To try to reduce air pollution in London, the toxicity charge, or T-charge, will come into effect on the 23 October 2017. It aims to discourage the use of older cars on the road, as these produce the most dangerous fumes.
Now, however, FairFuelUK is seeking to raise a legal challenge against the T-charge, arguing that a full public enquiry should have preceded the decision to implement it. The challenge could have implications for every major UK town and city.
What is the T-charge?
The T-charge is expected to affect up to 10,000 vehicles every weekday, so plenty of people will find themselves needing to pay it. It targets nitrogen oxide and particulate matter, as these have a negative effect on human health. This is becoming more worrying as the population of London continues to grow.
Anyone driving through London in a car, van, minibus, bus, coach or heavy goods vehicle that does not meet the Euro emissions standards will be required to pay the T-charge. This is in addition to the congestion charge that is already in place.
What will you be paying?
The minimum emission standards are Euro 4 for petrol and diesel vehicles, and Euro 3 for motorised tricycles and quadricycles. Any vehicle that does not meet these standards will be subject to the T-charge.
The charge will apply to drivers using the capital’s roads between 7 am and 6 pm Monday to Friday. The cost to those drivers will be £10 per day. The T-charge does not apply on bank holidays, or from Christmas Day to New Year’s Day.
If you are unsure of whether you’ll need to pay the T-charge for your vehicle, you can check your vehicle registration certificate (V5C), which displays the emissions standard that the vehicle is classed as.
If your vehicle doesn’t meet the Euro emissions standards, and you fail to pay the T-charge, you will be sent a penalty charge notice for £130. This will be reduced to £65 if it is paid within 14 days.
(Credit – Mariordo CC BY 3.0)
Legal issues with the T-charge
The T-charge has recently come under fire from FairFuelUK. The organisation has described the Mayor of London’s decision to implement this charge as unlawful and unfair. This is because FairFuelUK doesn’t believe that drivers should be penalised for driving older petrol and diesel cars. The campaigning organisation feels that a full public enquiry should have been carried out before the decision to roll out the T-charge was made.
FairFuelUK has now launched a crowd funding campaign to raise money for a two-part legal challenge against the T-charge. This would firstly see it ask the Mayor of London to change his mind about introducing the T-charge. Secondly, it would ask the Prime Minister and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) to investigate how else London could reduce pollution.
Learning from other countries
The T-charge may seem like a harsh idea. However, examples from around the world show that Londoners could actually have it worse. Paris, for example, has banned all cars registered before 1997 from using city centre roads between 8 am and 8 pm on weekdays in a bid to reduce pollution.
Similarly, the Mayors of Mexico City, Madrid and Athens are currently looking at banning all diesel cars from their city centres by 2025.
If the T-charge is a success in London, it is thought that it will be rolled out to 25 other UK towns and cities. These include Birmingham, Nottingham, Southampton and Derby, which will start by charging older lorries, taxis and coaches by 2019.
With legal issues against the T-charge being raised before it has even been implemented, the future of the charge is far from certain. However, one thing is for sure – urgent thought needs to be put into how else pollution can be lowered in the UK’s major towns and cities, whether this has to do with penalising certain motorists or not.
What can we do to reduce pollution in our city centres without penalising motorists? Or is charging drivers based on their vehicle type the only viable solution? Leave a comment below.
How about re regulating buses in our town cities and reducing the number of busses that run around almost empty and pumping out all their exhaust gasses …. Anytime I’m in Glasgow the number of buses running almost empty is a joke …
Up to deregulation only Glasgow Corporation Busses could pick up and drop off passengers within the city all other bus services coming in could only drop off outside the boundary and leaving the city could only pick up at the cities bus stations meaning the corporation busses in the city tended to be fully occupied.
Don’t know when that was supposed to have started because in the 70s and 80s buses ran from outside into the city centre and they stopped wherever necessary. It was the same on the way out – there were many request stops that out of town bus companies would pickup and drop off at. So re-regulation alone isn’t the answer.
buses are being replaced with cleaner tech, certainly in London.
AGREED
The rules seem to be made by those that can afford the latest technology, but imposed on the poorest
Vehicles registered in “Disabled” class are exempt from the congestion charge; it could be assumed that will also apply to further charges.
Let’s hope so.
DISABLED DRIVERS ARE NOT TOTALLY EXEMPT-THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY A CHARGE TO BE ABLE TO AVOID PAYING EVERY DAY AND FOR THE OCCASIONAL USE IT IS CHEAPER TO PAY THE FULL CHARGE.
Not true – the CC is £11.50 per day and the disabled driver registration is £10 for the 3 year duration of the Blue Badge.
