A new study by Kwik Fit has shown that if we want to reduce air pollution by two thirds almost overnight, the aim should be to remove all diesel vehicles from the road that are over ten years in age. Their study shows that there are 3.5 million diesel cars on the road registered before 2007, and if they were replaced with the new Euro6 diesel engine, NOx emissions would fall by nearly 70%.
Age-related problems
Kwik Fit looked at the number of older vehicles on the road and the study proves that the replacement of older diesels would cut emissions of nitrous oxide by 68%. It would also save motorists some £1 billion a year. The study followed the government’s crackdown on diesel cars, with an increase in the first-year tax for any new diesel cars bought from April onwards.
This move was criticised by experts because newer diesel cars are much less polluting than older models already on the road. The move could also discourage drivers of older vehicles from replacing them with newer models.
Government crackdown
The government crackdown on diesel shows no sign of slowing and has drawn criticism from many different sources. The budget increase, for example, moving cars up a tax band based on emissions – without any real-world emission tests having been carried out on them. Kwik Fit’s study shows that the move could affect more than health and finances.
The study shows that if the current Euro6 standard diesel engine were to replace older vehicles, harmful emissions would be cut significantly. It would also save motorists a lot of money in fuel. Older cars currently travel around 30 billion miles a year, emitting some 12.1 million kilograms of NOx and using 66 million gallons of fuel.
Fuel savings
If drivers were to switch to newer models, not only would the emissions be cut by two thirds, reducing the risk of pollution-related conditions and deaths, but it would also be kind on the pocket. Newer diesel cars are more fuel efficient and consume 488.8 million gallons to cover the same mileage, saving drivers some £947 million a year.
It would even reduce factors such as the volume of tankers on the road as drivers will need to fill up less often. It would further reduce costs and pollution. The move could see some 20,000 fewer loads of diesel requiring delivery around the UK.
Electric growth
The much-criticised move to penalise new diesel cars may be putting drivers off from replacing their older diesel models, but it has a potential upside – the continued increase in sales of electric vehicles. In fact, according to data from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit shows that sales of electric cars will overtake diesel cars in as little as two years’ time.
Diesel car sales dropped by a third in October compared to the previous year, the 7th decline in a row. It was also the most significant drop in diesel sales for nine years. At the same time, the sales of electric and hybrid cars have risen by 37%.
The study went on to say that they believe the tipping point for diesel versus electric sales will be mid-2019 when the electric sales will move above diesel for the first time.
Scrappage schemes
Many car manufacturers have introduced scrappage schemes to help persuade older diesel owners to swap to a newer vehicle and make the cost less prohibitive. These programmes include both diesel and petrol schemes and will see significant discounts up to £8000 on more modern vehicles. But so far, this seems to have had little impact on new diesel car sales.
The cost of replacing all diesel cars over the age of ten is said to cost over £97 billion, based on the average new car price of £28,000. So, the government would need to provide drivers with significant help towards this cost if they are serious about replacing these vehicles.
What do you think about the Kwik Fit study and whether it’s a viable way to tackle road pollution? Do you think the Government would support a scrappage scheme focused on old diesel cars of this scale? Are 10 year old diesel cars the real culprits behind most pollution? Let us know in the comments below.
Not just cars ALL old diesel engines fitted to everything must be banned
Does this reduction in polution take into account the pollution created by the manufacture of new vehicles? It would be interesting to see the figures if the total polution was taken into account.
The best way is to Tax Diesel/Petrol and fuel stations higher in urban areas where the problem is. Areas like Inner London are chronic congested with school runs and vehicles idling in queues.In those areas.Why did not the government tax new diesel cars when they knew about the problem years ago? Or is is they did not want to upset their supporters who might be driving four-by-fours.
Those of us living in rural areas pollute less than those with petrol engines because when a diesel runs hot its the more efficient than petrol. It is just typical having a one size fits all.
New cars switch off their engines when stationery & so no idling in queues, in addition to lower emissions from more efficient engines. It is not justifiable to charge extra for new diesel which only acts to disuade people from upgrading their old diesel for a new one.
Good idea, to also include Buses, Taxi & lorries.
Don’t forget diesel trains, and aircraft.
