The Government has rejected a Parliamentary petition calling for repeal of the Climate Change Act. See https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701600 . The Government has rejected this petition with this summary comment: “There is no ‘two-sided’ debate on anthropogenic climate change. The Government’s policy to support ambitious action on climate change reflects the overwhelming scientific consensus”. Meanwhile most of the rest of the world, including the biggest emitters of CO2 continue to ignore it while the UK incurs very substantial costs in trying to meet an impossible target.
The UK population have never had the opportunity to vote on this subject. Why not? I guess the Government does not believe in the wisdom of crowds.
Electric Car Market
The electric car market seems to be rapidly changing. The former market leader of Tesla is no longer in the lead having been overtaken by BYD as the world’s biggest EV seller. German and US manufacturers have also stepped up their game in terms of product features and quality. Where is the UK? Absolutely nowhere with even Jaguar Land Rover backing the wrong horses. To quote the Brown Car Guy “China now produces 70% of the world’s EVs, meaning there’s a buffet of options that are more affordable”.
Some of the decline in Tesla sales has been attributed to Elon Musk’s involvement in politics – even an allegation that he made a Nazi salute which I consider quite ridiculous. Like Donald Trump he seems to be making a positive contribution to US politics to my mind. Anyone who buys a new car based on the political views of someone who only owns about 13% of the company is surely misguided.
You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.
The election of Donald Trump as US President is going to mean some substantial changes to environmental policies which will impact motor vehicle production and usage in the USA. Some of the changes that are being made by executive orders are:
Withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, an unrealistic attempt to halt climate change.
Declare a national energy emergency which will unlock new powers to suspend certain environmental rules.
Begin the repeal of Biden-era regulations on tailpipe pollution from cars and light trucks, which have effectively mandated automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles.
He might also revoke federal support for congestion charging in New York.
Would it not be great if we had similar policies adopted in the UK? Motoring is getting needlessly expensive from tough and expensive regulations that will have minimal impact on the climate or air quality.
You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.
A new service that was recently promoted to me, as a disabled driver but anyone can use it, is Fuelmii. This company will refuel your vehicle at home so there is no need to take it to a petrol station. This can help people like me with limited mobility and who might soon have difficulty filling my own vehicle.
They appear to have been providing the service to commercial vehicle users for some time but have now extended it to private car users in London. I have not yet tried the service but I may soon do so. See https://up.fuelmii.com/
The good news for Shell shareholders is that the company has won an appeal in the Hague against an order to slash its greenhouse gas emissions. This was a case brought by Friends of the Earth and others which may have severely damaged Shell and set a very bad precedent for other oil companies. Trying to stop the use of oil and gas is simply irrational. We will need those products for many years into the future as there is no viable alternative for some applications.
The world is becoming less and less rational. Recent legal cases in the UK where people are being accused of “Non Crime Hate Incidents” and hence get a criminal record – see the Alison Pearson case for example – are truly irrational. Free speech is being lost to a world where the prejudice of the thought police is becoming paramount. I agree with Elon Musk. The UK is losing free speech and you could end up with legal prejudice because you dare to express an opinion on Twitter (“X”) or Facebook on any matter under the sun. We need a new “Bill of Rights” to stop all of this nonsense.
I recently purchased a second-hand Jaguar XE (petrol fueled) which I plan to keep for many years. I normally keep vehicles for 8 to 10 years as that is the most economical way of owning and running cars. I don’t want the production of oil and gasoline to cease. Electric vehicles can be more expensive to buy, insure and run so I am not yet convinced it is time to change to an electric vehicle.
Unfortunately Jaguar have recently made their new product line all electric with large and expensive SUVs. These are not the kinds of vehicles I like to buy. Indeed they seem to have suspended production of all cars for the present.
I feel sad about the way Jaguar has declined of late. I have owned several Jaguars since 1964 when I was a university student and owned a Mk.9 – an enormous luxury saloon – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_Mark_IX. I would not want you to get the impression I was a wealthy student – It was very cheap to buy but too expensive to run so I sold it quickly. I also later owned several XJ saloon models and the last version of the XJS and XF. The XF in diesel form was a reliable and comfortable saloon but needed updating of late with a hybrid model. The XE model is economical and fast enough (a 2 litre petrol engine) but has a smallish boot. It was also not promoted much so hence the small sales no doubt.
The current Jaguar line-up is not attractive to my mind. Jaguars need to be high-performance, good all-rounders, very comfortable but low cost in comparison with other luxury cars.