Not actually true! an application form must be submitted costing £10 to register exemption from the congestion charge so very expensive for an occasional visitor?
CASH. COW
So people who are disabled, driving a ‘polluting’ vehicle, are exempt? Does that mean that the vehicle when driven by a disabled person, suddenly becomes ‘non polluting’? What a load of cobblers.
Another tax on the motorist cash cow, how about we have a tax on pollution from the mouths of politicians there ‘s more dangerous levels of polluting breath coming from their mouths that cause risks to health. Look at the result of their mouthing and the dweadly effects their mouths have on the health of us all
Well said Ronald.I could not have put it better myself.You are spot on.
Too true. Perhaps there are a few other pollution problems that they need to tackle, plastics in our water, carcinogenic glyphates in our bread and flour from Round Up and its associated Genetically Modified cereal crops, and the 30-50,000 chemicals that are now found in our bodies that weren’t around in our grandparents time.
Yet another stealth tax!
Has anyone given a thought to the disabled? The people who can not, because of their disabilities, use public transport.
How is it stealthy if it’s widely known?
Otherwise known as secondary tax.
It’s stealthy because politicians have jumped on the “green” bandwagon as a way to increase tax income rather than to save the atmosphere! (I know – I’m a cynic.)
Penalties imposed without a viable and affordable scrappage scheme are unfair . The schemes introduced by manufacturers are only against new vehicles . To buy the cheapest new Vw Up for example one would still need to spend over 7 grand after scrappage allowance .
What scrappage allowance? Only offered by a few manufacturers against new car purchases. Like many people, I bought a diesel car when we were being told they were more economical and less polluting. I am a pensioner and cannot afford to buy a new vehicle, and my diesel is now virtually worthless, so it will only be replaced by another used car, which, by the sound of it, would still attract this new ‘Toxicity charge’ Very unfair on the poor, as ever.
How can you believe anything this government tell you everything is lies who is accountable for this fiasco on deisel cars it was all done to encourage more sales, where is the transparency on how much money is raised through VAT, car sales tax, congestion charges, poll road charges, river crossing charges dartford comes to mind one of the biggest cash cows and so badly organised, not only the massive taxes on fuel but the VAT as well, fines on motorists for traffic offences many on stretches of roads with temporary speed restrictions that are simply left indefinitely to create more revenue, the list is endless. No politician is ever answerable they are lazy individuals who have no idea on anything. The local highways departments are allowed to give out permissions to anyone to dig up roads with no sense of urgency thus causing massive traffic delays all the pollution this causes the next thing will be to fine you for being in that queue no surely that will be going too far!
I think I’m correct in saying that diesel is a by-product of distilling crude oil to make petrol. It is however taxed more heavily, percentage wise, than petrol ,so you could be right, it’s always been about the extra tax revenue.
I know you’re wrong – it isn’t a by-product and it isn’t taxed more heavily!
You’ve never heard of General Elections which are held at least every 5 years? That is the most obvious way politicians are held accountable! The poer is in your hands.
Making a car is more polluting than its emissions. This seems like an encouragement to buy new cars (which many of us cannot afford in this financial climate). Surely we should be encouraging people to keep them for as long as possible? Of course, that’s counter to the great god of Growth, which seems to be sacrilegious. We should be focusing on depopulation, since fewer people = less pollution (also sacrilegious).
I’ve said this for years and it’s the same with electric cars ….they still require power to be generated to charge and their batteries only have a limited life span and will be a nightmare to dispose of.
Your outdated information is staggering.
Alasdair :vDoes your comment mean that a) you don’t need to generate electricty to recharge the battereries, or, b) the batteries last foreveer and do not need to be replaced, or, c) the batteries are not a problem to dispose of?
a) Renewable energy (75% of UK energy is and companies like Tesla build their cars and supply their charging network only with renewable energy) b) will last longer than the car, proven that Teslas with 500k miles on the clock only lose 4 or 5% and Li-Io batteries are mostly recyclable
I presume you’re driving a DeLorean, not a Tesla, and have just come back from the future. This is the year 2017 and last year only 25% of UK energy came from renewables, not 75% as you claim. Just Google “Sources of UK Electricity” if you don’t believe me.
watch it in real time here. best fun is on dark cold windless february nights
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Earlier this year, the first day when Scotland generated all of it’s power from non-carbon sources was achieved.
Perhaps the rest of the UK corporation is lagging far behind.
Sadly not everyone can afford a Tesla in spite of their attributes.
I’d have a Tesla today if they were affordable… GoTesla.!!
