan should be honest about what he is trying to achieve.

In what way is he being disingenuous?

I read the tfl release, it seems that the data suggests Londoners are being poisoned, that this action may move that pollution out of London.

ULEZ Expansion 2023

To help clear London's air, the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expanded across all London boroughs on 29 August 2023.

tfl.gov.uk

Do you mean that this has more to do with revenue raising than it does environment? If so that’s a very risky election tactic.

 

[WelshGas]

While undoubtedly an improvement on the blonde bimbo that preceded him, Khan is being a little disingenuous about the ULEZ expansion. Once the cameras are in place London will have three concentric rings of ANPR cameras under the stewardship of the Mayor and their successors.

This will lead to very powerful revenue raising possibilities:
1. £5 to enter Greater London
2. Plus £5 to enter Inner London
3. Plus £10 to enter Central London

Or something like that.

But London, and specifically TfL, will receive nothing from central Government for roads, once the post pandemic bail out funding ends. This means that road users would pay NOTHING for the upkeep of London’s roads outside the congestion zone.

TfL’s main source of funding is from fare paying passengers. It cannot be right that fare paying passengers subsidise those using London’s roads (though the opposite: road users subsidising public transport is acceptable).

As a Londoner I fully support any future plan to charge motorists for using London’s roads. But I do think Khan should be honest about what he is trying to achieve.

Tax cyclists and pedestrians?
Tourist Tax.
Delivery Tax.
Or charge the proper rate for Public Transport, linked to underground and train drivers wages.

 

[The Tall Luthier]

Tax cyclists and pedestrians?
Tourist Tax.
Delivery Tax.
Or charge the proper rate for Public Transport, linked to underground and train drivers wages.

How would you propose taxing pedestrians @WelshGas ?
Why wouldn’t you want to subsidise public transport? Surely if it helps everyone get to work economically then it’s a good thing?

 

[Amarillo]

In what way is he being disingenuous?

I read the tfl release, it seems that the data suggests Londoners are being poisoned, that this action may move that pollution out of London.

ULEZ Expansion 2023

To help clear London's air, the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expanded across all London boroughs on 29 August 2023.

tfl.gov.uk

Do you mean that this has more to do with revenue raising than it does environment? If so that’s a very risky election tactic.

Pretty much that in your final paragraph. He sells the ULEZ purely as a clean air initiative. But as I illustrated, it is also a very powerful revenue raising initiative. As already set out, I’m not against that: it is beyond time that those using London’s roads paid for them. But at the very least Khan should be honest about this.

 

[Amarillo]

Tax cyclists and pedestrians?
Tourist Tax.
Delivery Tax.
Or charge the proper rate for Public Transport, linked to underground and train drivers wages.

Cyclists, pedestrians, equestrians, and others, use London’s streets by right and pay through their Council tax.

Motorists, on the other hand, use the road under licence and pay nothing additional to maintain London’s roads (unless they stray into the very central area, or use an older non-compliant vehicle in the ULEZ).

Public transport users already pay for their use of public transport and also for the upkeep of London’s roads.

I’d support the use of technology to make London’s tube trains driverless. It works perfectly well on the 90s Docklands Light Railway.

 

[andyinluton]

Motorists, on the other hand, use the road under licence and pay nothing additional to maintain London’s roads (unless they stray into the very central area, or use an older non-compliant vehicle in the ULEZ).

Why should any motorist pay to specifically use roads in London?
If we have to pay to drive in London, Isn't it reasonable to set up tolls on the M1 through Bedfordshire ( Bedfordshire residents exempt from charges of course ) and use that money to subsidise Bedfordshire public transport.

 

[Digger]

Motorists are now a source of income to councils and government. The issue of pollution has to be addressed but these actions in revenue raising are just taxation and easy money.

 

[Amarillo]

Why should any motorist pay to specifically use roads in London?
If we have to pay to drive in London, Isn't it reasonable to set up tolls on the M1 through Bedfordshire ( Bedfordshire residents exempt from charges of course ) and use that money to subsidise Bedfordshire public transport.

The M1 through Bedfordshire is maintained by the Department of Transport and paid for by the taxpayer, which includes tax revenue from VED and fuel duty.

London’s streets receive no money from the exchequer. The biggest source of TfL’s revenue is public transport fares.

So while a portion of the fuel duty and VED I pay goes towards maintaining Bedfordshire’s roads, not a penny of someone from Bedfordshire’s VED or fuel duty goes towards London’s streets.