In July two Just Stop Oil activists, Anna Holland and Phobe Plummer were found guilty of criminal damage after throwing tomato soup over a painting of sunflowers by Van Gogh. They were subsequently sentenced to prison but soon after the stupidity was repeated by three more people from the same organisation – see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c243v5m0r0lo
Comment: How will damaging art support their cause? It won’t. It’s just an attempt to gain publicity. And their cause is extremely doubtful anyway. Stopping oil and gas production would be extremely damaging to the economy and is likely to create more premature deaths from undermining agriculture and fertilizer production. The idiots who are promoting the Stop Oil campaign have simply not studied the science.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
In Rishi Sunak’s recent speech he is clearly still committed to “net zero” by 2050 to tackle climate change, even though the UK cutting carbon emissions is unlikely to have any significant impact on the worldwide figures. It’s a pointless gesture which will mean we incur enormous costs which the public has not been informed about and to which they have certainly not consented.
New sales of oil/petrol powered vehicles were to be banned from 2030, ahead of most other countries, when electric vehicles are still more expensive, don’t hold their resale values and are inflexible in use.
Rishi’s speech is seen as a vote winner but it’s in essence a more pragmatic approach to reducing carbon emissions and relieving the burden on certain households.
It’s certainly worth reading his speech in full (link below) which was only reported in simplistic sound bites in the national media. He concludes by saying: “We are going to change the way our politics works. We are going to make different decisions. We won’t take the easy way out. There will be resistance, and we will meet it”. That surely means he is going to face down the idealists who don’t live in the real world.
But will Rishi manage to take the Conservative Party and Civil Service with him? That is the key question the answer to which we will see in due course. That’s assuming the Labour Party don’t win the next election and reverse the direction of travel.
My view is that this speech is well argued and veers well from extremes. But he will have difficulty convincing the environmental fanatics who have not been listening to reason for some time.
But the postponement of the IC sales deadline is not as simple as it appears. There will be limits on the number of IC vehicles that car manufacturers can sell. The rules will require 22pc of cars sold by manufacturers to be electric from next year. By 2030, the quota will gradually rise to 80pc.
How will manufacturers meet the targets? No doubt by manipulating the price of vehicles. They can make IC vehicles so expensive that few people will want to buy them. So if you think that you will be able to continue to buy new diesel/petrol cars you need to think again, unless you are very wealthy.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
There was an interesting article just published by Shazad Sheikh on measuring air quality in London. He purchased an ELITech Air Monitoring device and used it on the streets of central London and in underground and train stations. The device measures particulates (PM 2.5 and PM10) which are known to be air pollutants that are the most hazardous to health and the results were most interesting – see his article here: https://browncarguy.com/2023/07/03/ulez-air-quality-test-pt-1-2/
It shows that in general the air quality on the streets is unlikely to be a major health hazard as Sadiq Khan claims but the contrary is true in stations.
Note that the device does not measure NOX gasses but these are unlikely to be a health hazard anyway despite what some people claim because they are easier to measure.
You can purchase one of these devices and test the local air quality in your own neighbourhood which I plan to do (Shazad provides a discount code you can use).
Meanwhile Sadiq Khan ignores the problem of very bad air pollution on London’s underground while wanting to penalise car drivers when they are not a significant problem. This is driven by money considerations of course. He can extract money from drivers with ULEZ schemes while cleaning up underground air quality would cost him money.
The Plan to Stop Driving in London
It is very clear that Sadiq Khan and his supporters in the environmental lobbyists are on a mission to stop all driving in London. This was made clear in a document entitled “Next steps for reducing emissions from road transport” published by TfL last year but not widely publicised – see https://content.tfl.gov.uk/next-steps-for-reducing-emissions-from-road-transport.pdf .
This is a call to stop all CO2 emissions from transport in the name of stopping climate change – an impossible task. The document tries to justify expansion of the ULEZ, charges on all vehicles other than zero emission ones and pay per mile charging on all vehicles. It’s an unscientific attack on the use of road transport in general. Read it and be horrified by what is planned!
Only removing Sadiq Khan and the current management of TfL will stop, this unjustified attempt to change our way of life.
Meanwhile the hearing in the High Court of the judicial review challenging the ULEZ expansion commences today (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66094244 ). It could be some weeks before a judgement is given and the outcome is uncertain.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The stock market is quiescent and it is time to ponder questions such as should I buy more BP shares and should I buy an electric or hybrid car? There is an article in the FT today on the rejection of resolutions focussed on climate change at the ExxonMobil and Chevron annual meetings. It said: “shareholders solidly rejected climate change proposals at the US oil majors’ annual meetings on Wednesday, scaling back support from last year and splitting with results at peers in Europe where resolutions related to global warming have won stronger support. Only 11 per cent of Exxon shareholders supported a petition calling for the company to set emissions reduction targets that would be consistent with the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. A similar proposal at Chevron received less than 10 per cent support”. See FT article here: https://www.ft.com/content/7faccadc-beef-4b10-be53-ae7aceaeafce
Resolutions on this subject at the BP and Shell AGMs were similarly defeated even though many institutional holders like to promote their green credentials.