So at night time when the wind is either strong enough that wind turbines have to be locked or their is no wind where does all this imaginary green energy come from.
Believe it or not dirty diesel powered generators tucked away in the countryside to back up these #Fake #Green #Energy sites.
Easy to say these things – as always, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”!
a) With comparatively few recharging points scattered around the country (and the FACT that recharging an electrically-powered vehicle takes several hours), these vehicles are very only very slowly “catching-on”. Their range is very limited, too.
b) And just WHO will have to PAY for the recycling of these huge batteries? No-one seems to be considering this…!
No all electric vehicles take hours to charge. Only the very cheap ones most of us could barely afford.
Like the early petrol and diesel car it all takes time to evolve. Realitivly speaker Electric cars are still in there infancy. So to slate them is crazy, as for drawing too much power look at what manufacturers are doing with charging points! They are called vehicle to grid (v2g).
Secondly, recycling of battery packs has been looked at as most packs in the EV are used as second Life for battery storage for homes and businesses, this in turn reduces the drain on the grid as this power can be used instead of the grid.
As for the T-charge, it is outrageous to penalise owners of these vehicles as they may only be able to afford this type of car! Same with scrappage scheme, it is great for the people that can afford a new car but pointless for the people that can’t!
Typical government thought process – there hasn’t been any!
There is a huge battery issue – there isn’t enough lithium in the world to provide the batteries needed for all/most cars.
However no doubt new technologies will arise. Lithium-Oxygen is one such exciting development which apparently gives powerbanks many times the current lithium-ion technology although that still isn’t enough, especially as it will be used to increase range in many vehicles.
But in anycase the limit will remain and non-lithium formats will be required.
As others have pointed out, the UK doesn’t have 75% renewable energy and it’s still very expensive to obtain.
Good luck to salesman and holidaymakers heading off to he north of Scotland in an electric car.4 charges at 1 hour each?
A charge in one hour?? I live in the South and I have yet to find a charging point within 10 miles. Charging from a domestic supply takes 6 hours minimum, at considerable installation cost. I also want to see charging costs detailed – they’re far from low cost.
Yeah but the power (and emissions, unless nuclear) is generated outside of London, so London gets a nice green tick which is what’s important.
Always one retard on here – as long as it’s not in my back yard.
I assume the sarcasm slipped past without parting your hair?
Would you care to explain what’s retarded about my comment?
Comma after tick please.
According to recent articles in the national press if electric cars all plug in around the same time to charge their batteries it may trip out the supplies due to overloading the national grid. Particularly a problem because at night, with solar panels and “windmills” (if there’s no wind) not producing where can the extra capacity come from? the period between 5pm and 8pm when people are getting home from work would be like a longer version of “switching the electric kettle on when the ads come on”.
i wonder how many holidays abroad these people take using flight as a means of transport? as a plane kicks out a lot more nitrous oxide, than a lot of cars put together.
If planes kick out a lot more nitrous oxide than a lot of cars put together then we moght benefit from a good laugh followed even by falling asleep from the anaesthetising property of the laughing gas. The internal combistion engine produces NO and NO2 which are both toxic. Nitrous oxide, (N2O) is relatively harmless and is often used by dentists to knock you out while extracting teeth. But I fully agree with your point. In fact, the biggest polluters are those self indulgent people who travel about in light aircraft and helicopters where the footprint for an individual far exceeds that for an airliner carrying many passengers.
HEAR HEAR!! I HAVE ARGUED THIS POINT SEVERAL TIMES MYSELF ON PAST OCCASIONS WHEN THIS SUBJECT HAS ARISEN. YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING OVER LONDON ON SEVERAL VIRTUAL RADAR SITES 24/7.
Indeed, robi. The Ineos refinery at Grangemouth supplies all of Scotland for various types of fuel. A tanker driver also fairly recently told me there was more jet fuel leaving the refinery than any other fuel type.
I am not aware of any commercial turbofan engines having anti polluting measures. The irony is Renault have now dropped diesel which is not too dissimilar to the kerosene used for jet engines because they do not believe future standards are achievable (though probably limited to the four stroke Otto cycle- there are alternatives which the Scottish government amongst others have rather ignorantly rejected).
My point is that we are now in this mess because emission reduction has been driven by tree huggers rather than engineers and I see no sign of this hysterical driving force changing.
Comment by me, not the other Alasdair whose rather short, information deficient comments I had not seen. Hence, I am now Alasdair 2
Heard of renewable energy anyone? Tesla’s factory is 100% renewable so that stops your argument in its tracks never mind the fact that 75% of UK’s energy comes from renewables so with that an electric transportation I think that is a much better situation than the one mankind is currently in!. Batteries will last 30 years plus too and then they can be mostly recycled, just research what is actually happening in the real world.
