The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

TheBigBean

I've been a bit slow. I now realise that this is all an elaborate ruse to disprove Godwin's law. Possibly even a conspiracy.

I'm sure Hitler did some stuff with environmental emissions. There, completeness.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

I've been a bit slow. I now realise that this is all an elaborate ruse to disprove Godwin's law. Possibly even a conspiracy.

I'm sure Hitler did some stuff with environmental emissions. There, completeness.

I did actually get part way through a post comparing attitudes towards poor people to a debate during a Hitler Youth summer camp.

Does that count?

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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?

Ok.

I’ve bolded my responses

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.

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?

I don't think you're going through the evidence and evaluating it yourself, you're skimming it to find stuff to suit your own agenda.

Because they aren't drawing a direct line between the lower pollution and fewer deaths (when that's pretty much self evident), you feel it appropriate to dismiss it all out of hand.

Like why dismiss broader research into ULEZ across the world just because it doesn't include London? What's so different about London?

So, knowing the limits of my own (and to a lesser extent yours) time and knowledge, I am comfortable deferring to people who have the credentials to have an informed view on it, to help form my own view.

We can't be experts on everything, so we need appropriate shorthand. It's not like this chap is out on a limb; it also aligns with the overall consensus on ULEZ.

I don't believe you're well read up enough on the impact of pollution, how pollution particulates travel from the tailpipe to the lung and impact of that, to have a view on that. You're not well read up enough on the pros and cons of the evidence measuring. Nor do I think you need to be to form a view on the effectiveness of the ULEZ.

Declaring there is no direct evidence between public health and the measured reductions in air pollution as a result of the ULEZ when the epistemological evidence (high air pollution, more deaths), is so overwhelming, is not credible, and reminds me of techniques used by conspiracy theorists.

And after all, that is ultimately what you're suggesting. You're suggesting it's a conspiracy by Kahn and his government to introduce something that costs money, causes inconvenience, for.....what, precisely?

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

Aren't you lot bored yet?

On the plus side, it's in the right thread.

As the foremost member of the thread police I'm disappointed.

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.

As I started the cars thread so I didn't get bored reading about cars, I can see that you might have a point.

First.Aspect

I think the residual EU directives meant they had to do something, that it's a useful money spinner, and that it is a blunt and poorly executed option.

Bit no, you aren't able to get the point. If the evidence was overwhelming, there wouldn't be conflicting studies. There are, and it isn't. Doesn't matter how shouty you get about it.

rick_chasey

I really don't see the conflict, unless you mean conflict as "not conclusively shows".

I mean, I do think you're missing the basic; cars that don't pass ULEZ test produce particulates that are harmful, so reducing number of car journeys from those cars means fewer particulates. Assuming high compliance, which we do have evidence for, that is quite basic.

We do have evidence that ULEZ reduces those particulates in the air.

So the only bit you can't see is how that translates to fewer deaths. It seems to be you're suggesting because we're not all 1 inch from the exhaust, that we're not affected by it at all?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

I really don't see the conflict, unless you mean conflict as "not conclusively shows".

I mean, I do think you're missing the basic; cars that don't pass ULEZ test produce particulates that are harmful, so reducing number of car journeys from those cars means fewer particulates. Assuming high compliance, which we do have evidence for, that is quite basic.

We do have evidence that ULEZ reduces those particulates in the air.

So the only bit you can't see is how that translates to fewer deaths. It seems to be you're suggesting because we're not all 1 inch from the exhaust, that we're not affected by it at all?

Pretty much. Not nothing, but not very much, at all. This is what Imperial said.

Its more about dilution and exposure, i.e. where people spend most of their time breathing.

Hence my "trite" comparison to tritium. And homeopathy.

rick_chasey

So I guess you could turn it around.

We know 4000 premature deaths are caused by pollution per year in London. (Aggregate of impact of pollution on other illnesses presumably).

So what proportion of the pollution is caused by non compliant vehicles?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

So I guess you could turn it around.

We know 4000 premature deaths are caused by pollution per year in London. (Aggregate of impact of pollution on other illnesses presumably).

So what proportion of the pollution is caused by non compliant vehicles?

Don't know.

Do you think there is a direct proportionality with the 3% reduction in NO2 and zero change in PM2.5s?

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

So I guess you could turn it around.

We know 4000 premature deaths are caused by pollution per year in London. (Aggregate of impact of pollution on other illnesses presumably).

So what proportion of the pollution is caused by non compliant vehicles?

Don't know.

Do you think there is a direct proportionality with the 3% reduction in NO2 and zero change in PM2.5s?

Still clinging to that one study with its meaningless 3% number doesn't help you look objective.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

So I guess you could turn it around.

We know 4000 premature deaths are caused by pollution per year in London. (Aggregate of impact of pollution on other illnesses presumably).

So what proportion of the pollution is caused by non compliant vehicles?

Don't know.

Do you think there is a direct proportionality with the 3% reduction in NO2 and zero change in PM2.5s?