Individual shareholders need to make up their own minds on how to vote on whether to put companies like BP and Shell out of business by stopping their oil development activities. Both BP and Shell argue for a transition to renewable energy at a pace acceptable to their customers and which does not impose unreasonable short-term costs and I agree with them. The transition to renewable energy for many purposes may make sense but for transportation carbon fuels have a very high energy intensity and the infrastructure to support electric vehicles means a high loss in the transmission system.
I have a pressing personal decision to make on this issue. My diesel-powered Jaguar XF is almost ten years old now and I like to buy a new car when they have done more than 60,000 miles as they get more unreliable and expensive to maintain after that. I don’t do many miles now so a somewhat smaller car might make some sense. But should it be an electric vehicle, a hybrid or a petrol/diesel one?
I think a hybrid is the best bet and have booked a test drive of a Toyota Corolla. They are self-charging hybrids but can only run a short distance on battery power so I am betting that petrol will be readily available for at least the next ten years.
I am surprised that Jaguar are still selling XF models but they do now have a petrol option and a “sportbrake” version which probably shows how well liked the car is but I fear that diesel will be discouraged by regulation soon.
They do sell all-electric models now but they are expensive and are bulky SUV style cars when I prefer smaller vehicles. Note that the environmental benefits of electric cars over petrol ones are quite marginal if you take the all-in lifetime environmental impact costs into account and the latest scare is that the heavier weight of electric vehicles is causing damage to our roads – thus explaining why there are so many potholes in our roads of late. The weight of current electric batteries is becoming a major problem while the production and recycling of batteries is a negative aspect not yet confronted.
Electric cars are cheaper than they used to be but they either have limited range or are expensive (£43,000 to £58,000 for a Tesla Model 3 for example, or over £70,000 for a Jaguar I-Pace).
Readers of this article can suggest alternatives for me to look at. Use the comment box below.
I could of course hold on to my current vehicle for another few years in the hope that Sadiq Khan changes his mind on the ULEZ expansion (my Jaguar XF is not compliant) or is not elected again next May. There are several strong contenders lining up to take him on. But I do so few miles within the ULEZ area (current and future) that it does not bother me much what the Mayor decides to do. Whatever he decides he is bound to be wrong based on his past decision record.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The following is an article written by Michael Simons on the likely impact of the ULEZ expansion on the incidence of asthma. It is a very good summary of the causes of asthma and the negligible impact that the ULEZ will have on it.
What Impact Would ULEZ Expansion Have on Asthma and COPD Cases?
The Mayor of London does not justify his plan to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone to outer London by referring to the official Integrated Impact Assessment1 projections – the Impact Assessment forecasts only very small health benefits – instead, the Mayor relies on rhetoric and anecdotal stories, mainly centred around asthma, and childhood asthma in particular.
So what is known about asthma in London in the context of air pollution, and particularly pollution by nitrogen dioxide, NO2, the main target of ULEZ?
AsthmaMortality:
The Office of National Statistics, responding to a freedom of information request, gave the following numbers for total child asthma deaths in London2:
Year
Aged under 1
1 to 4
5 to 9
10-14
15-19
Total0-19
2013
0
0
2
2
0
4
2014
0
1
1
2
0
4
2015
0
0
2
1
1
4
2016
0
1
0
0
1
2
2017
0
0
2
2
2
6
2018
0
1
2
5
3
11
2019
0
0
1
2
0
3
2020
0
0
1
0
0
1
There are multiple known causes and triggers for asthma, so most of this tiny number of cases may not have resulted from air pollution anyway. For instance, hot weather is a recognised aggravating factor, and 2018 had a particularly hot summer, which might account for the higher number that year. While every child’s death is an individual tragedy, in the administrative context of a population of over 9 million, these numbers are vanishingly small, and so would be any marginal improvement from ULEZ expansion.
AsthmaHospitalAdmissions:
A 2022 report from the Imperial College Environmental Research Group3 presents estimates of the number of hospital admissions for asthma. It states that:
“ Exacerbation of asthma by air pollution is estimated to lead to around 700 asthma admissions from 2017 – 2019 in children in London, 7% of all asthma admissions in children in London. (Asthma admissions may have more than one cause e.g. air pollution may worsen response to an allergen.)”