“saving drivers some 947 million a year” 947 million what?
To save the amount of CO2 used in producing a new car your mpg needs to improve by 25-30%. CO2 is the enemy of the environment, nitrous oxides are only really an issue for humans, and there are too many of them in the world anyway.
Most drivers of diesels over 10 years old are only driving them because they can’t afford to replace them! £2k off a 28k car means they still can’t afford them!
I agree with you Robin, there are a lot of people in low paid jobs who need their car to get to work but are not paid enough to afford a new car, also pensioners would also find a new car too expensive.
£2 K off £12 k and they still cannot afford to change. Pensioners are some of the poorest hit by high Road Tax and walking around their houses in coats and wool hats. It is all very well people introducing middle management and News programmes to shoot their mouths off about car scrappage. They only meet rich people like themselves everyday and socially.
Spot on Robin and the others – where do I get the money for a new or even a second hand car less than 10 years old? Send some of the £947m my way – £10k will do and I will get a new (second hand) car with a Euro 6 engine, in the mean time this OAP’s well maintained, particulate filtered diesel will continue on the roads until it falls apart and then I hope to be able to afford a trolley to get to the shops, unless they take my licence away first.
Where is all the lithium coming from to produce vehicles with a 300 or 400 mile range, a 30 minute recharge time and real life performance?
Why would I replace my well maintained 13 year old diesel through a scrappage scheme and as an OAP tie myself into finance for 3 or more years? I would love a new car but cannot afford such luxury!
I agree my car is just over 15 yrs old which I have had from new and been well maintained with less that 50,000 on the clock. At 75 I cannot afford a new car and could not afford finance even if I could get it.
Is the proposed scrapping of (Diesel Cars only) by the government just an excuse to raise more tax by the means of Vat on new vehicles. If they are so concerned on scrapping Diesel Cars why dont they offer to replace these vehicles (without any cost to the owners) on a like for like basis with new non Diesel vehicles, as it was the government under Tony Blair’s time in office who pushed for the sale of Diesel Cars in the first place.This way all not just old vehicles would be removed from the roads.
You cannot peg this on Labour or Tory governments. It was the thought of the day and trend of the time. Germany did the same under a Conservative government.
Diesel will still be around for a while until there is a credible replacement – similar to the old VHS if anyone remembers. As said before, cars are not the only polluters, but they are an easier target as they are individual targets. If everyone was flying planes we would be taxed for them unlike the airline industry now.
Diesel are fairly clean now. Petrol has its flaws.
Find a way to remove old cars, yes. Find a way to remove the government’s recent move to penalise new cars as that’s just a tax raising move. Expect more tax-raising moves as revenue from sales of petrol and diesel drops with the rise in electric cars. Where are the battery components going to come from for electric cars?
It’s not just about gaseous emissions. Diesels release carcinogenic micro particulates. It’s been accepted as carcinogenic for a while now and causes lung cancer. That’s why they should be off the road.
Wrong. Until very recently, petrol contained up to 10% of Benzene a notable carcinogen, the fumes of which caused the deaths of some petrol station attendants. Thois was removed quiently from petrol recently but without any fanfares. Maybe you are basing your comment on a short and badly researched piece of Japanese research that was discredited as soon as it appeared. Diesel particulates are not good for you, but I am more worried by the much more dangerous dust caused by tyres in particular and by brakes.
If their research is as good as their maths confusion will reign supreme.
This “research” only holds true if the new emissions figures aren’t complete rubbish, which they are, so it’s all pointless
Ok diesel pollute as we are told now,just a point of interest these gas guzzler petrol vehicles that do 20 -30 mpg should also be scrapped as how much are they polluting the air,I have a diesel car that does on average over 75mpg. I don’t know maybe someone can tell me,but does my car pollute the air more than a petrol guzzler.
So I buy a brand new car and get £2,000 for mine under the scrappage scheme. As soon as I drive it off the forecourt it has depreciated by at least 2 grand. In monetary terms I’ve basically given my car away but I can feel good because I’ve saved an iceberg somewhere.
… only you wont even save an iceberg because the petrol vehicles produce more CO2 per mile than diesels and electric cars rely mostly on fossil fuels to extract, refine and transport the lithium and to recharge. Another example of poor joined up thinking by our Govt.
