The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
Is that from the lse article or the source material?0
-
-
That's not the point I am making though, is it - see the last sentence in my post above.kingstongraham said:
I'm sure that all happened without intervention from government busybodies.Stevo_666 said:Air pollution levels have showed a pretty constant downward trend over time.
The big drops predate any ULEZ.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How do we know there is not some misinformation campaign from the ecobollox brigade? We know that Khan tried to suppress scientific evidence showing that the impact of the expansion would be minimal.rick_chasey said:Do you actually read this stuff?
A misinformation campaign about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone is being led by a small but noisy group whose unscientific and unrepresentative views are being amplified by parts of the media. They are attempting to mislead the public by misrepresenting the threat from air pollution in London and the effectiveness of the ULEZ in combating this problem. Many of the proponents of this misinformation also have a track record of inaccurate claims about climate change.
The published evidence shows clearly that concentrations of air pollution have declined across London due to the ULEZ, but remain above the safe limits set by the World Health Organization."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I mean, the Grantham Institute is a world leading research arm of Imperial College London, focused not only on climate change research, but its "real world" implications.
The entire institute is set up to help evaluate business and public policy as it relates to the climate and sustainability, and improve communications on the topics.0 -
It can be more complex than that. The scientists who Khan commissioned to do his ULEZ research received the best part of £1m from City Hall from their efforts. I'm sure that would have in no way affected their impartiality....rick_chasey said:I mean, the Grantham Institute is a world leading research arm of Imperial College London, focused not only on climate change research, but its "real world" implications.
The entire institute is set up to help evaluate business and public policy as it relates to the climate and sustainability, and improve communications on the topics.
See also the Glasgow ULEZ results I posted - what do you think of that?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well you seem very certain that you know who the charge will affect so I'm assuming you are basing this on something other than just your assumptions.First.Aspect said:
Do they even exist, these data?briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.
When I looked there was definitely information there but it did contradict your claim, so maybe there is some other information.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Lol. Modern engines are cleaner than 1970s. We stopped burning coal. Bears; woods, etc. We're interested in the bit on the right. The fact that it was significantly worse 50 years ago is good to know, but a few of those curves are turning upwards rather than continuing the downward trend.Stevo_666 said:Air pollution levels have showed a pretty constant downward trend over time.
The big drops predate any ULEZ.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Give me a minute I'm just tearing the last shreds off that opinion piece.rick_chasey said:I'll take that as a no, you don't.
0 -
Bob Ward "has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry".
I'm more qualified than Bob, in a more relevant subject. But as you say, I don't have a scoobies, so let's not blindly trust Bob either.
Let's pick through his article. "A misinformation campaign about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone ...yadda... Many of the proponents of this misinformation also have a track record of inaccurate claims about climate change."
Opinion only. Lets move on.
Most of the article is background:
1.- What are the origins of the ULEZ?
2. - How does air pollution harm health?
3. - Air pollution policy in the UK
4. - Declines in air pollution in recent years but some breaches of UK and WHO limits
1 is just factual information. 2-4 don't have anything to do with ULEZ at all.
Then we get to
5. Evidence for the positive impacts of the ULEZ on air pollution and health
The evidence he cites:
(a) Overall, the authors found an average reduction of less than 3% in nitrogen dioxide levels, and insignificant changes in PM2.5 concentrations.
This is the Imperial study that goes on to state that those changes don't correspond to significant health outcomes.
(b) "Another study" found statistically significant reductions in nitrogen dioxide levels in the first 90 days after the introduction of the ULEZ at 16 sites across London, compared with the same period in 2018
The article itself isn't available, but the abstract is. It states, "Findings indicate that the ULEZ contributed to a decrease of air pollution and is an effective policy for reducing air pollution, which can also lead to public health benefits."
But it doesn't draw that vital link between the measurement sites and the public health benefits. More on this below.
(c) The Mayor of London published in February 2023 an assessment of the first year of the ULEZ after its expansion to the North Circular and South Circular Roads in October 2021.
