| Topic: | Other people are always the problem | |
| Posted by: | David Parker | |
| Date/Time: | 15/02/19 09:16:00 |
| This confused self-regarding nonsense is more about trying to prove how amazing the world would be if everyone was like him rather than genuinely tackling the problem of emissions. The fact that he has little grasp of this complex issue is made clear in his first paragraph where he shows he doesn't understand balance that needs to be struck between combatting global warming and improving air quality. Reduction of fossil fuels is a major issue but NO2 is not a fossil fuel it is a by-product of the process by which a diesel engine functions. So a choice needs to be made - is our primary focus global warming or air quality? Diesel fuel was originally promoted in this country because it results in lower CO2 emission and lower fossil fuel use. It continues to do so. However, it does issue more NO2 leading to Mr Carter's use of the term 'dirty diesels'. In fact a Euro 5 or Euro 6 standard diesel emits virtually no particulates due to the filters that they have fitted. The problem that raises is there is no reliable research that convincingly demonstrates that NO2, even in the most elevated levels seen in urban areas, does any damage to health. Totally effective filters are not viable on larger vehicles so high NO2 levels always coincide with high particulate emissions. There is no dispute that particulates are very bad for people's health but the Government's own advisory panel has recently downgraded the health risk presented by NO2 in acknowledgement of the lack of evidence that it causes any extra harm. Therefore by switching policy emphasis away from combatting fossil fuels and CO2 by discouraging diesels all that is going to be achieved is a slight reduction in levels of an emission that may well be harmless. It is worse that that however. While various claims have been made about the reduction of life expectancy due to poor air quality have been made, the evidence is a bit sketchy. What there is overwhelming data on is how life expectancy more than anything is linked to income. Therefore if you genuinely don't want more people to die, the last thing that you should do is propose the kind of highly regressive tax that Mr Carter is so enthusiastic for. He has zero conception of what a significant negative such taxes can be for people on relatively low income and they couldn't be more carefully targeted to hit the working poor. Lots of people who need a car to take their tools to work don't make enough to get a new car every few years. I think it is a safe bet that Mr Carter never was employed in a job that required him to work with a tool. There is already a warning from France where the Gilets Jaunes movement has sprung up primarily due to a reaction to sharp rises in fuel costs. It is perfectly understandable that people will react if their already low income is being squeezed. It will be of little comfort to them that notionally the policy aims to reduce air pollution. The problem with Mr Carter's idea that all would be fine if we used a double pannier to collect our shopping is that it is a complete fantasy. Even a non-car owner generates a significant amount of vehicle movements every day by the requirement to deliver them food and services. It is easy for somebody whose lifestyle does not require the use of a car to smugly assume that all traffic on the road serves no good purpose but the reality is the proportion of vehicle journeys that are unnecessary is tiny. Therefore you are not going to solve the problem by punitive regressive taxes which won't do anything to improve air quality. Ultimately the only way to reduce road traffic is to make the alternatives better and the only way to improve air quality is through technology. |