So can anyone tell me if we are all going to buy cheaper diesels or as the goverment want us to buy electric cars HOW THE HELL AM I GOING TO TOW MY 1.7 TON CARAVAN It would take me a week to get down to Cornwall from Northumberland, I bought diesel as the gov said change to diesel, NOW THEY HAVE BACK TRACKED.
One thing that seems to be overlooked is that cars tend to do progressively less mileage as they get older. We have a 14 year old diesel, purchased new because of tax incentives, that now does less than 1000 miles a year, nearly all of it essential hospital visits with my disabled partner. There is no way I could afford to replace it, no matter how generous the discounts.
Deisel engines last. Longer and are capable of 200,000 miles.
Why waste resources on new car
You really could reduce pollution if we all bought a Volvo XC90 T8 AWD petrol/elecric. The official Figures show that it does 134.5mpg and has a fuel tank of 50.1 litres, that’s 11 gallons, so it has a range of 1481 miles. Soon get your 61,000+ pounds back on that then and save the planet into the bargain!
Personally I’ll stick with my 15 year old 75 auto diesel and a true mpg of 35 overall and 52 on a run. I reckon I’m doing my bit for the planet by NOT replacing a perfectly good car that has only done 122,000 in its 15 years and is as good as the day it left the showroom.
As a pensioner I certainly could not afford to replace it with any new car but I have to pay through the nose for VED each year for what is now a very limited mileage. Make the polluters pay by putting VED onto the price of fuel, it’s ridiculous that there are high mileage cars out there paying zero VED each year.
There is a device on the market that will reduce emissions from all vehicles and costs around £500 fitted, why don’t the government provide a subsidy to have this fitted rather than scrappage schemes etc?
There is another device called a Z5 costing £100 the reduces emissions and as a byproduct improves the fuel consumption. Fitted it to my car and the tested emissions reduced by half.
But the Government will not acknowledge that you have reduced your emissions by reducing your VED. You just have the peace of mind in knowing that you are doing your bit.
I know this has had a comment earlier but I can only add a repeat. In 2006 I bought my last big luxury for my retirement years, an aUDI 2.5 CDI Cabriolet, the government approved and it took a large lump out of my pension fund.It generally does 45-55 mpg depending on where and how I drive. According to it’s registration it is not eligible for London’s Pollution Charge by virtue of it’s recorded emissions on it’s C5 documents. At 80 plus years and not expecting to drive for many more why the hell should I know saddle myself with a debt I can’t afford just to maintain my limited mobility. Driving gives pleasure and there’s not much of that around these days.
I have the same problem as you Shaun, I too retired end of 2005 and bought what was supposed to be my last car a new Mercedes E320 cdi which has only covered 68k miles. I too enjoy driving my car will do 42/44mpg on a run and overhaul average around 32mpg. in comfort and safety. I bought this which is the only diesel car I have ever owned because of the Blair governments advice ie to reduce global warming. The car is as good as new and I love it, there is no way can I afford a euro6 version motor of anything like the quality of my 12 year old Merc so why should I have to change to a much inferior car because of some change in thinking at the top.
The figures of this survey make no sense. How many OAP’s like myself have a well maintained twelve year old diesel car which does less than five miles some weeks, using perhaps only a couple of litres of fuel but helps me as an arthritis sufferer get to the shops, doctors and so on.
Me – for one, although I do still do the occasional long journey. My problem is my back and I cannot carry things.
It all makes sense but I bought a brand new diesel car 18 months ago and since then the value of the car has lost over well over half its value. I expected to loose about a fifth of original price but although it is Euro 6 compliant which means it is almost as clean as petrol, due to the negative publicity in general about diesel. It is essential this negativity be addressed by the government to put things into perspectiv, after all it was their incentive that drove many of us to start using this fuel for our cars.
The government caused this sham by telling everyone to buy diesel knowing full well that diesels pump out carcinogenic micro particulates. Therefore the government are liable and should fit the bill for new vehicles. As for Kwik-Fit. They need to get their house in order before making silly ideas.
Well that’s a shot in the foot for Kwick Fit I won’t use their service anytime in the near future.