So the Mayor has decided he was right. Incidentally, (c) is commented on by the authors of (a), who specifically criticise the methodology as grossly exaggerating the effects. Won't try again to explain why to you. Bob, it seems, is happy to cited two studies that contradict one another, and assert that they say the same thing. Not sure he's read (a) at all, in that case.
(d) A review of studies published in July 2023 in The Lancet Public Health on low emission zones around the world (not including London’s ULEZ) found positive air pollution-related health outcomes, with the most consistent effect being on cardiovascular disease.
Evidence supporting the effectiveness of ULEZ is based on other schemes. Okay, well, not helpful at all then.
The only possible support is left to article (b). Setting aside that it uses data outside ULEZ as a control, which the authors of (a) take issue with, it only says the levels of NO2 show a statistically significant change. The authors of (a) also measure a change (I think 3% is statistically significant), but they make an effort to draw a connection between these changes and both average personal exposure and public health. Their conclusion is that it doesn't make a significant difference.
Hard to comment further without seeing (b). But they are using a third party's monitoring stations (https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicdetails.asp) and there are many more than 16 of them, so I wonder which 16 that the authors of (b) selected and why.
6. A rant about climate change deniers, which is besides the point because ULEZ isn't about climate change.
Other than that, it's a well researched article by a nearly qualified geologist.2 -
Aren't those upward trends after 2019?rjsterry said:
Lol. Modern engines are cleaner than 1970s. We stopped burning coal. Bears; woods, etc. We're interested in the bit on the right. The fact that it was significantly worse 50 years ago is good to know, but a few of those curves are turning upwards rather than continuing the downward trend.Stevo_666 said:Air pollution levels have showed a pretty constant downward trend over time.
The big drops predate any ULEZ.0 -
Always happy to be wrong. To be honest I don't even know where to look. Are you looking for overall London demographics, or specifically the demographics of non-ULEZ compliant vehicle owners or somesuch. I think the former would be readily available but I'm not sure what it really tells you about the latter.rjsterry said:
Well you seem very certain that you know who the charge will affect so I'm assuming you are basing this on something other than just your assumptions.First.Aspect said:
Do they even exist, these data?briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.
When I looked there was definitely information there but it did contradict your claim, so maybe there is some other information.0 -
I started with car ownership demographics in Greater London. As posted, ownership in households with pre-tax income <£25k was about 26%, so 3/4 have no access to a car. Poorest boroughs are nearly all inner London where car ownership is lower anyway.First.Aspect said:
Always happy to be wrong. To be honest I don't even know where to look. Are you looking for overall London demographics, or specifically the demographics of non-ULEZ compliant vehicle owners or somesuch. I think the former would be readily available but I'm not sure what it really tells you about the latter.rjsterry said:
Well you seem very certain that you know who the charge will affect so I'm assuming you are basing this on something other than just your assumptions.First.Aspect said:
Do they even exist, these data?briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.
When I looked there was definitely information there but it did contradict your claim, so maybe there is some other information.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Exactly - the big improvements have nothing to domwith ULEZ as I said above. In fact the little uptick in the last year or so may coincide with the introduction of ULEZ, which if the Glasgow experience is anything to go by doesn't bode wellrjsterry said:
Lol. Modern engines are cleaner than 1970s. We stopped burning coal. Bears; woods, etc. We're interested in the bit on the right. The fact that it was significantly worse 50 years ago is good to know, but a few of those curves are turning upwards rather than continuing the downward trend.Stevo_666 said:Air pollution levels have showed a pretty constant downward trend over time.
The big drops predate any ULEZ.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
First.Aspect said:
Bob Ward "has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry".
I'm more qualified than Bob, in a more relevant subject. But as you say, I don't have a scoobies, so let's not blindly trust Bob either.
Let's pick through his article. "A misinformation campaign about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone ...yadda... Many of the proponents of this misinformation also have a track record of inaccurate claims about climate change."
Opinion only. Lets move on.
Most of the article is background:
1.- What are the origins of the ULEZ?