But who can afford to buy Tesla cars? Not me.
Hahaha 75% renewable? Sorry, the UK just reached 50% renewable for a short period of time over the summer. 30 year batteries? Yeah but they don’t hold much charge after 30 years making them useless.
Assuming we can all afford to go out and buy a Tesla
Join the75% LMFAO discussion
The assembly plant may well be powered from renewable however most of the parts will be supplied to the assembly plant in trucks powered by oil and in turn from plants which are most likely to be very energy hungry and not powered from renewable energy supplies and even if they where where did the energy come from to make the solar Pannels or the wind turbines. If some one has developed a method of generating energy for free, then they are breaking the laws of physics. We live on earth and the laws of phisics to the best of my knowledge apply.
If is sound unbelievable then it is most likely to be unbelievable.
You get nothing for nothing in this world.
The only solution is to reduce population. Eliminate benefits for people who are unemployed ie only one child if unemployed if more no further state benefits. It worked in China we need consider a similar approach.
Depopulation is the obvious solution but there is no money in it.
It is obvious that the less people there is the less pollution.
There certainly is money in it! Just ask the weapons manufacturers 😉
lots of money in evictions & making people homeless though. In the US it’s a booming industry and becoming one here too.
Surely de-population is the logical next step for the pro-business lobby!
And all those suddenly empty properties in London can be sold to Rich Arabs and Russians to be left empty for millennia to come..
a war has always been the ideal answer to depopulation – perhaps we are due one.
More and more people cottoning on to exactly what is happening and what will happen.
Long-laid plans…
Spot on, Duffy!
I own a 23 year old Volvo in good condition. I drive less than 5000 miles per year in it. How does scrapping it and buying something full of highly toxic batteries make environmental (or in my case economic) sense?
We are supposed to be recycling and reusing things to save the planet. In a sense, my old Volvo gets recycled every day.
Simply ban all vehicles everywhere which fail to achieve preset toxicity emission tests at the MOT irrespective of the age of the vehicle.
Absolutely!! Make company bikes, made from recycled steel and rubber, tax deductible. Shoes too, but only if they are made in foreign countries where they can keep those nasty gases and particulates to themselves.
Please leave your number so people can call you for a lift…….
What percentage of the average town is considered a city centre? It seems London with all it’s variety of boroughs could amount to nearly a 100%. There is as much traffic in Peckham as there is in Hammersmith, Camden, Hackney, Canary Wharf or Soho.
applying it to the congestion zone doesn’t help the rest of london as you say but the change in buying habits will happen so hopefully the charge doesn’t need to grow beyond that area – which as you argue is also where it is needed.
Gas powered central heating and restaurant’s pollute the atmosphere far more than cars…..
Any fossil fuel heating is bad (Mr Mackey).
Particularly bad, apparently, are wood burners which are used legally in what were once known as “smokeless zones”. They smell nice but give you cancer!! Oops, I’ve got one but I live in the country so I’m not guilty.
Restaurant’s is the possessive form of restaurant, which makes no sense in your sentence. Perhaps you were looking for the plural of restaurant, which would be restaurants?
This against a background that any effects of “Climate Change” are considerably less than posited by the alarmists.
Do cars stop polluting on bank holidays and from christmas to new year ? If you ever needed proof this is just another attack on the motorist .
The working motorist of course.
Yes, outside of peak times there is less stopping an starting of traffic. A large fraction of emissions are created when accelerating from a stop, and so, outside of peak times, emissions are somewhat less of an issue.
yes – because a lot of them are not there!
keyword Steve….BANK!
Banks are once again dictating policies through “politicians”.
We must not accept!
Have they considered the impact on the public transport infrastructure? More people will be forced to use Trams, underground, trains etc which are already full to capacity in peak travelling times. One of the reasons why people still drive into City Centres is that they cannot face dealing with the issues that occur on our public transport network.
Why bother driving in to “the city”? What is it, £10 congestion charge these days? Plus parking? Ignore the public transport issues – vote with your feet (or wheels) and work somewhere more friendly to vehicles, cyclists, public transport users!
I purchased my diesel 4×4 because the GOVERNMENT were telling me that diesel’s were better for the environment. Surely this is another fake ploy to obtain money.
Diesel’s is the possessive form of diesel, which makes no sense in your sentence. Perhaps you were looking for the plural of diesel, which would be diesels?
Stop being so pedantic, everyone understands the comment, without the grammar lecture.