Production of Nitrogen Oxides increase as compression and burn temperatures are raised in newer Diesel engines. Lower pollution levels are produced by older technologies. See extensive literature on commercial marine diesels.
How can it be a cost saving for motorists if vehicle replacement is projected at £97bn and fuel saving is projected at £0.947bn? The pollution reduction does not take into account the pollution created by manufacture of new cars. Electric cars entail much more pollution in their manufacture – the manufacture of their batteries alone requires the raw materials to cross the world for processing and then the refined rare earth metals (so-called because they are RARE) to be transported across the world again to be made into batteries. A Toyota Prius hybrid battery travels 40000miles in various material forms even before it gets into a car. That is a lot of marine diesel fuel being burned and nobody makes a big fuss about the pollution from freighters (of which there are ever more nowadays, thanks in part to the increase in electric vehicles). Also the Kwik Fit study makes a crazy projection for the increase in electric vehicle sales and decrease in diesel sales. Electric cars are much more expensive, they have severe range limitations and the batteries are not durable. When electric cars cost (and I mean COST – not some fudge of taxpayer-funded subsidies – and including the cost of making the batteries) the same as conventionally-fuelled cars and offer similar range, dependability and durability, I may start to accept them. However this will never happen. There needs to be account taken of the energy consumed and pollution caused in the processing / manufacture of electric vehicle batteries before any claims are made about pollution reduction. Modern EU6-compliant diesels can be problematic because owners often do not appreciate that the diesel particle filter will clog up and cause irreversible engine damage unless the car is regularly run for around 50 miles at a steady 50mph to engender DPF ‘regeneration’. Those vehicles employing AdBlue (mostly HGVs) also incur the cost of the AdBlue solution – and while this may not be exorbitant, it is hugely overpriced for what you are actually buying (diluted urine, more or less). Owners are often not even aware that they need to consider AdBlue until a warning light comes on saying that it needs replenishment and the vehicle will not run if the AdBlue runs out.
What a load of tosh I’m finding it hard enough with staying in employment, if I had to scrap my car based on age I would not be able to work and end up been unemployed due to fact I could not do my job using public transport.
Kwik fit….. Not exactly known for there honesty.
Once again, we hear a part of the car-hate lobby trying to persuade us that the private vehicle is the main reason for our planet being doomed.
OK, they’re entitled to their view, but has anyone stopped to consider how much pollution aircraft and ships create?
As Fagin famously said “Everything in moderation, my dear”. I reckon that applies to virtually every aspect of life!
Having been directly employed in the motor industry and its associated teaching and training for 45 years, I have now retired, but I still take an active interest in all aspects of automotive engineering and technology. I believe that there is now a need for a transparent view of the whole emissions debate, if the general public are to be given an informed choice about both their vehicle purchases and lifestyle actions in the future. I have recently read many comments, blogs and articles related to the “Dirty Diesel” perception that is being pushed upon us by various spin-doctors. It would appear that there is considerable ignorance as to the formation of NOx and indeed its biggest culprits. In addition, there are other aspects thrown into the ring, one being that carbon di-oxide (CO2) is increasing “global warming”! Another emission in focus is that of particulate matter (PM). This is primarily Soot, Ash and very small particles of unburned or partially burned fuel emitted in the exhaust gasses.
So first of all, lets dispel the myth that the diesel engine is the only producer of NOx, as ANY form of combustion or heating of the air by ANY fuel/heat source to a temperature in excess of 1600 degrees Celsius produces NOx. As an example, experts estimate that around 8.6 million tonnes of NOx are produced by lightening strikes alone every year.
As for CO2, this is a product of efficient (as near possible complete) combustion, whereas Carbon mon-oxide (CO) is a product of incomplete combustion and is deadly poisonous. Therefore, the more efficient an engine is running on an excess of O2, the more CO2, and conversely very small amounts of CO are produced. The Diesel engine is within this category, unlike the petrol engine, which has lower efficiency and due to its operation running on restricted O2 produces higher CO levels, hence the need for a catalyst to convert CO into CO2. Therefore is CO2 a pollutant?
