Vehicle road tax

[StephenOak]

All completely reasonable, IMO, but it is only ever used (a bit like the arguments about African children mining cobalt) as an anti-EV argument, when in fact, it should be an "anti-heavy vehicle" argument in general. (My wife's diesel SUV weighs within a few kilos of my EV and, of course, cobalt is used by the oil industry in the refining process for ICE fuels).

As I said, I have no idea how reasonable a concern it is.

You say that all the comments listing the various problems with BEVs are propaganda, I think they show why BEVs are not appropriate as a mass market solution but they are being forced on the country exactly as a mass market solution. Hence I think that people are more willing to pay attention to the problems of BEVs.

Regarding SUVs, there are (almost certainly) more of them than are needed, but there are far fewer of them than non-SUVs. However the current plan is that all vehicles will be BEVs and so they will have a much more significant impact.

The cobalt point is, to appropriate your terminology, pro-BEV propaganda. The oil industry uses cobalt as a catalyst, so it is not consumed. Cobalt in BEVs is basically never recovered. Hence the oil industry (that powers the whole world) uses c. 7% of the cobalt mined and BEVs (1% of vehicles maybe) uses c. 45% of the cobalt.

nobody is complaining about the massive increase in 2-3 tonne Amazon or Tesco delivery vans!

That is rather a specious argument. How many of them are there compared to the number of cars on the road. When everything is a BEV the road impact of delivery vans will be negligible compared to that of cars.

the ubiquitous "Chelsea Tractor"). At least EVs deliver a measurable environmental benefit over the latter! The more pressing problem right now, is climate change (and to a lesser extent, air quality and energy security),

In reverse order. BEVs will significantly impact energy security. The amount of electricity needed to charge (a large number of) them will put a huge strain on an already struggling electric system.

AFAIUI BEVs make air quality worse, as they are heavier they cause more particulates from road wear and probably brakes. The problem gases emitted by ICE vehicles are basically all dealt with by catalytic converters.

What do you mean by climate change? The climate has always changed and always will. Of course the GHGs that are emitted by human activity have some impact, how much is a currently unknown quantity. Don't forget that by a huge margin the most significant GHG is water vapour, and there is precious littler we can do to keep that out of the atmosphere.

If what you mean is catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACC) then it is best to say that and be clear. No rational person doubts climate change. The evidence for CACC is much less convincing.

If you were to tax on weight, you would erode the incentive to make the transition to EVs and (in effect) reward the use of diesel SUVs instead. That's hardly what you'd call a "progressive" taxation policy!

I cannot see any way that we will transition to BEVs at a mass market level. The resources needed to make them are significantly higher than ICE vehicles, hence the much higher prices. And the electric power to charge them is not being built.

So... what you're saying, is that it doesn't matter if we bump them off a bit early because they didn't have long to live anyway?

No, of course not. What I clearly said is that your 10:1 ratio was nonsense.

Someone killed in a RTA is a known named person. A statistical person 'killed' by poor air quality is a numerical construct, not a real person.

Aside from that, whilst many of that number might only have "a few months" there will be plenty of others whohad longer - or indeed, who might not have even developed their conditions had they had access to cleaner air, earlier in life.

Why on earth do you say that? All the evidence that I have seen is that generally less than perfect air quality (which is what we are talking about) only has a measurable impact on those already near death.

Doesn't that rather undermine your previous argument

Not in the slightest.

It's probably truer to say that there's one person as young as she was, to have air pollution on their death certificate, so far..

No. That is the only case ever, and it was c. a decade ago. Poor air quality has not been on a death certificate since then and there is no likelihood of it happening again. The coroner, quite rightly IMO, got a lot of stick for overreaching in that case. A death certificate is supposed to record what happened in that specific case and 'death by poor air quality' is not something that can be shown on an individual, only statistically on a large population.

Because the truth, of course, is that it's a condition that can be both developed and exacerbated at any stage in a person's life.

Again, why on earth do you say that? What 'condition' are you talking about.

Even then, it leaves you with the very tricky dilemma of having to decide that if you think one girl's death is acceptable, what number you pick to draw the line at, beyond which you regard it as a problem?

As I have explained, the number of legitimate cases of 'poor air quality' on a death certificate is zero.

And nothing is perfect in this world. There are negative consequences for any large scale industrial process. Turning the emotional argument around: it leaves you with the very tricky dilemma of having to decide that if you think one child cobalt miner's death is acceptable, what number you pick to draw the line at, beyond which you regard it as a problem?

Your comments about the Tube are classic "whataboutism",

Nope, not in the slightest.

It's the argument that something else is bad, so that justifies not doing anything about the original thing that was bad.

No, it is saying that something else is far, far worse and that we should address that first.