Must have come from another politician.
here here ( or ear ear)
Grammar Nazi, your comments deflect from the real problem here
Nah, just reflects the ignorance of the general population and why so many people are gullible enough to stand for the virtual rape executed by the incumbent powers-that-be
Another so called English teacher, They are always willing to nit pick at sensible comments. If you cant add to the discussion on diesel vehicles, I suggest you put your thoughts on hold until you can.
Oh dear, the great olive have arrived, or should that be has arrived. The discussion is a bout richard diesel emissions
Get a life.
Police…..bloody predictive text.
What are you the spelling Police, get a life
No, he’s just a gramateur.
hello Confused, thank goodness we are not all perfect ,like yourself, some of us have the sense and reason to read the message as it was meant, sorry if the selling and grammar is not perfect, but I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to post, many thanks
Hurrah for someone who has seen through it. I wonder if you have a case against them for the cost of your car for wrongful advice?
Can you quote this ‘advice’ please?
diesels are better in terms of CO2 – massively better. The labour govt actually started it’s tenure by raising diesel taxes and making it clear that trend would continue, however the noughties saw cries of action against climate change – specifically carbon based greenhouse gas emissions.
So diesels were favoured in the just the road tax portion of the motoring due to the lower CO2 emissions – and everyone universally saw that as a good thing.
NOx and other pollutants were well known and the motor industry infact promised govts that they could introduce technology to deal with them in passenger cars given they already largely did it with larger vehicles (expensive diesel particulate filters came in to passenger cars/vans around 2005). However they stopped short of dealing with the very fine particles and the industry also abandoned plans for NOx control equipment due to the financial crisis.
Now from 2015 we see the introduction of ad-blue treatment (Euro VI) to deal with NOx and other engine technologies that even make that obsolete.
The massive increase in car & van numbers wasn’t predicted however and that’s been hugely boosted by things like Uber and online shopping (deliveries). Uber on its own is said to have added 40,000 cars to London roads.
So had there been NO action on diesels – the fuel would have remained cheaper than petrol – and if the increase in vehicle numbers would have been petrol engined then the CO2 increases would have been simply huge and action would have been taken against them.
At that point your complaint would be that no one told you that diesel could have helped your cause in choosing a different vehicle.
If you seriously thought a gas guzzling off roader was good for the environment, your poor grammar is the least of your worries.
Forget the grammar, we are all interested in the topic here – the fact that some may be able to express themselves better than others is irrelevant!
well said
Chris , I suspect you are very young and have not learnt manners yet. Many 4×4 Diesel vehicles are relatively economical . AND yes as a car salesman in the eighties I can attest to the governments pushing them as great for the environment 80 / 90s onwards diesel was king AND cheaper at the pumps!
I bet your a cyclist.,
But do you actually NEED a 4X4 ? Do you go off road ? I suspect many 4X4 owners have them cos they are a status symble
I go off road. We are not always buying something that we don’t need.
There are many reasons for having a 4×4, – ability to reach elderly parents when the weather means his home carers can’t get through – the ability to get off the dirt track our house sits on when heavy rains or ice has made it impassable for anything else – a car high enough to get out of because rising from a low seat is very difficult, – carrying a mobility scooter and a walker, – carrying the once a month shopping trip purchases. Look at the number of high cars, many 4x4s in the blue badge areas. An 8 year old SUV is hardly a status symbol.
why does someones choice make a difference, this is yet another tax on all motorists, if you want a better job then you have to travel by car, if you want supermarket prices you have to travel by car, cars are now essential to most, the government know this because it has been engineered this way
Luckily I do not NEED to go into London. I can shop elsewhere and work remotely. Problem solved.
Yes, if you live anywhere with speed humps or pot holes – which is most places – because cars have got steadily lower and harder in ride. If you’re accustomed to 80s saloons, you’d now have to buy something like a Nissan Qashqai to replicate the ability to drive over bumps
Diesel could never be good for the environment. The carcinogens put paid to that idea. A 4×4? Again, it is heavier, less aerodynamic and has a larger frontal area. It was always going to burn more fuel.
Sorry, dude but I think you have been cheated and used by certain people whose intention it is to ruin the environment.
I realise this is all too much Dan Browne but I cannot accept any of this was anything but deliberate.
You are justified in feeling aggrieved though.
Change all the taxis in London to Electric/hybrid, that will make a lot more sense.
Just sing along, # it’s all about the money money, all about the money money #
Kick the Joe Public ordinary motorist right in the G00LIES when they are working just to exist. This country just keeps getting a sadder place to live in if you’re not a millionaire or a professional benefits claimant.