As for particulate matter (PM), this can be very confusing as particle sizes are graded in microns, the largest being PM10 (10/1000th of a mm). These decrease to PM5, PM2.5 and no doubt lower where measuring systems allow. The dilemma is; large PM10 are visible soot (black smoke) from the exhaust and perhaps lead to the description of a “dirty” engine. Whereas, PM2.5 are not visible and perceived as clean. Medical research some years ago, identified that smaller PM travelled further into the lungs and their fine structures, and may be responsible for more health related issues than the larger PM. It must be remembered that ALL combustion processes, whatever the fuel, produce all the emissions mentioned, and indeed many others to a lesser extent.
Whilst I can see the concern about the concentration of NOx, (and other pollutants) in areas predominantly of high population and thus high traffic volumes, high density housing (with gas or oil fired boilers etc.) and often one or more high volume airports, all of which, contribute to the overall quantity of NOx (and other) emissions. The solution to the problem is not quite as simple as the ‘Headlines’ might suggest, and it cannot be just a ‘one hit wonder’ answer.
Therefore, it is clear that proposed punitive tax increases and the banning of diesel cars will not make the problem go away, as there are many other culprits creating higher volumes of NOx that also need to be dealt with. Perhaps now is the time for a serious assessment of ALL national/global transport systems, which can accommodate the needs of residents, commuters and business requirements without the knee jerk punitive measures currently, being applied?
There are those that argue that the way forward, is by the use of electric cars, and in an ideal world it probably is. However, until we can meet the domestic and commercial demand for electricity without the use of increased volumes of coal, oil and gas being burned, the additional burden to recharge millions of electric cars using even more fossil fuel, seems not so environmentally friendly, but this may help to reduce local high levels of NOx and improve political voting.
Perhaps the counter argument should be, that we all encourage motorists to buy newer highly frugal efficient diesel engine cars that will help to reduce the volume of fossil fuel actually burned, produce less waste heat and when fitted with dedicated exhaust gas after treatment systems, can reduce or even eliminate NOx and other emissions. These are technologies that currently exist and are continually being developed and improved by engine manufacturers. If only other industries were as proactive!!
Has there ever been research into measuring the actual heat output from ALL the activities we do/produce globally, every minute of every day and consider how that might be a significant contribution to global temperature variations? Remember, electric motors and other electrical devices all produce significant heat when operating!! This is in addition to the heat required to produce electricity!!
Finally, consider an Airbus 320 twin-engine aircraft (as an average aircraft size), It has a fuel consumption rate of around 695 gallons of fuel per hour, and estimates are that there are approx. 100,000 aircraft in the air at any one time globally. Using the Airbus as an average size, that would mean that globally, aircraft are burning somewhere in the region of 69.5 million gallons of TAX FREE fuel every hour. Surely, a significant unchallenged contributor to global and local pollution, including high volumes of NOx and waste heat. Are there any plans to ban the use of fossil fuels in Rail, Shipping and Aircraft?……..I think NOT! And I am sure that all those who take the moral high ground on emissions, would not want to give up their flights to meetings, conventions and exotic holiday destinations!! So much for utopia and all who believe in it!!
Could we live in a world without fossil fuels, electricity and the technological advancements made since the industrial revolution?? It is highly unlikely, as all the worlds forests would go, burned as fuel for cooking and heating. Which in turn, would create vast deserts with increasing global temperatures beyond the “point of no return”, resulting in death and disease on a massive scale.
Well thank you for this information Bob, you have explained more in this short letter than all the publicity flying around at the moment.I agree with you it is about time the government came clean with everybody and published the full facts in layman’s terms as you have done.
First let’s see all Public Diesel Vehicles replaced with at lease Hybrid Vehicles. At the moment Buses are the worst for polluting the air
This would include Police, Ambulances, Fire Service Vehicles,
Then this would be good start for the public to think about change to
Hybrid car with good Government Grant. To help the cost of this change,
How much money would you have to “save” on fuel to make up the price of your new “diesel” motor? You would probably have to drive around the world three times to get close… so this purported saving is in animalistic terms.. “bull”.
Keep the traffic moving and while you are at it stop showing a stationary vehicle with a cold exhaust, A hot exhaust produces far less pollutants.
66 million gallons then 488.8 gallons – do you have your maths right?