2. - How does air pollution harm health?
3. - Air pollution policy in the UK
4. - Declines in air pollution in recent years but some breaches of UK and WHO limits
1 is just factual information. 2-4 don't have anything to do with ULEZ at all.
Then we get to
5. Evidence for the positive impacts of the ULEZ on air pollution and health
The evidence he cites:
(a) Overall, the authors found an average reduction of less than 3% in nitrogen dioxide levels, and insignificant changes in PM2.5 concentrations.
This is the Imperial study that goes on to state that those changes don't correspond to significant health outcomes.
(b) "Another study" found statistically significant reductions in nitrogen dioxide levels in the first 90 days after the introduction of the ULEZ at 16 sites across London, compared with the same period in 2018
The article itself isn't available, but the abstract is. It states, "Findings indicate that the ULEZ contributed to a decrease of air pollution and is an effective policy for reducing air pollution, which can also lead to public health benefits."
But it doesn't draw that vital link between the measurement sites and the public health benefits. More on this below.
(c) The Mayor of London published in February 2023 an assessment of the first year of the ULEZ after its expansion to the North Circular and South Circular Roads in October 2021.
So the Mayor has decided he was right. Incidentally, (c) is commented on by the authors of (a), who specifically criticise the methodology as grossly exaggerating the effects. Won't try again to explain why to you. Bob, it seems, is happy to cited two studies that contradict one another, and assert that they say the same thing. Not sure he's read (a) at all, in that case.
(d) A review of studies published in July 2023 in The Lancet Public Health on low emission zones around the world (not including London’s ULEZ) found positive air pollution-related health outcomes, with the most consistent effect being on cardiovascular disease.
Evidence supporting the effectiveness of ULEZ is based on other schemes. Okay, well, not helpful at all then.
The only possible support is left to article (b). Setting aside that it uses data outside ULEZ as a control, which the authors of (a) take issue with, it only says the levels of NO2 show a statistically significant change. The authors of (a) also measure a change (I think 3% is statistically significant), but they make an effort to draw a connection between these changes and both average personal exposure and public health. Their conclusion is that it doesn't make a significant difference.
Hard to comment further without seeing (b). But they are using a third party's monitoring stations (https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicdetails.asp) and there are many more than 16 of them, so I wonder which 16 that the authors of (b) selected and why.
6. A rant about climate change deniers, which is besides the point because ULEZ isn't about climate change.
Other than that, it's a well researched article by a nearly qualified geologist.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Lol I wouldn’t do very well in my world if you think you’re more qualified than the director of policy and comms at the Grantham institute, but anyway. (Hint, qualies don’t count for much)First.Aspect said:Bob Ward "has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry".
I'm more qualified than Bob, in a more relevant subject. But as you say, I don't have a scoobies, so let's not blindly trust Bob either.
Let's pick through his article. "A misinformation campaign about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone ...yadda... Many of the proponents of this misinformation also have a track record of inaccurate claims about climate change."
Opinion only. Lets move on.
Most of the article is background:
1.- What are the origins of the ULEZ?
2. - How does air pollution harm health?
3. - Air pollution policy in the UK
4. - Declines in air pollution in recent years but some breaches of UK and WHO limits
1 is just factual information. 2-4 don't have anything to do with ULEZ at all.
Then we get to
5. Evidence for the positive impacts of the ULEZ on air pollution and health
The evidence he cites:
(a) Overall, the authors found an average reduction of less than 3% in nitrogen dioxide levels, and insignificant changes in PM2.5 concentrations.
This is the Imperial study that goes on to state that those changes don't correspond to significant health outcomes.
(b) "Another study" found statistically significant reductions in nitrogen dioxide levels in the first 90 days after the introduction of the ULEZ at 16 sites across London, compared with the same period in 2018
The article itself isn't available, but the abstract is. It states, "Findings indicate that the ULEZ contributed to a decrease of air pollution and is an effective policy for reducing air pollution, which can also lead to public health benefits."