What's needed, is not to give up on improving street level air quality, but to tackle underground air quality as well. If you have an suggestions there, I'm sure TfL would be grateful?

Who said anything about giving up on improving street air quality?

My point was that Khan is resolutely refusing to do anything to tackle the air quality on the Tube. Hence supporting the point that @Mottie made

It is nothing to do with polluting. It’s ALL to do with raising money.

BTW, The Imperial College research mentioned earlier, concluded that the existing (inner London) ULEZ had had minimal impact on air quality. So expanding it to outer London is likely to have no more impact.

And yes, our bodies have evolved with carbon particles for many thousands of years and they STILL can't cope with them! More recently, oxides of nitrogen too - and tyre and brake particulates - none of which, are good for us!

No idea what point you are making. That seems in agreement with me that priority s/b given to cleaning up the Tube.

 

[Avocet]

As I said, I have no idea how reasonable a concern it is.

For someone who (now) claims to have no idea, you were pretty vocal about it before!

You say that all the comments listing the various problems with BEVs are propaganda,

No, I didn't. I said that they were being touted as EV problems, whilst (rather hypocritically) ignoring the fact that weight is not a problem unique to EVs. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I think they show why BEVs are not appropriate as a mass market solution but they are being forced on the country exactly as a mass market solution. Hence I think that people are more willing to pay attention to the problems of BEVs.

And why would that be? (Apart from rank hypocrisy, of course...). Please explain why this (supposedly) explains why the weight of a 2 ton EV means it's not appropriate as a mass market solution, but the weight of a 2 ton SUV is? Please explain why you think people are more "willing to pay attention" to exactly the same problem in one type of vehicle but not the other?

Regarding SUVs, there are (almost certainly) more of them than are needed, but there are far fewer of them than non-SUVs. However the current plan is that all vehicles will be BEVs and so they will have a much more significant impact.

You make the assumption that all BEVs will be (what in your opinion is) excessively heavy. This is far from the case, as there are smaller EVs that weigh well under the arbitrary 2 ton figure we've so far been discussing.

The cobalt point is, to appropriate your terminology, pro-BEV propaganda. The oil industry uses cobalt as a catalyst, so it is not consumed. Cobalt in BEVs is basically never recovered. Hence the oil industry (that powers the whole world) uses c. 7% of the cobalt mined and BEVs (1% of vehicles maybe) uses c. 45% of the cobalt.

Your first point is rubbish, I'm afraid. The cobalt in an EV battery (at least, in those EV batteries that still use any cobalt at all - an increasing number of them don't, any more), can be recovered at end of battery life. You don't cite any source for your other claims, so I can't really look at them in any detail, but they are, right now, just claims. The important thing, however, is that (unlike oil) every EV will have exactly the same amount of cobalt and lithium and copper in it when it reaches the end of its life, as it did when it was built. The EU is already mandating minimum recycled battery content in future EVs (something that you can't really do if, as you claim, the materials are "never recovered"...)

Recycling electric car batteries

Discover how we recycle electric car batteries and recover rare metals (lithium, copper, etc.) to protect the environment.

www.veolia.com

That is rather a specious argument. How many of them are there compared to the number of cars on the road. When everything is a BEV the road impact of delivery vans will be negligible compared to that of cars.

There you go again with your exceptionalism! One sort of heavy vehicles are a problem for road damage (coincidentally, I'm sure,the sort that you don't like ), but you're happy to turn a blind eye to other sorts!

In reverse order. BEVs will significantly impact energy security. The amount of electricity needed to charge (a large number of) them will put a huge strain on an already struggling electric system.

Whereas continuing to prop up rather unpleasant foreign regimes who don't like us very much, by buying the world's dwindling supplies of oil from them, won't have any effect on energy security? Okay....

In case you hadn't noticed, we ARE increasing electricity generation capacity - and a pleasing amount of it is more renewables. Now that, is "energy security". As for the system "already struggling", if it's struggling that badly, why is it selling off-peak electricity so cheaply? What we have, is a pretty inefficient generation system that struggles to offload its off-peak electricity and struggles with peak demand. The solution is to use it more efficiently, and here, BEVs could actually be part of the solution, rather than the problem, with vehicle-to-grid infrastructure.

AFAIUI BEVs make air quality worse, as they are heavier they cause more particulates from road wear and probably brakes. The problem gases emitted by ICE vehicles are basically all dealt with by catalytic converters.

No, I'm afraid that's completely wrong. The jury is still out on EVs and tyre wear - some studies claiming higher wear rates, others, lower. But again, you're just so blind to the fact that some ICEs weigh the same (and more) than some EVs, so if what you are saying is true, this is not simply an EV problem.

