It could well be, but it also depends what they're comparing to. Areas of Brixton breached that annual standard before the middle of January, and places like Marylebone Road are always high, so I'd be surprised if the claim was that robust. It's an aside to your point on my part to be fair, which was more about where they were protesting. EDIT, I just googled and found this. The instrument won't meet any standard, and the timing of the readings is wrong too. It's something I've had a fair look at after some claims I read. https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...r-news/just-how-polluted-oxford-road-13949509
Yeh whenever anyone says "the most" of anything such as this you have to question it, hence why I said 'claimed' originally. The main thing was that it was so high and the that it was buses. The thing is the surroundings also must make a difference because on that stretch even though in areas it widens it's encased with rows of tall buildings. I didn't know about there being an annual standard so I see what you mean about the models.
Fair points. I forget which area, but one place banned all vehicles except buses from an area, and found the problem got worse, as the cars had served to help mix the exhaust gasses as they passed through. It's back to my earlier point, that some solutions can create new problems. Here's an example from China. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/art...st-got-more-complicated-after-scientists-link It needs lifestyle changes, as well as technological ones.
I had to read the headline a few times to get my head round it. And that was before reading the article. The way I see it, and this was with your earlier post on electric car emissions as much as this, is that although the problems arise at least they're finding them which means the next step is to deal with them problems. But the direction of going to electric cars or in this case lowering PM2.5 levels is still the right one. With electric cars they'll have to find ways to reduce the pollution in the collection before it gets to the car usage, here they will need to find an alternate way of either preventing loss of NO2 or reducing the ozone. It's like a series of routes through a flow diagram to getting these things eventually right.
Perhaps. Personally I think the hydrogen cells or even nuclear are better options and certainly less environmentally damaging, but all those miss the first step, which would be to encourage a change lifestyles away from the use of private cars. Apart from the environmental damage from battery production and disposal, which to an extent applies to solar and wind turbines, as well as the damage from producing and maintaining roads and generating electricity, the infrastructure of the national grid would need a major overhaul before it could come close to being able to get enough power in the places it would be needed. This too would come with a big environmental cost. I personally don't see the move to electric vehicles as being the solution some claim. It just brings other problems, and will do nothing for congestion. China, which I believe has by far the lion's share of the global market in electric buses has just rejigged its subsidies for private cars away from electric to hydrogen.
Agreed. But Jeremy Clarkson loves his cars. A glib statement but on a wider point I think that's the way the world is and sadly that doesn't look like changing. So everyone would rather try and keep cars but go all out to make them cleaner. Call me a cynic but I also wonder how much of that is driven by the foreseeable depletion of oil reserves. Btw it's interesting to read about China's efforts. I wonder how many people's perception is that China is doing fck all in this area.
China's an odd one, because as far as I know, their car market is largely internal, so they have more control on it. As for the likes of Clarkson, I'd be against anything that forced people to change. It should be by better information being available so people can make informed choices, and the alternatives made more feasible, but respecting people's freedom of choice. Overcrowded trains and irregular bus services don't help. It's why I favour a credible integrated transport policy. The push for diesel was warned against quite some time back, so confidence in information is low at present.
Good question. I don't know. Without wanting to go down the obvious rabbit hole, many public transport systems in mainland Europe are heavily subsidised, which makes them more attractive and better used.
The reason I asked was to see if it was something we could adapt our existing system towards or whether it would it need a complete (or close to it) overhaul. The worry that I have is that in trying to convert existing infrastructure to create an integrated system we'd probably make a pig's ear of it and make things worse. That's not to say I'm against an integrated transport system as a solution. I can only see merit in it, but I know how we do things and it's usually a balls up tbh.
I tend to agree, but those same arguments apply to the other changes too, and I think most people agree something needs to be done. Many of the so called green solutions, firstly aren't green, and secondly don't tend to tackle congestion at all. If anything they'll make it worse by giving the perception of doing your bit for the planet, which is patently false, but will encourage more private cars. I've not read them yet, but after your question I googled a few and got these links. https://webarchive.nationalarchives...dent.gov.uk/pubs/2001/ebp/ebp/key/pdf/key.pdf https://www.movehub.com/blog/ten-countries-beat-britains-transport/ http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2008/12/swiss-show-the-way-in-integrated-transport/
I'm not understanding some of the measurements that are being broadcast in the media recently or more so the words used to highlight them - for example 'the highest levels ever recorded' - well i suppose that latter statement depends on how long you have been recording pollution in specific areas! Simply because if it was decades (which it cannot be), it would suggest changing from leaded fuel to unleaded improved nothing? - Add to that the congestion charges, emission measurements at MOT's, are we suggesting all these changes achieved nothing. I very much doubt that is the case. If you go back even further in history, people used to burn coal fires, the air should and has to be cleaner than it has 'ever been' surely. Otherwise the real problem has to be the growth in the human race and the expanding population, but no one is discussing any growth controls on that, the real pollutant.
That's not strictly true. Some of the strongest changes have come about through what are effectively letters. One example is the action of the group Client Earth, who used the EU's system to show the EU's failings and get action via the European Courts.