But it doesn't draw that vital link between the measurement sites and the public health benefits. More on this below.
(c) The Mayor of London published in February 2023 an assessment of the first year of the ULEZ after its expansion to the North Circular and South Circular Roads in October 2021.
So the Mayor has decided he was right. Incidentally, (c) is commented on by the authors of (a), who specifically criticise the methodology as grossly exaggerating the effects. Won't try again to explain why to you. Bob, it seems, is happy to cited two studies that contradict one another, and assert that they say the same thing. Not sure he's read (a) at all, in that case.
(d) A review of studies published in July 2023 in The Lancet Public Health on low emission zones around the world (not including London’s ULEZ) found positive air pollution-related health outcomes, with the most consistent effect being on cardiovascular disease.
Evidence supporting the effectiveness of ULEZ is based on other schemes. Okay, well, not helpful at all then.
The only possible support is left to article (b). Setting aside that it uses data outside ULEZ as a control, which the authors of (a) take issue with, it only says the levels of NO2 show a statistically significant change. The authors of (a) also measure a change (I think 3% is statistically significant), but they make an effort to draw a connection between these changes and both average personal exposure and public health. Their conclusion is that it doesn't make a significant difference.
Hard to comment further without seeing (b). But they are using a third party's monitoring stations (https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicdetails.asp) and there are many more than 16 of them, so I wonder which 16 that the authors of (b) selected and why.
6. A rant about climate change deniers, which is besides the point because ULEZ isn't about climate change.
Other than that, it's a well researched article by a nearly qualified geologist.
If you can’t make the leap between reduction in pollution and improvement in public health I can’t help you.0 -
I literally have more qualifications, but you don't think I have any relevant qualifications. And I can't help if it's an article that is as well researched as a Guardian opinion piece.rick_chasey said:
Lol I wouldn’t do very well in my world if you think you’re more qualified than the director of policy and comms at the Grantham institute, but anyway.First.Aspect said:Bob Ward "has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry".
I'm more qualified than Bob, in a more relevant subject. But as you say, I don't have a scoobies, so let's not blindly trust Bob either.
Let's pick through his article. "A misinformation campaign about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone ...yadda... Many of the proponents of this misinformation also have a track record of inaccurate claims about climate change."
Opinion only. Lets move on.
Most of the article is background:
1.- What are the origins of the ULEZ?
2. - How does air pollution harm health?
3. - Air pollution policy in the UK
4. - Declines in air pollution in recent years but some breaches of UK and WHO limits
1 is just factual information. 2-4 don't have anything to do with ULEZ at all.
Then we get to
5. Evidence for the positive impacts of the ULEZ on air pollution and health
The evidence he cites:
(a) Overall, the authors found an average reduction of less than 3% in nitrogen dioxide levels, and insignificant changes in PM2.5 concentrations.
This is the Imperial study that goes on to state that those changes don't correspond to significant health outcomes.
(b) "Another study" found statistically significant reductions in nitrogen dioxide levels in the first 90 days after the introduction of the ULEZ at 16 sites across London, compared with the same period in 2018
The article itself isn't available, but the abstract is. It states, "Findings indicate that the ULEZ contributed to a decrease of air pollution and is an effective policy for reducing air pollution, which can also lead to public health benefits."
But it doesn't draw that vital link between the measurement sites and the public health benefits. More on this below.
(c) The Mayor of London published in February 2023 an assessment of the first year of the ULEZ after its expansion to the North Circular and South Circular Roads in October 2021.
So the Mayor has decided he was right. Incidentally, (c) is commented on by the authors of (a), who specifically criticise the methodology as grossly exaggerating the effects. Won't try again to explain why to you. Bob, it seems, is happy to cited two studies that contradict one another, and assert that they say the same thing. Not sure he's read (a) at all, in that case.
(d) A review of studies published in July 2023 in The Lancet Public Health on low emission zones around the world (not including London’s ULEZ) found positive air pollution-related health outcomes, with the most consistent effect being on cardiovascular disease.