Why the need to scrap a totally good, road worthy vehicle with a current MOT when it is only the engine that is causing the problem? Why not have an exchange system in place where owners could have their ‘old’ diesel engine replaced with a new one? Owners would be more likely to accept an exchange engine in their present car than the thought of having to pay for a totally, brand new vehicle.
Great – give me a Euro 6 engine and I’ll have it fitted Mrs May! Is that at deal or not?
Stop listening to the Greens for once and listen to the man in the country who is on a lower income to all those in the Cities also do not have the readily available public transport .
Private cars are a very small percentage of the problem. Lets get the delivery lorries, buses, and other commercial diesel vehicles sorted out first. That will make a massive impact on pollution reduction. Then the motorist will not feel as though he is an easy target for Government legislation hitting his pocket yet again…….
Unlike so many comments on this subject that are often made by the ill-informed, those with an axe to grind or the just plain ignorant, many of the comments on this piece are well founded and based on ‘real life’ circumstances. The comments made by Bob are especially relevant; it is indeed unfortunate that those who should know better choose to ignore such technically accurate assessments and act accordingly rather than simply taking the politically expedient knee-jerk approach that is so often the case.
The government could ring fence and purchase all 2 and 3 year old diesels returned at the end of lease periods. They could then sell these vehicles at a vastly lower than new price. Just a thought
If the government truely want to reduce polluction then stop airlines flying using aviation fuel , insist only electric. and what’s a couple of thousand pounds off a new vehicle when the houseold income is arround £15000.I’ll continue to use my old vehicle until the government helps us poor motorest more that what’s suggested.
Never mind the use of aviation fuel, the big killer is marine fuel. Cruise liners have to switch to a cleaner fuel burn to enter ports. If I remember correctly HMS Hood went on a round the world tour and managed around 3 metres per gallon. Bet they don’t do much better than that these days.
love the way that a scrapage sheme is pushed, what a great help this is, all that money I can save if I trade in my diesil, what a wonder. Am I the only poor f********er that cant afford to bloody buy no matter what the scheme is, they would have to replace like for like to be of any use to me.
signed furious pleb
If I could afford a new car I possibly replace it. I can’t as no money to replace my 2004 disel car, it returns 60 to 80 mpg but does depends how you drive it. Why it’s is a eco car £30 tax. If the government got it right and not got us to buy these so called eco cars. We would not be here talking adout this. Give me a new car with the same power and fuel consumption. For FREE I will drive it. I do 25000 miles a year. And most of that is going to and from work. It goes so for now it stays, if they are that bad we all need to sue the government for miss information. If they want off the road give me a new one. As I am poor with a family and a child. Money in short supply, my name is not May a £1000.00 on leathers trousers.
Get in the real world as I can’t afford to replace it. So for these people in government. You pay as I cannot!
I have an 11 yr old 5 door Shogun warrior, that has done 63,000 miles, from new, it has passed its emission test this morning, with flying colours, fully serviced every 6,000, I certainly could not afford a new vehicle, nor would I welcome one
Wonderful how simple it all sounds isn’t it? Has any consideration been given to how wood burning stoves add to the particulate pollution in large cities. Also has any consideration been given to how much pollution is produced in building new vehicles? Hydrogen power is the ONLY way to go long term.
where is the hydrogen to come from? Low energy density, no large scale mfg or distribution infrastructure. Fuel cells maybe but not so sure about H2
What absolute drivel! I run a 2006 diesel Range Rover which probably produces, overall, less pollution than some newer diesel Vans. Having been involved in the motor trade for many years, it grieves me to see newish diesel vans, and some cars belching out black smoke on acceleration and in some cases normal running. This does not have to be. If maintenance schedules were kept up, a diesel engine is far more fuel efficient than a petrol. Servicing a vehicle is the first thing to go when money is tight.
Don’t tar ALL diesel vehicles with the same brush,look to how the vehicle is looked after..
A total ban on all diesels will never happen.Technology, at the moment, is not good enough.
Absolutely agree. My Rover75 is serviced every 12 months, the mechanics were shocked last year to find that it had done less than 5000 miles since last service!
So we can save the planet by driving round in Range Rovers – nice try.!
