| Topic: | Re:Re:Other people are always the problem | |
| Posted by: | David Parker | |
| Date/Time: | 15/02/19 12:08:00 |
| 'the statement that "NO2 is not a fossil fuel" is a nonsense in itself - volatile organic compounds and small particulates (to attack the issue of pollution.' You don't understand what fossil fuels and related emissions are and why they are harmful. As they ultimately derive from animals and plants they will contain carbon. There never have been any nitrogen based life forms on this planet. 'Euro 5 and 6 diesels may emit fewer particulates but only if the filters are maintained' Which they have to be because the filter is checked as part of the MOT test. "Comprehensively wrong: there is a vast amount of research demonstrating the health effects" There is no such research that convincingly makes the link simply because there is no instance of NO2 existing independently of particulates so it is impossible to test. One of the links you gave lumps NO2 in with other pollutants and the other concludes it is harmful not based on original research but by looking at a number of other studies most of which had not concluded that it wasn't. 'Wrong again: a dual approach is needed to reduce traffic: by making it more difficult by taxation or restrictions (the stick) and by improving alternatives (the carrot).' The stick method that you are so fond of doesn't seem to be working. Motor vehicle journeys did fall quite sharply up until around 2010 as taxation and other factors increased cost but since then there has been little decline despite further increases in cost brought about by policy. This would be indicating to any sensible person that demand has become inelastic to any changes in cost. This means that if you further increase taxes on motoring the extra cost will be absorbed by the motorist or passed onto the consumer. That your proposed policies wouldn't be effective is the least of the reasons for objecting. The far larger problem is that they will act as a highly regressive tax. Branding vehicles as 'dirty diesels' gives Transport for London and local authorities a great excuse for raising charges on these type of vehicle but most of them that are regularly driven around London will be for people in relatively low paid occupations. Nearly all of London's mini-cabs are run on diesel because of their greater fuel efficiency. Wealthy individuals can easily dodge these extra charges by upgrade to an exempt car which they probably would have done earlier but someone struggling to make a living may not be able to do that. Basically bad science is being used to justify revenue raising measures that will provide no benefit to the fight against climate change or to our air quality but will hit some of the less well off but hardest working sections of our society. |