Evidence supporting the effectiveness of ULEZ is based on other schemes. Okay, well, not helpful at all then.
The only possible support is left to article (b). Setting aside that it uses data outside ULEZ as a control, which the authors of (a) take issue with, it only says the levels of NO2 show a statistically significant change. The authors of (a) also measure a change (I think 3% is statistically significant), but they make an effort to draw a connection between these changes and both average personal exposure and public health. Their conclusion is that it doesn't make a significant difference.
Hard to comment further without seeing (b). But they are using a third party's monitoring stations (https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicdetails.asp) and there are many more than 16 of them, so I wonder which 16 that the authors of (b) selected and why.
6. A rant about climate change deniers, which is besides the point because ULEZ isn't about climate change.
Other than that, it's a well researched article by a nearly qualified geologist.
If you can’t make the leap between reduction in pollution and improvement in public health I can’t help you.
I can make the leap between reducing pollution and public health, but I can't make the leap between ULEZ and public health. This distinction seems to be beyond you, and is at the crux of poor policy making.
0 -
I can make a link between ULEZ and the public purse though.1
-
Is this just another way of saying it's not affecting many people, so it's okay?rjsterry said:
I started with car ownership demographics in Greater London. As posted, ownership in households with pre-tax income <£25k was about 26%, so 3/4 have no access to a car. Poorest boroughs are nearly all inner London where car ownership is lower anyway. </p>First.Aspect said:
Always happy to be wrong. To be honest I don't even know where to look. Are you looking for overall London demographics, or specifically the demographics of non-ULEZ compliant vehicle owners or somesuch. I think the former would be readily available but I'm not sure what it really tells you about the latter.rjsterry said:
Well you seem very certain that you know who the charge will affect so I'm assuming you are basing this on something other than just your assumptions.First.Aspect said:
Do they even exist, these data?briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.
When I looked there was definitely information there but it did contradict your claim, so maybe there is some other information.
1 -
-
As the foremost member of the thread police I'm disappointed.briantrumpet said:
This is thread about giving up cars and switching to alternative forms of transport. Also known as seeing the light.
Arguing over whether a car is ULEZ compliant or not is a discussion about type of car.1 -
No, but I'd make a decent scientist.rick_chasey said:You’d do well as a conspiracy theorist
0 -
You'd make a good homeopathist.rick_chasey said:You’d do well as a conspiracy theorist
0 -
No. It's having an effect on the people who own non-compliant vehicles. You are assuming those correspond to low income households. Given the amount of stuff you give out for unsubstantiated assumptions, I'm surprised you have missed your own.First.Aspect said:
Is this just another way of saying it's not affecting many people, so it's okay?rjsterry said:
I started with car ownership demographics in Greater London. As posted, ownership in households with pre-tax income <£25k was about 26%, so 3/4 have no access to a car. Poorest boroughs are nearly all inner London where car ownership is lower anyway. </p>First.Aspect said:
Always happy to be wrong. To be honest I don't even know where to look. Are you looking for overall London demographics, or specifically the demographics of non-ULEZ compliant vehicle owners or somesuch. I think the former would be readily available but I'm not sure what it really tells you about the latter.rjsterry said:
Well you seem very certain that you know who the charge will affect so I'm assuming you are basing this on something other than just your assumptions.First.Aspect said:
Do they even exist, these data?briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.
When I looked there was definitely information there but it did contradict your claim, so maybe there is some other information.
But for arguments sake, let's say it affects 10,000 households in the <£25k bracket. Given that a large part of the justification of the ULEZ was so that it could continue running services without going bust, and that all revenue from the ULEZ and C-charge goes to this end, I think it's likely that there would be more harm in reduced public transport services to the other 74% who rely entirely on TfL than the small number who lose out to the ULEZ.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Lol amazing. Bloke on the interwebs knows more about public policy than the “Director of policy and communications” at the Grantham institute.First.Aspect said:
I literally have more qualifications, but you don't think I have any relevant qualifications. And I can't help if it's an article that is as well researched as a Guardian opinion piece.