My concern is what will happen to the money collected and what purpose will it serve to keeping pollution down in the city centres, so far green taxes which have been imposed on the motorist have so far not seen any benefits in the quality of the air except for filling the coffers of the government
I’m totally miffed as to why the government needs to constantly find ways of draining the pockets of the hard working citizens of this country, the UK is said to be among the richest countries in the world but the people of this country remain poorer and poorer with each government
I know I cannot afford the latest in vehicle technology each time the goal post is moved, someone needs to get their facts straight, the only fact I can come up with is the government is only thinking of ways to take away from the public what they don’t have.
The country is going to pot
More or less what I said in my post except cycle lanes have done more to add to congestion and pollution than anything.. Well said..
Because they are crudely trying to reduce the numbers of those vehicles in densely populated areas. The pollution is at critical levels and some with various sensitivities / existing conditions are certainly suffering for it – including school children.
The simplest thing to do is reduce vehicle numbers and then to get those who drive there to switch to hybrids.
It will make a big difference unless those drivers are just happy to pay the extra charges or just find a route around the area (ie the areas covered will have to increase).
HENCE THE NEED FOR HIGH-SPEED 2 AND CROSS-RAIL 2 IN LONDON GETTING ITS ENERGY FROM WAY OUTSIDE OF LONDON AT SUCH PLACES LIKE HINKLEY POINT ON THE NORTH COAST OF SOMERSET
Put simply, our, along with almost all economies, are run on debt.
When I was younger, I often thought that our economic system was flawed because of politicians’ and newsreaders’ constant reference to economic growth. Now I know more, I can accept this is deliberate. It is the banks which have created the illusion of debt from money they never had due to the fractional reserve system. Views of those involved are well documented for those prepared to look. In any case, the only conclusion is more people are needed to make it function whilst the moneyed become richer. Various politicians’ efforts to reduce the gulf of wealth is completely ineffective whilst this system is in place. It means the system WILL crash in the future and I leave it up to individuals to form their own opinions of the outcome.
I am grateful I don’t have children for that reason.
Probably won’t affect foreign drivers thou, just like speeding for mostforeign licensed driversare unaffected
Can’t see a problem with this really. There’s always somebody who will find reason to complain. Something has to be done, otherwise our city centres will be uninhabitable.
They are uninhabitable, not due to pollution.
ha ha, how true!
Complain, investigate, research and expose lies and extortion while it is still “Lawful”!!
Seems to me most of the pollution comes from public transport. There are always queues of near empty buses blocking the streets in the West End whilst pumping out fumes that choke us all.
It is the most modern diesel cars that should be banned as they carry a Diesel Particulate Filter which burns the soot down to PM10’s – nano particles which lodge in the brain – ban the vehicles with these fitted or remove the DPF (the governments have been fooled again like the VW scandal)
As cars produce the least of the polution, about 11%, we should think about the high polluters. Buildings are one of the largest in cities. Stopping all motorised vehicles in the City still won’t achieve what the mayor wants so he needs to get his facts right and put in place the proper solution not just the easiest.
how do buildings create NOx and particulates?
heating systems
Use public transport the government say – smelly dirty busses polluting towns and villages. They and large lorries do more damage and any amount of cars could possibly do.
Maybe if they stopped everyone who gets off a boat, train or a plane from driving on our roads there would be less pollution and less cars.
I love the way the poor sods that cant afford a new car get penalised, What happens to the the buses and lories? Do they get charged?
HGVs get charged. Would be pointless charging TFL busses as that would just create a circular flow of money from TFL to London Inc, which funds TFL, which of course would have the inefficiencies of collecting the charge resulting in a net loss.
Old HGVs are charged £200 pounds a day
The biggest polluters by far are aircraft emissions of burnt Kerosene. What is being done to reduce this, NOTHING !!!!!
You do realise aircraft spend very little time near the ground – where people typically obtain their daily dose of air? Their emissions once airborne typically follow the direction of the prevailing winds at altitude.
It doesn’t affect city inhabitants – the pollution concentration is right near the roads.
Stephen ,I heartily concur with your comment re Aircraft. I drive from the north midlands into north London at night and pass Three big rail depots. Bescot.Willesden and Paddington all three of these locations are thickly covered in a choking blue haze of diesel exhaust fumes from locos that are left ticking over for hours on end .so concentrated are these fumes that the exhaust systems sometimes ignite as they are so full of unburnt or partially burnt fuel oil,yet nothing is ever said about this form of polkution.
