In the news

I actually quite enjoyed expressing my opinions on that.

Moar pollution ftw!

No-one will notice your childish swearing and hyperbole. They might notice thousands of people filling in the survey and expressing their desire to lower pollution.

Thousands of daily surveys are not mean to notice people, they are made to study, to align and to give hopes of freedom to the canned society including their Kapos.

Or you know, don't drive.

It isn't about driving or not driving. It's about the emissions of the vehicle. If you have a "lower" emissions vehicle (anything older than 2007 I think) then you're not charged.

If you have a classic car that, is exempt.

We had a similar discussion in the motorbike thread. I still can't understand what Marvin's issue with encouraging the use of less polluting vehicles is.

Of course you can make arguments for not using cars, but this isn't even about that. It's just saying if you want to choose a car that costs society more and contributes more to damaging people's health and shortening their lives then you need to make a contribution for that choice.

It isn't about driving or not driving.

It is definitely about reducing the incentive to drive. The charge needs to be combined with improved infrastructure for public transport and cycling.

If you have a classic car that, is exempt.

This issue is part of the consultation, there is a question on the survey as to whether you agree classic cars should be exempt. Fill it in and say no!

In that way they will mainly deny the access to the poor! The slavery class, small or bigger older motorbikes with a much minor cc(burning petrol capacity) compared to Mercedes, BMW, Bentley, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bugatti(yummy stuff BTW). So, the people that now needs to go and clean their toilets maybe using a scooter or a small motorbike will be encapsulated even more in tube or busses reducing the breathing air in these peak hours wagons to their daily trip to their daily Auschwitz.

My used car: £1750, cheap to fix and run. £130 VED
A non VED vehicle: Costs a lot more to buy and fix
Sometimes being "greener" isn't economically more attractive.
This is obv. pure anecdotal but there are reasons people still use "old bangers".

Li-ion batteries also cost a shitload of CO2 to make and don't last, but that CO2 is generated elsewhere and therefore not calculated in the VED and the buyer does not contribute.

A new car also costs CO2 to make, and there's a tipping point in CO2 emissions/age of car/miles per year at which a new car may reduce pollution (I am talking petrol here, I don't know about diesel particulates) which is all not calculated in the VED

TL:DR it's not as simple as "it's more damaging, you pay more".

But an electric car that is charged on renewables only with a battery that used common materials (zinc air maybe? that's in production atm but not yet in cars) may really be a way forward. If you can afford it ;)

Do we have a survey about reducing the pollution in the mines?

Ah don't be silly, that's OTHER countries problem as the mines in UK are closed ;)

Joking aside: Local laws apply and I'm not so cynical air quality surveys are a waste of time.

Could you stop drawing analogies with the holocaust please? It's crass as fuck.

Sure, I obey. It's sort of polluting for the eyes.

I get that the whole topic is more complicated.

But this additional levy is pretty simple. It is about protecting the health of people in London due to a specific pollution problem that has not been met.

The argument about the poor is weak imo. 2mins on auto trader....

2007
50k
MPV
1.6l petrol
<£400
autotrader.co.uk/classified/a­dvert/201608297245816?tech=1

The real cost of a car is the running cost; fuel, insurance, servicing, etc.

Also marcom, if poor people have to clean rich peoples' toilets that is a situation that exists independent to an emissions charge. While I don't have the data, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's unlikely that the cleaner of a Bugatti owner in London is going to be driving to work.

Do you know how many classic cars are used in Central London and what age defines a "classic car"?

If you have a classic car that, is exempt.

Fill it in and say no!

I'm a bit more charitable so voted yes on that.

I doubt there are that many pre-1972(?) cars are out on the road on a regular basis. I think there is a value to keeping nice classic vehicles around, and I'd hate to think that a classic bike / car show or ride through London would be deterred or not happen.

gov.uk says pre 1st Jan 1976.

You're still missing the point. And the reduction of pollution will be so minimal that no one of the central Londoners will be able to go out and having the feeling of breathing in the garden of a Spa on Mont Ventoux while checking on their smart phones the last topic on a social network.

"The argument about the poor is weak imo. 2mins on auto trader...."

Yep there are cheap bangers but the latest and greatest low pollution will cost more. 1.6L petrol is going to use fuel so it's cheap. New cars can be had...on credit and it costs more (I priced it up)

So there's a financial tipping point, how "poor" you need to be I'm not sure, but if rules for pollution cause problems for some incomes it's something that may need to be looked at.

There's something to be said for local pollution charges, especially in smog ridden areas, as it makes people sick.

You're still missing the point.

Maybe it's not being made adequately clearly?

@marcom Your posts could be a little clearer...

I think there is a value to keeping nice classic vehicles around

Agreed. My uncle is a classic car dealer / restorer. I thought you were implying that these exemptions invalidated the scheme somehow.

Ok then in that case it's ok...

if rules for pollution cause problems for some incomes it's something that may need to be looked at.

Agreed. If your business relies on your vehicle, and you can't afford to replace or service it people could be out of work. I wonder if there would be a way of helping small businesses whilst still penalising the big companies who can afford a dent in profit margins. The trouble is that policing this kind of differentiation involves alot of beurocracy making the scheme more expensive for everyone.

I didn't say that. The issue need to be discussed, and lots of people need to be consulted. That's what the survey's for. Your nihilistic outrage is useless.

Your fully involvement keeping everyone happy and giving an opportunity to express everyone opinion instead it's very useful.

BTW, you are the future.

It also needs strong government which everybody seems to be moving away from.

Cos market solve it all, innit? ;)