Takes some chutzpah that.0 -
It's a fair point, actually. In a balance of harms sort of a way.rjsterry said:
No. It's having an effect on the people who own non-compliant vehicles. You are assuming those correspond to low income households. Given the amount of stuff you give out for unsubstantiated assumptions, I'm surprised you have missed your own.First.Aspect said:
Is this just another way of saying it's not affecting many people, so it's okay?rjsterry said:
I started with car ownership demographics in Greater London. As posted, ownership in households with pre-tax income <£25k was about 26%, so 3/4 have no access to a car. Poorest boroughs are nearly all inner London where car ownership is lower anyway. </p>First.Aspect said:
Always happy to be wrong. To be honest I don't even know where to look. Are you looking for overall London demographics, or specifically the demographics of non-ULEZ compliant vehicle owners or somesuch. I think the former would be readily available but I'm not sure what it really tells you about the latter.rjsterry said:
Well you seem very certain that you know who the charge will affect so I'm assuming you are basing this on something other than just your assumptions.First.Aspect said:
Do they even exist, these data?briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.
When I looked there was definitely information there but it did contradict your claim, so maybe there is some other information.
But for arguments sake, let's say it affects 10,000 households in the <£25k bracket. Given that a large part of the justification of the ULEZ was so that it could continue running services without going bust, and that all revenue from the ULEZ and C-charge goes to this end, I think it's likely that there would be more harm in reduced public transport services to the other 74% who rely entirely on TfL than the small number who lose out to the ULEZ.</p>
Fwiw I tend towards the congestion charge model also. And number plate recognition based exemptions. I mean that's so easy to have done.0 -
...0
-
Ok.First.Aspect said:Bob Ward "has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry".
I'm more qualified than Bob, in a more relevant subject. But as you say, I don't have a scoobies, so let's not blindly trust Bob either.
Let's pick through his article. "A misinformation campaign about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone ...yadda... Many of the proponents of this misinformation also have a track record of inaccurate claims about climate change."
Opinion only. Lets move on.
Most of the article is background:
1.- What are the origins of the ULEZ?
2. - How does air pollution harm health?
3. - Air pollution policy in the UK
4. - Declines in air pollution in recent years but some breaches of UK and WHO limits
1 is just factual information. 2-4 don't have anything to do with ULEZ at all. if you can’t see how air pollution harms health being relevant to the ULEZ you don’t understand the point of the ULEZ. To spell it out, the ULEZ aims to reduce air pollution because air pollution harms public health
Then we get to
5. Evidence for the positive impacts of the ULEZ on air pollution and health
The evidence he cites:
(a) Overall, the authors found an average reduction of less than 3% in nitrogen dioxide levels, and insignificant changes in PM2.5 concentrations.
This is the Imperial study that goes on to state that those changes don't correspond to significant health outcomes. no that’s not what it says. It says that 3% is small and should be considered part of a wide ranging set of policies because on its own it’s not a silver bullet.
(b) "Another study" found statistically significant reductions in nitrogen dioxide levels in the first 90 days after the introduction of the ULEZ at 16 sites across London, compared with the same period in 2018
The article itself isn't available, but the abstract is. It states, "Findings indicate that the ULEZ contributed to a decrease of air pollution and is an effective policy for reducing air pollution, which can also lead to public health benefits."
But it doesn't draw that vital link between the measurement sites and the public health benefits.
because we have already established that air pollution causes health problems. There is already evidence that more pollution causes more deaths and illness and a reduction reduces deaths and illnesses
More on this below.
(c) The Mayor of London published in February 2023 an assessment of the first year of the ULEZ after its expansion to the North Circular and South Circular Roads in October 2021.