Still clinging to that one study with its meaningless 3% number doesn't help you look objective.

TBF, he only needs to appear more objective than the person he is debating the point with.

pangolin

This is exhausting

pblakeney

(warning: probably very dull)

A very prescient title.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

So I guess you could turn it around.

We know 4000 premature deaths are caused by pollution per year in London. (Aggregate of impact of pollution on other illnesses presumably).

So what proportion of the pollution is caused by non compliant vehicles?

Don't know.

Do you think there is a direct proportionality with the 3% reduction in NO2 and zero change in PM2.5s?

Still clinging to that one study with its meaningless 3% number doesn't help you look objective.

Here you go.

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/reducing-the-risk-clean-air-zone-sees-birmingham-air-quality-improvement

It's not the source, but close. Summary is similar. Modest NO2 reductions to hit a target, but missing the main issues, which are PM2.5s.

What it doesn't do, and which I take issue with, is total all respiratory issues, attribute them all to traffic, attribute all if that to old diesels and then do a back of the envelope calculation based on one contribution, NO2.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

So I guess you could turn it around.

We know 4000 premature deaths are caused by pollution per year in London. (Aggregate of impact of pollution on other illnesses presumably).

So what proportion of the pollution is caused by non compliant vehicles?

Don't know.

Do you think there is a direct proportionality with the 3% reduction in NO2 and zero change in PM2.5s?

Still clinging to that one study with its meaningless 3% number doesn't help you look objective.

Here you go.

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/reducing-the-risk-clean-air-zone-sees-birmingham-air-quality-improvement

It's not the source, but close. Summary is similar. Modest NO2 reductions to hit a target, but missing the main issues, which are PM2.5s.

What it doesn't do, and which I take issue with, is total all respiratory issues, attribute them all to traffic, attribute all if that to old diesels and then do a back of the envelope calculation based on one contribution, NO2.

That seems a fair article.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

What it doesn't do, and which I take issue with, is total all respiratory issues, attribute them all to traffic, attribute all if that to old diesels and then do a back of the envelope calculation based on one contribution, NO2.

That is genuinely impossible to do because you'll never be able to disentangle that from all other pollutants.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411756/COMEAP_The_evidence_for_the_effects_of_nitrogen_dioxide.pdf

COMEAP last reviewed evidence on the health effects associated with NO2 in its 2009 Statement on the quantification of the effects of long-term exposure to NO2 on respiratory morbidity in children (COMEAP, 2009). Members agreed that whilst, on the basis of epidemiological evidence, a direct effect of NO2 on respiratory morbidity in children could not be clearly identified (because the possible adverse effects of NO2 could not be disentangled from those of the other pollutants in the urban mixture), a small independent effect could not be ruled out. Overall, Members concluded that it was not possible to quantify the direct effects of NO2 on respiratory morbidity in children.

So because it's impossible to quantify, the ULEZ should be binned indefinitely?

(note their conclusions.)

From our consideration of authoritative reviews and additional evidence we have reached the following conclusions: i. Evidence of associations of ambient concentrations of NO2 with a range of effects on health has strengthened in recent years. These associations have been shown to be robust to adjustment for other pollutants including some particle metrics. ii. Although it is possible that, to some extent, NO2 acts as a marker of the effects of other traffic-related pollutants, the epidemiological and mechanistic evidence now suggests that it would be sensible to regard NO2 as causing some of the health impact found to be associated with it in epidemiological studies.

First.Aspect

It's not the way to do policy.

rick_chasey

...because?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

...because?

Oh I don't know, perhaps base policy on fairness and things that will actually help?

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

...because?

Oh I don't know, perhaps base policy on fairness and things that will actually help?

So we're discounting all the epidemiological evidence then?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

...because?

Oh I don't know, perhaps base policy on fairness and things that will actually help?

So we're discounting all the epidemiological evidence then?

Round in circles. You keep focusing on the symptoms. No one disputes that.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

It's not the way to do policy.

Just imagining a double blind test with school children in scuba gear to prove the toxicity of various pollutants.

FA, you have a hopelessly idealistic view of how policy is made.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

It's not the way to do policy.

Just imagining a double blind test with school children in scuba gear to prove the toxicity of various pollutants.

FA, you have a hopelessly idealistic view of how policy is made.

I am not, but I find the idea odd that because there are other bad policies, a new bad policy is okay.

The pollutants are toxic. The policy doesn't change exposure significantly.

This is you guys:

https://youtu.be/tO5sxLapAts?si=s7Tt8ZKxYkEJS2Rr

pinno

TheBigBean said:

I've been a bit slow. I now realise that this is all an elaborate ruse to disprove Godwin's law. Possibly even a conspiracy.

I'm sure Hitler did some stuff with environmental emissions. There, completeness.

Flatulence apparently.

focuszing723

pangolin said:

This is exhausting

It's a smoking gun for sure.

TheBigBean

pangolin said:

This is exhausting

Have you taken a bus recently?

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

So I guess you could turn it around.