ABSOLUTELY-LOOK AT ADS-B ON LINE TO SEE THE VOLUME OF AIR TRAFFIC OVER LONDON APPROACHING ITS AIRPORTS AND PASSING THROUGH
If a car passes the emissions test when it is M.o.T.’d surely that should be good enough. We are already paying about 300% tax on the value of our fuel, plus road tax – ENOUGH is ENOUGH !
The way things are going London will be a no go area
it’s already too expensive for ordinary waged folk, people are aggressive and your children would never beable to afford to live anywhere near you.
There’s little point in living in London looking to the future except that the govt doesn’t care about anything other than the finance industry.
The bigger question is where the money raised goes and how it will be used to reduce pollution in London, basically it can’t do anything to solve this. The congestion charge has not solved congestion and cycle lanes have done more to create congestion in London than any volume of traffic. Pollution is there die to lack of fluid traffic. Now Bank interchange is closed off, pushing even more traffic to already congested roads. Who plans all of this?
Sorry, due…………….
To pay for more empty buses.
if it reduces the number of vehicles then it will massively reduce NOx and particles – the big polluters these days for health problems (since vehicle numbers increased so much).
The trouble with it is that it doesn’t cover a large enough area to be totally effective. It will however change people’s buying patterns so increasing the area covered may not be necessary in 5-10 years time – certainly a good thing.
The same people planning and implementing it are probably the ones profiting from it.
It was only a short while ago the British motorist was being openly encouraged to turn to diesel over petrol. As soon as the petrol sales dipped, diesel became more expensive to buy as a rule. The same can be said for car tax and emissions with the government moving the goal posts to suit their financial targets, makes you think it may actually not be about CO2 at all with all this going on. Surely older cars that are still being driven on the road complying with MOT emission tests and haven’t been swapped in for a new car are a much greener option?
This isn’t about CO2, it’s about NOx and particulates. The move to diesel (only via the road tax) was to reduce CO2 because it emits massively less of the stuff than petrol.
Older vehicles emitting toxic fumes should definitely be banned. Health is a priority.
Older than what exactly?
Small numbers of more polluting vehicles are not primarilly the issue it’s overall pollution that is the issue and most comes from the much large numbers of newer vehicles that aren’t being targeted.
Don
Don knows how to cheet ’em.
You will know how too vote for the next time around, wasn’t it. VW who sold us the car that stank in the first place and Gordon Brown said that Co2 emissions were lower on a diesel vehicles hence lower car duty.
Did anybody ever believe a Labour mayor wouldn’t hurt those ‘fortunate’ enough to own a vehicle?
Indeed – CO2 is massively lower from diesel hence the road tax changes based on co2 emissions.
There was a massive outcry for action against climate change back in the noughties so it wasn’t just a politican’s pipe dream.
The car industry failed to do what it said it would regarding NOx and particulates (ad-blue tech has only come in from 2015, particulate filters aren’t catching the small stuff) and now we have to pay the price of that.
Interestingly though labour started by increasing taxes on diesel and promised to keep on doing so – remember the fuel duty escalator and Osbourne’s boats of stopping it each budget thus “saving” the motorist money?
As CO2 emissions are not pollution, it was a false premise.
Was and is not Global Warming real then and we can forget all about Co2 as a contributor.
I think if passengers could pay a £1 for any trip on an E bus this may help. Change ALL city buses to trolley buses ASAP. E taxis would help pollution don’t you think. No lorries bigger than 7 tons until late night to travel through London and other cities. All goods to go on RAILWAYS until it reaches destination, then load onto a small truck. Non urgent goods can go by Canal. These ideas where in place years ago and worked well. Remember milk floats, now we all drive to buy a pint or two.
Easiest way to do it with older vehicles is have a hydrogen fuel cell fitted.
In portugal these are fitted to the older vehicles so they are allowed in the city centres.
The emissions are lower than the EU5 spc
LPG works great too, and more LPG refilling points int the UK than Hydrogen.
Don’t suppose that this applies to all the diesel lorries or buses…
large vehicles have long had pollution technologies fitted (and buses are being rapidly replaced).
It’s the increase in volume of passenger cars that has brought NOx & particulates to critical levels.
That and the motor industry going back on its promises to put the tech into passenger cars over a decade ago (to the required level).
Fortunately for me I don’t need to drive in the C-Charge zone, so the new T-Charge zone which covers the same area shouldn’t affect me.
What does really worry me is that the mayor intends to extend this new T-Charge zone in a few years time to cover the whole of the London area, I believe to include up the M25 (please correct me if I’m wrong about that).
If that happens a huge number of people like myself will not be able to afford to run a car. I cannot possibly afford a car that complies with the Euro 4 standard. I can just about manage to keep my car maintained, taxed and insured each year.