So the Mayor has decided he was right. Incidentally, (c) is commented on by the authors of (a), who specifically criticise the methodology as grossly exaggerating the effects. Won't try again to explain why to you. Bob, it seems, is happy to cited two studies that contradict one another, and assert that they say the same thing. Not sure he's read (a) at all, in that case. so this is conspiratorial. Governments commission studies to see if their proposals are worth doing. Why would he do it if it wasn’t either popular or effective? He commissioned imperial college London, this is not a poltical sham so you can’t just dismiss it out of hand
(d) A review of studies published in July 2023 in The Lancet Public Health on low emission zones around the world (not including London’s ULEZ) found positive air pollution-related health outcomes, with the most consistent effect being on cardiovascular disease.
Evidence supporting the effectiveness of ULEZ is based on other schemes. Okay, well, not helpful at all then. how is this not helpful? Are you crazy?! What possible reason could that be relevant?! How else do you decide public policy without looking at other similar policies? What makes you think London’s is so materially different you can dismiss that out of hand
The only possible support is left to article (b). this is your conspiracy theory logic. By focusing on small specifics that they don’t prove you unfairly cast doubt on the wall of evidence that does prove it. This post is a great example of that technique Setting aside that it uses data outside ULEZ as a control, which the authors of (a) take issue with, it only says the levels of NO2 show a statistically significant change. The authors of (a) also measure a change (I think 3% is statistically significant), but they make an effort to draw a connection between these changes and both average personal exposure and public health. Their conclusion is that it doesn't make a significant difference. no it says above that it should be part of a wider slate of policies
Hard to comment further without seeing (b). But they are using a third party's monitoring stations (https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicdetails.asp) and there are many more than 16 of them, so I wonder which 16 that the authors of (b) selected and why.
6. A rant about climate change deniers, which is besides the point because ULEZ isn't about climate change. it literally links to the articles that do conflate the two and it is a post about the misinformation
Other than that, it's a well researched article by a nearly qualified geologist. the director of policy and communications for the world leading Grantham institute. What job in your CV makes you more relevant to comment?
I’ve bolded my responses0 -
🎉First.Aspect said:
It's a fair point, actually. In a balance of harms sort of a way.rjsterry said:
No. It's having an effect on the people who own non-compliant vehicles. You are assuming those correspond to low income households. Given the amount of stuff you give out for unsubstantiated assumptions, I'm surprised you have missed your own.First.Aspect said:
Is this just another way of saying it's not affecting many people, so it's okay?rjsterry said:
I started with car ownership demographics in Greater London. As posted, ownership in households with pre-tax income <£25k was about 26%, so 3/4 have no access to a car. Poorest boroughs are nearly all inner London where car ownership is lower anyway. </p>First.Aspect said:
Always happy to be wrong. To be honest I don't even know where to look. Are you looking for overall London demographics, or specifically the demographics of non-ULEZ compliant vehicle owners or somesuch. I think the former would be readily available but I'm not sure what it really tells you about the latter.rjsterry said:
Well you seem very certain that you know who the charge will affect so I'm assuming you are basing this on something other than just your assumptions.First.Aspect said:
Do they even exist, these data?briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.
When I looked there was definitely information there but it did contradict your claim, so maybe there is some other information.
But for arguments sake, let's say it affects 10,000 households in the <£25k bracket. Given that a large part of the justification of the ULEZ was so that it could continue running services without going bust, and that all revenue from the ULEZ and C-charge goes to this end, I think it's likely that there would be more harm in reduced public transport services to the other 74% who rely entirely on TfL than the small number who lose out to the ULEZ.</p>
Fwiw I tend towards the congestion charge model also. And number plate recognition based exemptions. I mean that's so easy to have done.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm not going to repeat the answers to most of this, but I find the hero worship part of your psyche interesting. It mirrors a lot if your rebuttals of scepticism of data analysis during covid. There, the joke was that it was a tweet by the FT, so it must be right.rick_chasey said:
Ok.First.Aspect said:Bob Ward "has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry".
I'm more qualified than Bob, in a more relevant subject. But as you say, I don't have a scoobies, so let's not blindly trust Bob either.
Let's pick through his article. "A misinformation campaign about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone ...yadda... Many of the proponents of this misinformation also have a track record of inaccurate claims about climate change."
Opinion only. Lets move on.