We know 4000 premature deaths are caused by pollution per year in London. (Aggregate of impact of pollution on other illnesses presumably).

So what proportion of the pollution is caused by non compliant vehicles?

Don't know.

Do you think there is a direct proportionality with the 3% reduction in NO2 and zero change in PM2.5s?

Still clinging to that one study with its meaningless 3% number doesn't help you look objective.

Here you go.

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/reducing-the-risk-clean-air-zone-sees-birmingham-air-quality-improvement

It's not the source, but close. Summary is similar. Modest NO2 reductions to hit a target, but missing the main issues, which are PM2.5s.

What it doesn't do, and which I take issue with, is total all respiratory issues, attribute them all to traffic, attribute all if that to old diesels and then do a back of the envelope calculation based on one contribution, NO2.

What it does, though, is say "We need an all-encompassing strategy to foster healthy cities and ULEZ/CAZ is just one piece of the puzzle. Initiatives should target the removal of high-polluting vehicles, especially those visibly emitting smoke. Reducing emissions from domestic solid fuel combustion is increasingly important. Effective spatial planning is important to avoid needless trips caused by poor urban design. We need an affordable, integrated public transport system and support for hybrid working models. Intelligent green infrastructure design is also vital; it not only beautifies urban spaces but also mitigates air pollution impacts."

It feels like you are saying that removing high-polluting vehicles isn't necessary because it isn't providing the whole solution to the issue.

focuszing723

TheBigBean said:

pangolin said:

This is exhausting

Have you taken a bus recently?

They're even more exhausting unless electric hybrid.

pangolin

TheBigBean said:

pangolin said:

This is exhausting

Have you taken a bus recently?

Not for a few weeks. I get a local train more regularly.

It's very reliable actually. Slower than cycling though.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

So I guess you could turn it around.

We know 4000 premature deaths are caused by pollution per year in London. (Aggregate of impact of pollution on other illnesses presumably).

So what proportion of the pollution is caused by non compliant vehicles?

Don't know.

Do you think there is a direct proportionality with the 3% reduction in NO2 and zero change in PM2.5s?

Still clinging to that one study with its meaningless 3% number doesn't help you look objective.

Here you go.

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/reducing-the-risk-clean-air-zone-sees-birmingham-air-quality-improvement

It's not the source, but close. Summary is similar. Modest NO2 reductions to hit a target, but missing the main issues, which are PM2.5s.

What it doesn't do, and which I take issue with, is total all respiratory issues, attribute them all to traffic, attribute all if that to old diesels and then do a back of the envelope calculation based on one contribution, NO2.

What it does, though, is say "We need an all-encompassing strategy to foster healthy cities and ULEZ/CAZ is just one piece of the puzzle. Initiatives should target the removal of high-polluting vehicles, especially those visibly emitting smoke. Reducing emissions from domestic solid fuel combustion is increasingly important. Effective spatial planning is important to avoid needless trips caused by poor urban design. We need an affordable, integrated public transport system and support for hybrid working models. Intelligent green infrastructure design is also vital; it not only beautifies urban spaces but also mitigates air pollution impacts."

It feels like you are saying that removing high-polluting vehicles isn't necessary because it isn't providing the whole solution to the issue.

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

So I guess you could turn it around.

We know 4000 premature deaths are caused by pollution per year in London. (Aggregate of impact of pollution on other illnesses presumably).

So what proportion of the pollution is caused by non compliant vehicles?

Don't know.

Do you think there is a direct proportionality with the 3% reduction in NO2 and zero change in PM2.5s?

Still clinging to that one study with its meaningless 3% number doesn't help you look objective.

Here you go.

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2023/reducing-the-risk-clean-air-zone-sees-birmingham-air-quality-improvement

It's not the source, but close. Summary is similar. Modest NO2 reductions to hit a target, but missing the main issues, which are PM2.5s.

What it doesn't do, and which I take issue with, is total all respiratory issues, attribute them all to traffic, attribute all if that to old diesels and then do a back of the envelope calculation based on one contribution, NO2.

What it does, though, is say "We need an all-encompassing strategy to foster healthy cities and ULEZ/CAZ is just one piece of the puzzle. Initiatives should target the removal of high-polluting vehicles, especially those visibly emitting smoke. Reducing emissions from domestic solid fuel combustion is increasingly important. Effective spatial planning is important to avoid needless trips caused by poor urban design. We need an affordable, integrated public transport system and support for hybrid working models. Intelligent green infrastructure design is also vital; it not only beautifies urban spaces but also mitigates air pollution impacts."

It feels like you are saying that removing high-polluting vehicles isn't necessary because it isn't providing the whole solution to the issue.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but all of these studies have concluding remarks about ULEZ that are somewhat divorced from the data.

But in answer to your question, it's more that I query whether the magnitude of the effect of ULEZ justifies the policy in its current form.

Why isn't it a congestion charge, for example? If the idea is to stop people driving to work and dropping Tarquin off on the way? Moat diesel particulates are emitted under loads, so reducing the start stop and overall peak traffic volumes seems to be the key here.