Surely, it's not all a con.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_toxic_is_your_car_exhaust
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_toxic_is_your_car_exhaust
Car pollution - Interesting
- Thread starter EFLImpudence
- Start date
That's the trouble for people wanting to do the right thing, they can't because it's a minefield of sharks and charlatans. I'd happily buy an electric car if it were more affordable and it had the legitimate environmental credentials, and I had a place to charge it, I think most people would given the choice. What most people fear more than global warming is being ripped off, and I think trust is important, and clearly absent in this industry. Volkswagen cheating on their emission testing doesn't help the issue. I think in the end owners of polluting vehicles will simply be forced off the road with taxes leaving them no choice but to buy or rent a vehicle that's no better, or as your article suggests, worse, for the environment.
Its a good article, as it shows the discrepancies between the emissions of old and new cars. Its quite surprising that the diesel won, given it was old.
As someone with two diesels, I would gladly swap with a petrol, as we hardly do any mileage. Well, if it wasn't for the fact that a diesel allows me to get it on site at work, I would. And there aren't too many reasonably modern & affordable petrol campervans on the road. Petrol has its downsides as well.
But when looking at NOx/particulates, you're looking at local air quality. When you look at CO2, you're looking at global issues.
If where I lived, air quality was an issue, I'd stop using the wood burning stove, and switch to petrol for driving. But its not, so I'll stick producing less CO2 overall.
Surely, if they want to tax the polluter, it should be on the fuel. As someone who drives very conservatively, and not often, I don't have that high a carbon footprint when it comes to travel.
What is also interesting in the article is:
http://equaindex.com/
As someone with two diesels, I would gladly swap with a petrol, as we hardly do any mileage. Well, if it wasn't for the fact that a diesel allows me to get it on site at work, I would. And there aren't too many reasonably modern & affordable petrol campervans on the road. Petrol has its downsides as well.
But when looking at NOx/particulates, you're looking at local air quality. When you look at CO2, you're looking at global issues.
If where I lived, air quality was an issue, I'd stop using the wood burning stove, and switch to petrol for driving. But its not, so I'll stick producing less CO2 overall.
Surely, if they want to tax the polluter, it should be on the fuel. As someone who drives very conservatively, and not often, I don't have that high a carbon footprint when it comes to travel.
What is also interesting in the article is:
Seems that further info is here:
http://equaindex.com/
Interestingly only last month the mayor of London called for a ban on wood burner's. This guardian article : https://www.theguardian.com/environ...diq-khan-calls-for-ban-on-wood-burning-stoves references king's college london as the source.
When I look for the actual study through their website I get this page: https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=017593104086664998217:qx1icjptw98&ie=UTF-8&q=wood burner&sa=Search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=wood burner&gsc.page=1 but none of the links actually load, can someone have a look?
-----------------------
Off the bat, 33% percent is a huge number, and I doubt that immediately. Not being able to see the actual research doesn't help. Secondly, this is a crucial thing to get right as it's a major blow to the renewable energy market if it's given the go ahead. Considering that wood burning is/was considered a renewable energy of sorts. My understanding is because it's source is biomass which is sourced from sustainable forestry. Currently I can't find any other studies to back up KCL's findings.
No he didn't.
Air pollution: Sadiq Khan calls for ban on wood-burning stoves https://www.theguardian.com/environ...diq-khan-calls-for-ban-on-wood-burning-stoves
So what did he say then, seeing as you obviously know exactly?
Oh yes he did
'Wood burning could be banned in some of the most polluted areas of London, under new restrictions proposed by the capital’s mayor.
Sadiq Khan wants the power to ban burning wood in parts of the city with poor air quality, due to the fine particle pollution they cause.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-air-pollution-fires-mayor-smog-a7973576.html
The headlines are dramatising it really, he has asked Environment Secretary Michael Gove for greater powers to tackle non-traffic sources of air pollution, of which wood burning stoves is one source
John, your reply ?
B
Brigade77
The results didn't surprise me one bit when I read the article a few days ago. I've always known this to be the truth & not the agenda that is being pushed onto us.
If you want truly environmentally friendly automobiles . . . Build good ones that last a long time.
I F#kk.n HATE statistics with a passion, but 90%+ of the damage automobiles cause to our environment happens BEFORE they drop off the end of the production line.
If you want truly environmentally friendly automobiles . . . Build good ones that last a long time.
I F#kk.n HATE statistics with a passion, but 90%+ of the damage automobiles cause to our environment happens BEFORE they drop off the end of the production line.
A
He wants people to use only clean-burning stoves, and says dirty-burning stoves should no longer be sold.
In certain areas of high smoke pollution, he wants smokeless zones to cover the burning of wood. You will be amazed that we have had such laws for over 60 years, since the first Clean Air Act.
Londoners are (or should be) familiar with smokeless fuels.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/11/contents
As you're too lazy to read beyond the headlines
He wants people to use only clean-burning stoves, and says dirty-burning stoves should no longer be sold.
In certain areas of high smoke pollution, he wants smokeless zones to cover the burning of wood. You will be amazed that we have had such laws for over 60 years, since the first Clean Air Act.
Londoners are (or should be) familiar with smokeless fuels.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/11/contents
Last edited:
Where/when does he say this please ?
show me first the document where you think he said "I want to ban wood burning stoves"
(you won't)
it's not in here
https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/mayor-demands-more-powers-cut-pollution
(you won't)
it's not in here
https://www.london.gov.uk/city-hall-blog/mayor-demands-more-powers-cut-pollution
Last edited:
Well to be fair, 'no longer be sold' can correctly be described as a ban.
But its a headline, not telling the whole story.
Ive often wondered why wood burning stoves are allowed, it doesn't make much environmental sense. I know installed correctly with the right insulated flue and the right fuel they can be smokeless, however too many people I know use wood burning stoves to save money using incorrect fuel and on a stove without an optimum flue. If you get people burning treated softwood, mdf or wood not of the right mc, you arent going to get smokeless fuel!