Most of the article is background:
1.- What are the origins of the ULEZ?
2. - How does air pollution harm health?
3. - Air pollution policy in the UK
4. - Declines in air pollution in recent years but some breaches of UK and WHO limits
1 is just factual information. 2-4 don't have anything to do with ULEZ at all. if you can’t see how air pollution harms health being relevant to the ULEZ you don’t understand the point of the ULEZ. To spell it out, the ULEZ aims to reduce air pollution because air pollution harms public health
Then we get to
5. Evidence for the positive impacts of the ULEZ on air pollution and health
The evidence he cites:
(a) Overall, the authors found an average reduction of less than 3% in nitrogen dioxide levels, and insignificant changes in PM2.5 concentrations.
This is the Imperial study that goes on to state that those changes don't correspond to significant health outcomes. no that’s not what it says. It says that 3% is small and should be considered part of a wide ranging set of policies because on its own it’s not a silver bullet.
(b) "Another study" found statistically significant reductions in nitrogen dioxide levels in the first 90 days after the introduction of the ULEZ at 16 sites across London, compared with the same period in 2018
The article itself isn't available, but the abstract is. It states, "Findings indicate that the ULEZ contributed to a decrease of air pollution and is an effective policy for reducing air pollution, which can also lead to public health benefits."
But it doesn't draw that vital link between the measurement sites and the public health benefits.
because we have already established that air pollution causes health problems. There is already evidence that more pollution causes more deaths and illness and a reduction reduces deaths and illnesses
More on this below.
(c) The Mayor of London published in February 2023 an assessment of the first year of the ULEZ after its expansion to the North Circular and South Circular Roads in October 2021.
So the Mayor has decided he was right. Incidentally, (c) is commented on by the authors of (a), who specifically criticise the methodology as grossly exaggerating the effects. Won't try again to explain why to you. Bob, it seems, is happy to cited two studies that contradict one another, and assert that they say the same thing. Not sure he's read (a) at all, in that case. so this is conspiratorial. Governments commission studies to see if their proposals are worth doing. Why would he do it if it wasn’t either popular or effective? He commissioned imperial college London, this is not a poltical sham so you can’t just dismiss it out of hand
(d) A review of studies published in July 2023 in The Lancet Public Health on low emission zones around the world (not including London’s ULEZ) found positive air pollution-related health outcomes, with the most consistent effect being on cardiovascular disease.
Evidence supporting the effectiveness of ULEZ is based on other schemes. Okay, well, not helpful at all then. how is this not helpful? Are you crazy?! What possible reason could that be relevant?! How else do you decide public policy without looking at other similar policies? What makes you think London’s is so materially different you can dismiss that out of hand
The only possible support is left to article (b). this is your conspiracy theory logic. By focusing on small specifics that they don’t prove you unfairly cast doubt on the wall of evidence that does prove it. This post is a great example of that technique Setting aside that it uses data outside ULEZ as a control, which the authors of (a) take issue with, it only says the levels of NO2 show a statistically significant change. The authors of (a) also measure a change (I think 3% is statistically significant), but they make an effort to draw a connection between these changes and both average personal exposure and public health. Their conclusion is that it doesn't make a significant difference. no it says above that it should be part of a wider slate of policies
Hard to comment further without seeing (b). But they are using a third party's monitoring stations (https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicdetails.asp) and there are many more than 16 of them, so I wonder which 16 that the authors of (b) selected and why.
6. A rant about climate change deniers, which is besides the point because ULEZ isn't about climate change. it literally links to the articles that do conflate the two and it is a post about the misinformation
Other than that, it's a well researched article by a nearly qualified geologist. the director of policy and communications for the world leading Grantham institute. What job in your CV makes you more relevant to comment?
I’ve bolded my responses
If it comes down to what I say being about my CV, vs what I actually say, we may as well give up.
For all you know I didn't even get A levels, and the rest is made up. So what I post for critical analysis really needs to stand alone. Perhaps you should apply the same standard to other opinions?
0