As usual it the people who are the poorest gets made worse off!
yep. they don’t care about you and they want your vehicle scrapped.
For most vehicle owners though the change in buying habits will hopefully make it un-necessary to extend the area covered.
The Euro 4 standard ran from 2005-09 sothere are a largenumber of affordable carsavalable for only afew thouand pounds. My )& midrange Golf (low mileage above average condition) was valued at £3500 afew months ago.
Stll think we need a sensible “whole life” method for car pollution qandenvironmental impact. It justi isnt sensible notto take manufacturing figures (the biggest environmental reourcesand and pollution event in a vehicles life) into the equation. My 10year old car maybemorepolluting when driven but what credit should get forNOT scrapping it.
Going electric is the only way and the future of transport (and not just for cars – look at Tesla), let’s have a good scrappage scheme, better Government incentives to lower the price (maybe use the money from this scheme) and let’s move forward and save our planet and ourselves!
What are the options and costs for retrofitting diesel and/or petrol particulate filters which will bring older vehicles into line with the Euro emissions standards?
What about a government grant for this, instead of the costly, wasteful and unfair vehicle-scrappage schemes which are being mooted at the moment?
The charge needs to be linked with size of engine and only then on age-related vehicles with the burden of proof on the car driver to provide emission data for their car. Old cars do not always produce high levels of noxious fumes.
really? how does that work then?
I don’t understand how my W reg Ford Fiesta can pass its MOT emissions test, but not be drivable in London. There’s a discrepancy somewhere.
Or is this yet another ruse for increasing revenue?
We could do with some genius to come up with a solution to invent pollution reduction in all vehicles, young or old. Why oh why do the beaurocrats always want to hit our pockets every time a problem occurs. What a bloody country,………….,.
I run old diesel cars with recycled vegetable oil. What’s the problem?
You’re polluting the air with the aroma of fish and chips.
MORE LIKE BURGERS AND FRIES!!
Reduce speed limits on all vehicles. Charge more for deisel fuel. Fine motorists for idling while stationary Fine garages who pass vehicles with high emissions. Put more police on patrol on the roads
Perhaps they ought get the petrol companies to use a fuel additive to chemically change the nitrous oxide into less polluting gasses. Similar to the latest vehicles using adblue
This is a short term money fix. Let’s fast forward 10 years. Everyone driving electric cars. No Road tax, no congestion charge, no t charge. Pollution is slightly better but the government has decided to replace the lost revenue with a breathing tax, a swearing tax, a walking on the pavement tax, and another discussion has started about reducing pollution. In short, the government will find a revenue source with the least path of resistance, and for the moment, that’s us, the motorist.
Completly agree.
Excellent, but a Walking on the Pavement tax won’t work in my town because they are littered with parked cars.
Not all of us can afford a newer car. Mi e is older but its well maintained and passes it’s emission tests. I don’t agree that i should have to pay for not having the latest car! Its a form if bullying .. like kids being bullied in school for not having the designer trainers!
And what about all the airplanes flying over London everyday, they are the biggest polluters of the atmosphere if ever there was one, guzzling up tons of paraffin every flight. They account for the highest user of oil based fuel [my opinion] and they get big subsidies on fuel ie no VAT or fuel tax which the motorist has to pay.
And over where do most of the aircraft take off or land, thus creating their worst pollution? – the cities, especially London. Where do empty buses sit pouring out pollution? – in the city centres. I agree that the worst polluters are excluded from all government initiatives to decrease pollution whilst the private motorist is the easy one to target.
It’s all about tax-gathering – governments couldn’t give a damn about pollution.
You do realise aircraft spend very little time near the ground – where people typically obtain their daily dose of air? Their emissions once airborne typically follow the direction of the prevailing winds at altitude.
You do realise aircraft spend very little time near the ground – where people typically obtain their daily intake of air? Their emissions once airborne typically follow the direction of the prevailing winds at altitude.
Whatever their shortcomings, planes do not generate street level particulates which damage children’s lungs. They also have an inbuilt ability to circumvent fuel taxes by filling up in another country!
So are you saying the toxic particles ‘fly away’ ? Use your common sense…they will drift around and down to street level, and they most certainly WILL add to the levels/figures
Or the other solution to the problem that is affecting peoples health is NOT to live and work in London. Problem solved , simples!!!!!!!
Move up North with us, you would be very welcome.
Oh no he wouldn’t. Nor anyone else who thinks there are ‘simples’ solutions to complex problems.
shame the govt only cares about the finance industry – ie the City.
Let face it the sooner diesels are removed from the roads the better
The government should ban the sake of diesel cars now
Hydrogen is the future