This was over 3 years, so the average annual number was 233. Note that, as stated, this number accounts for just 7% of child asthma admissions. Note also that the headline announcement by City Hall of 3600 child asthma admissions in 2021/22 referred to all-cause admissions, not pollution-exacerbated admissions. (Asthma has many causes and triggers, including indoor pollution, mould, dust mite, household chemicals, outdoor pollution, pollen, cold weather, hot weather, and hereditary factors – see the Appendix). This is an important distinction to bear in mind.
The Imperial College report also gives an estimate of the percentage change in admissions per 10 µg m-3 change of pollutant concentration. For nitrogen dioxide, NO2, and children aged 0-14, this value is 3.9% per 10 µg m-3 (p11 of the report).
The likely reduction in NO2 levels from expansion of ULEZ into outer London is not clear. The Integrated Impact Assessment gives a reduction of 6.9% in emissions, and a 1.4% reduction in NO2 level when population-weighted. For simplicity and transparency in the arithmetic, we will illustrate the reduction in admissions expected from a 10% decrease in NO2 levels in outer London, well above those estimates.
Roadside levels4 (within 5 metres of a busy main road) of NO2 in October 2022 were 28 µg m-3, and background levels (away from busy traffic) levels were 19 µg m-3. Most residents in outer London live well away from busy main roads, so we will adopt an effective value of 22 µg m-3.
A 10% notional ULEZ reduction is a reduction of 2.2 µg m-3. Since a 10 µg m-3 reduction in NO2 level is estimated to reduce child asthma emissions by 3.9%, the ULEZ reduction in NO2 level will bring about a proportionate reduction in admissions of 2.2/10×3.9 = 0.86%.
0.86% of 233 gives a reduction of just TWO hospital admissions per year across the whole of London.
And note we are talking about hospital admissions, not deaths.
Asthma/COPDAdmissionsforover-64’s
The numbers associated with the 15 – 64 year age group in the report are lower all round and give a much smaller result, so we will not report further on these.
For the over 65 age group asthma was combined with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) because it is difficult to clinically distinguish between the two conditions. In this case, the report estimates 900 admissions over the 3 years, or 300 cases per year. For COPD/asthma in the over-64’s the percentage change in admissions per 10 µg m-3 change of pollutant concentration was estimated at 1.42%. The same NO2 levels apply as before.
Applying the same process as above, the % reduction in admissions will be 2.2/10×1.42 = 0.31%. 0.31% of 300 = 0.94, or rounding up, ONE less admission per year across the whole of London.
ComparisonwiththeIntegratedImpactAssessment
The Jacobs Integrated Impact Assessment1 considered the decrease in health burden expected from expanding the ULEZ zone. It did not give estimates for asthma hospital admissions, only “incidences” (undefined). However it did give estimates for Respiratory Hospital Admissions, a term which includes asthma, and in Table 6-2, p73, it estimates that the extended ULEZ scheme would reduce annual London- wide hospital admissions from 2122 to 2086, a decrease of 26 cases or 1.2%.
A decrease of 26 cases across a city of over 9 million people is still a very small number. There are 33 boroughs in Greater London, so that averages out at less than one hospital admission fewer per borough per year. Again, a negligible benefit.
Conclusions
There appears to be no credible evidence that the expansion of the ULEZ into outer London would produce anything more than insignificant health benefits in asthma – or other respiratory diseases for that matter. We identify in this report three separate and credible sources which point to the negligible benefits which might be expected.
Vague statements and political histrionics about suffering children are a misleading way to inform public policy in this area. Proper analysis is required, especially when the policy carries heavy costs for society, as ULEZ certainly does. And these analyses point to ULEZ expansion doing effectively nothing for asthma.
Appendix
The NHS information sheet on asthma states:
The exact cause of asthma is unknown.
People with asthma have swollen (inflamed) and “sensitive” airways that become narrow and clogged with sticky mucus in response to certain triggers.
Genetics, pollution and modern hygiene standards have been suggested as causes, but there’s not currently enough evidence to know if any of these do cause asthma.
Who’s at risk
A number of things can increase your chances of getting asthma. These include:
having an allergy-related condition, such as eczema, a food allergy or hay fever – these are known as atopic conditions
having a family history of asthma or atopic conditions
having had bronchiolitis – a common childhood lung infection
exposure to tobacco smoke as a child
your mother smoking during pregnancy
being born prematurely (before 37 weeks) or with a low birth weight Some people may also be at risk of developing asthma through their job.