FIRST SNOW OF THE YEAR POWER CUTS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ALL DRIVE ELECTRIC CLOUD COOKCOO LAND
The government & so called experts must think the hard pressed British motorists have a never ending pit of money to change a 10+ year old cars for new ones. The people that drive older cars do so because they can’t afford newer ones, also older cars are generally more reliable. I for one drive a 20 year old Volvo, petrol I might add, & I couldn’t afford to replace it even if I wanted to which I don’t because it is a very good car. How about tackling other pollution culprits like airlines, industry, up coming industrialised countries like China & India, also building companies cutting down trees & forests, the lungs of the earth, around the world especially in countries where drug cartels operate…. there’s so much more causes to pollution other than cars. Wars around the world causing raging fires including oil fields that have been bombed, pollution in the seas too… I could go on.
Would it not be more cost effective to sponsor car manufacturers to update the emission control on older vehicles, say 7-15 years old with less than 150k miles on the clock (e.g. the recent article that says Continental have developed a much more effective DPF to remove particulates), update injectors and Engine management units, and replace catalytic converters to counter NOx gases; rather than scrap older cars. Diesel engines are built to last so this approach would be more cost effective and reduce the amount of unnecessary Scrappage.
My totally selfish take on this malarky: My lovely 1.8 Ford Focus Estate has 156246 on the clock as at Monday 18 December 2017. She’s originally a Y reg AND apart from an alternator, a battery, a water pump and lastly due to the dire conditions of our roads, a sheared engine mount, drives beautifully!!! She is serviced regularly, flies through the MOT’s, looks pretty good for her age(a bit like me!) and stays within the CO2(?) requirements. Diesels WERE the preferred choice. Until A) she gives up on me or B) I am forced to sell (she is worth £0 but lots to me) I have no intention of driving any other car. I understand air pollution very well as I live close to a city which has an AIPORT, factories (Just a few since we were sold down the river to become a ‘service’ country){apart from the few brave entrepreneurs!} and other air pollution BUT if we are expected to go ‘greener’, many including me need help with the money issue also convincing that driving this NEW way is realistic and honest. What about power cuts? How about when electricity becomes the bad thing? Sorry I am rambling BUT when this is really about ordinary people’s needs and less of the need to sell and make monstrous profits, I may take notice. Incidentally I have just retired at 70, saved through my life, so I could afford a newer car knowing mine is almost antique BUT would still go for 2nd hand around 3 years old. So powers that be … CONVINCE ME!!!
I suggest you mean 48.88 million gallons rather than 488.8 million gallons in the ‘Fuel Savings’ section. Doesn’t anyone at PetrolPrices proof read articles prior to publication?
New diesels would definitely be more fuel efficient, however if diesel drivers were to use 25% less fuel say, does anyone believe that the oil companies and government would be willing to accept the huge loss in revenue this would entail.
Bill
I am 82 and have a 2004 Diesel Volvo Estate with a current mileage of 115,000. It has been regularly serviced with tyre and brake lining replacements as required and uses no oil. I purchased it with the aim that, being a Volvo with a high reputation for reliability, it would last me until I can no longer drive. This has been borne out by experience. To replace the car now would eat seriously into my financial reserves and deprive me of highly reliable transport that I still need.
Please get your facts correct. Many new diesels are less fuel efficient.
The current so-called “scrappage schemes” are merely clever marketing exercises by the car manufacturers to boost sales & get owners of older cars into their restrictive warranty schemes which means inflated main dealer service costs & repairs, as probably the vast majority of older cars are now being maintained by good smaller independent garages. With no government cash in these schemes it’s all total hypocrisy! My own very well maintained 2004 BMW has less than 60k miles & is in near mint condition albeit the 3 litre Diesel engine is not super clean. But as I cover less than 5000 miles per annum, almost solely on long journeys i.e. very little city or local driving, I object strongly to being vilified by HMG & others and pushed by tax or other means to scrap a perfectly good car AND lose thousands of pounds of my savings, for minimal or zero net environmental gain, considering the overall impact on the planet of the scrapping process plus the manufacture of a replacement vehicle, versus my keeping my car running & well maintained. It’s all a massive con!