Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Milky

Pollution Charge

Recommended Posts

Mayor Khan has started charging his London motorists already ,£12.50/car ,£100 hgv/coaches & that is on top of his congestion charge. Probably won't do much to alleviate pollution levels but will rake in loadsamoney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man is a politician and therefore lying through his teeth. Pollution levels, even in that there London, are lower than they have ever been and still falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2019 at 8:42 PM, asperity said:

The man is a politician and therefore lying through his teeth. Pollution levels, even in that there London, are lower than they have ever been and still falling.

this statement is false but what's new?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, P J said:

this statement is false but what's new?

I show below annualised London Mean Background scores, so not roadside. Hence this is what the real exposure is most of the time. I have annualised the data because it varies month by month as it is weather dependent. It would suggest that Asp is closer to reality than you are PJ.

See https://data.london.gov.uk/download/london-average-air-quality-levels/acce7f88-70f0-4fd0-9160-f02a9d96b2c3/air-quality-london.xls

               
  Nitric Oxide (ug/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide (ug/m3) Oxides of Nitrogen (ug/m3) Ozone (ug/m3) PM10 Particulate (ug/m3) PM2.5 Particulate (ug/m3) Sulphur Dioxide (ug/m3)
2008   80.39   73.09 41.00 23.71 6.32
2009   39.08   35.35 20.55 14.52 3.05
2010 28.64 39.58 68.24 34.15 20.05 14.70 3.17
2011 22.66 35.16 57.49 36.00 21.72 16.15 3.61
2012 24.39 35.91 60.29 35.98 19.90 13.88 4.02
2013 20.92 31.39 52.70 33.87 19.15 13.17 3.29
2014 26.33 34.67 59.29 36.77 19.25 14.17 3.66
2015 19.77 30.90 48.42 40.00 17.40 11.33 4.04
2016 27.70 32.34 59.71 34.74 17.71 10.96 3.52
2017 14.60 30.95 52.09 36.50 16.90 11.57 2.85
2018 10.58 28.91 42.45 42.25 17.31 11.09

2.12

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, P J said:

this statement is false but what's new?

If it is then one needs to wonder why, as motorized traffic levels are down and vehicles we are told are far more efficient and economical producing far less pollution.

Also one wonder if a 20 year old VW Polo for example that is subject to the new pollution charge is really more polluting then a new Range Rover or Porsche for example that I guess is not subject to the new tax.

Still you never know what is around the corner, 10 years ago science did not understand diesel vehicles were so polluting and politicians were urging everyone to buy one. Now we should get electric ones! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Milky said:

If it is then one needs to wonder why, as motorized traffic levels are down and vehicles we are told are far more efficient and economical producing far less pollution.

Also one wonder if a 20 year old VW Polo for example that is subject to the new pollution charge is really more polluting then a new Range Rover or Porsche for example that I guess is not subject to the new tax.

Still you never know what is around the corner, 10 years ago science did not understand diesel vehicles were so polluting and politicians were urging everyone to buy one. Now we should get electric ones! 

These things are often more complex than assumed. So digital downloads of music and film are worse for the environment than the production of physical formats because they consume so much energy through data centres. Similarly, the amount of traffic on the road might increase with the use of shared autonomous vehicles because so many more people will be able to use cars who currently cannot for one reason or another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 3:38 PM, Confused52 said:

I show below annualised London Mean Background scores, so not roadside. Hence this is what the real exposure is most of the time. I have annualised the data because it varies month by month as it is weather dependent. It would suggest that Asp is closer to reality than you are PJ.

See https://data.london.gov.uk/download/london-average-air-quality-levels/acce7f88-70f0-4fd0-9160-f02a9d96b2c3/air-quality-london.xls

               
  Nitric Oxide (ug/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide (ug/m3) Oxides of Nitrogen (ug/m3) Ozone (ug/m3) PM10 Particulate (ug/m3) PM2.5 Particulate (ug/m3) Sulphur Dioxide (ug/m3)
2008   80.39   73.09 41.00 23.71 6.32
2009   39.08   35.35 20.55 14.52 3.05
2010 28.64 39.58 68.24 34.15 20.05 14.70 3.17
2011 22.66 35.16 57.49 36.00 21.72 16.15 3.61
2012 24.39 35.91 60.29 35.98 19.90 13.88 4.02
2013 20.92 31.39 52.70 33.87 19.15 13.17 3.29
2014 26.33 34.67 59.29 36.77 19.25 14.17 3.66
2015 19.77 30.90 48.42 40.00 17.40 11.33 4.04
2016 27.70 32.34 59.71 34.74 17.71 10.96 3.52
2017 14.60 30.95 52.09 36.50 16.90 11.57 2.85
2018 10.58 28.91 42.45 42.25 17.31 11.09

2.12

So , by your figures, the world began in 2008.  Marvellous.  Tell me ,  what do you reckon the pollution levels were in around 10 bc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, P J said:

So , by your figures, the world began in 2008.  Marvellous.  Tell me ,  what do you reckon the pollution levels were in around 10 bc?

Oh no, somebody's proved me wrong with facts. Time to shift the goalposts.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well given that there were more wood burning fires, transport was by horse or ox or foot and there were more wild cattle about then in 10BC  it would probably be similar to now just different pollutants.

We could always ask Dr Emmet Brown.🤔

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Evil Sid said:

Well given that there were more wood burning fires, transport was by horse or ox or foot and there were more wild cattle about then in 10BC  it would probably be similar to now just different pollutants.

We could always ask Dr Emmet Brown.🤔

Yes, but what about the Pre-Cambrian era? Eh? Eh?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, grey_man said:

Oh no, somebody's proved me wrong with facts. Time to shift the goalposts.  

Asperity set the goal posts with his use of the phrase " lower than they have ever been and still falling."  It is a pretty straight forward claim yet a very erroneous one.  Pre-industrialised London would have been far less polluted,  but you know that don't you?  You are still smarting from previous slap downs which is why you posted lol. Slow hand clap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Evil Sid said:

Well given that there were more wood burning fires, transport was by horse or ox or foot and there were more wild cattle about then in 10BC  it would probably be similar to now just different pollutants.

We could always ask Dr Emmet Brown.🤔

Hilarious, are you here all week ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, P J said:

Hilarious, are you here all week ? 

Seeing that wherever i am i am here then the answer is yes.🤡

20 hours ago, grey_man said:

Yes, but what about the Pre-Cambrian era? Eh? Eh?

Probably more polluted than now as there was no life and the earth was adjusting itself as it finished coalescing prior to the building b;locks of life forming,depending on your definition of pollution of course.😯

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...