Asthma triggers
Asthma symptoms often occur in response to a trigger. Common triggers include:
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The FT and other newspapers have reported the threat of a legal action against big oil company Shell (SHEL) and specifically against its directors individually for failing to prepare for the risk of climate change. The threat is based on a possible breach of company law by not acting in the best interests of the company and not taking into account the foreseeable risks from climate change. Wikipedia reports that this is a “derivative” action where shareholders are invoking the company to pursue actions against the directors.
The legal action is being promoted by ClientEarth, an environmental campaign organisation and is allegedly supported by a few institutions. Shell lost a similar case in the Netherlands but it is appealing that decision.
Comment: We suggest this is an unwise attempt to get the courts involved in overruling the decisions of the directors. The directors are appointed to manage the affairs of the company in the interest of all stakeholders and they will be put in an impossible position if all their decisions might come under scrutiny in the courts. Judges are not qualified to decide on the merits of the business decisions of company directors.
In summary, this is a misconceived legal action and we hope the application for a hearing is rejected. Companies such as Shell and BP have already taken major steps to reduce their carbon emissions and to stay within the law of the land.
They not only provide oil and petrol which are essential for the next few years, but also provide a range of essential chemicals, plastics and fertilizers which cannot be otherwise created.
The Government is aiming for “NetZero” carbon emissions when they have not calculated the full cost or practicality of achieving it. It’s driven by sentiment not economics and belief in a false reality. The ClientEarth organisation is clearly being run and funded by extremists who have no understanding of the underlying issues.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
There have been a lot of claims by Sadiq Khan about the deaths caused by air pollution in London so as to justify his expansion of the ULEZ but his claims are unsubstantiated by the evidence available.
I have a strong personal interest in this matter because my father died from lung disease (mesothelioma – a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos), my brother died from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (a lung disease for which there is no known cause) and I suffered from asthma when young due to allergies to pollen and other things. Anyone who has suffered from asthma or seen people die from lung disease will know how distressing it is.
It is known that air pollution can exacerbate asthma symptoms which I can confirm from my own personal experience but whether it can cause asthma is unclear. Even now I avoid walking behind London diesel buses! The onset of asthma can be triggered by many things and is a growing problem worldwide probably because of the change in lifestyles of the population and increased urbanisation. The largest source of air pollution is often in homes and offices and people spend more time in them and lead a sedentary life style as they become wealthier.
To attack air pollution in the hope that we can prevent all lung disease is misconceived. In particular to attack diesel/petrol cars in the hope of removing air pollution is a simplistic notion when there are multiple other sources of air pollution. If Sadiq Khan thinks he can cure his late-onset asthma (which he claims to have) then he is not living in the real world.
The air pollution sources in the UK in 2018 is given in the diagram above taken from a Public Health England report. Note that road transport only produces 12.4% of all PM 2.5 (particulate) emissions whereas residential and small commercial combustion produces 43.1%.
Note how over 50% of PM2.5 emissions in central London come from commercial cooking! That report also shows how emissions of particulates and NOX (nitrous oxides) have been falling rapidly across London. This is not just due to the ULEZ and Congestion Charge schemes which probably only had minor impacts but a general improvement in energy production, heating and industrial processes.
The Freedom for Drivers Foundation published this report in 2018 (revised in 2021) called “Air Quality and Vehicles: The Truth” – see Report . It provides a well-reasoned and unbiased analysis of the data unlike so many of the comments you see on this subject. The situation since it was published has no doubt improved even further.
There is simply no justification for extending the ULEZ scheme. The reduction in air pollution in Greater London would be miniscule – about 0.1% in the important PM2.5 emissions for example. Nobody is going to notice this and it won’t have any significant impact on health outcomes. See https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2022/09/07/ulez-expansion-assessment-a-complete-fraud/ for the independent analysis commissioned by TfL (Jacobs Report).
There are many things the London Mayor and the Government could do about air pollution but expanding attacks on vehicle owners is one of the least beneficial in terms of cost/benefits. Reducing wood burning is one which the Government has recently tackled for example.
Removing air pollution might have some long-term health benefits although the likely benefit is uncertain. Removing all of it might extend life by a few days but to do that we would have to remove all road, rail and air transport, remove all domestic gas boilers, close down all restaurants, ban cooking at home, cease all agriculture, cease all new building and building renovation, close down most of industry, etc. How lunatic would such a policy be!
I am all for improving air quality where it can be achieved at reasonable cost and with no negative consequences. But expanding the ULEZ scheme will increase the cost of living for many people when they are already suffering from high inflation. It is simply unjustified and Sadiq Khan’s motivation despite his blustering about the impact on health is clearly motivated by financial imperatives.
You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