Brake dust is actually massively lower with EVs because they do much of their braking through regeneration. That's well-established, with plenty of EVs not needing brake pads for 100,000 miles! You only have to run an EV for a few hundred miles to see ow much less brake dust there is on the rims, compared to a typical ICE vehicle.

Vehicles have had catalytic converters for 30 years now. If they really did deal with gaseous emissions, why have we been continually tightening emissions standards since then? Why did we have the "VW scandal"? Why do we have the air quality problems in our towns and cities that we patently do? Why dos the planet have a CO2 problem? Believe me, if catalytic converters really did deal with vehicle gaseous emissions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion!

What do you mean by climate change? The climate has always changed and always will. Of course the GHGs that are emitted by human activity have some impact, how much is a currently unknown quantity. Don't forget that by a huge margin the most significant GHG is water vapour, and there is precious littler we can do to keep that out of the atmosphere.

If what you mean is catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACC) then it is best to say that and be clear. No rational person doubts climate change. The evidence for CACC is much less convincing.

You can spare me the nit-picking semantics. I think we both understand perfectly well what I mean! You're in a very small (and shrinking) minority, if you still believe that the cause is "much less convincing". This is a "done deal" now. There's an almost complete consensus among climate scientists as to what the problems are and how they are being caused. Next you'll be telling me that smoking is good for you! . The real tragedy, is that despite the climate scientists' predictions coming truer by the year, there are still some people who try to pretend that there isn't a problem or if there is, it's nothing to do with us. I take it you didn't go to Rhodes, or the Greek Islands, or Hawaii for your holidays this year?

I cannot see any way that we will transition to BEVs at a mass market level.

Watch and learn my friend, watch and learn. It's already happening. Tesla Model Y is currently the world's best-selling car. (And I'm not even a Tesla fan boy). More than a quarter of the cars registered in the UK this year, are expected to be electric, and the government's ZEV mandate target for 2024 was only 22%!

 

[Avocet]

The resources needed to make them are significantly higher than ICE vehicles, hence the much higher prices. And the electric power to charge them is not being built.

But the resources needed to make them, is only part of the story (and a minority part at that). You need to consider the total lifecycle resource demand. This is where BEVs have the whip hand over ICEs, and that difference will only grow larger as our power generation decarbonises further. You're also wrong about new generation not being built, by the way...

Hinkley C is already going ahead.

Latest images

Take a look at the latest images from the construction of Hinkley Point C, the first nuclear power station to be built in the UK in over 20 years.

www.edfenergy.com

New renewables are being added all the time:

UK's Upcoming Renewable Energy Projects - Bunkabin

We've looked at the areas in the UK with the biggest level of investment in projects for renewable energy. View our interactive map to see where is greenest!

www.bunkabin.co.uk

Hell, there was even a planning application for a new solar farm not far from me!

No, of course not. What I clearly said is that your 10:1 ratio was nonsense.

Someone killed in a RTA is a known named person. A statistical person 'killed' by poor air quality is a numerical construct, not a real person.

And that, of course, is the problem. If you don't see the corpse bouncing off your bonnet, then it never happened... right...? Tell me... where do the numbers come from, that make up this "numerical construct"? Would any of them be "named persons", by any chance? is it possible, in fact, that every last single one of them, was a "named person"?

Why on earth do you say that? All the evidence that I have seen is that generally less than perfect air quality (which is what we are talking about) only has a measurable impact on those already near death.

Really?

Young and old, air pollution affects the most vulnerable

Air pollution affects the human body in the short and long term, in ways that are detrimental to health. Vulnerable people appear to be most at risk, as highlighted by studies linking air pollution to decreased cognitive performance among the elderly and others suggesting that poor air quality...

www.unep.org

https://www.unicef.org/media/123156/file/Childhood_Air_Pollution_Key_Messages_2022.pdf

Not in the slightest.

No. That is the only case ever, and it was c. a decade ago. Poor air quality has not been on a death certificate since then and there is no likelihood of it happening again. The coroner, quite rightly IMO, got a lot of stick for overreaching in that case. A death certificate is supposed to record what happened in that specific case and 'death by poor air quality' is not something that can be shown on an individual, only statistically on a large population.

No point in arguing with the ref because you didn't like the result. All this "stick" that the coroner got... it wouldn't have come from people like you, who refuse to acknowledge the problem, by any chance, would it...? Moreover, as I recall, the coroner cited it as a contributory factor, not a single cause of death.

Again, why on earth do you say that? What 'condition' are you talking about.

Lots of conditions:

Ηow air pollution affects our health

Air pollution is the single largest environmental health risk in Europe and a major cause of premature death and disease. Latest estimates by the European Environment Agency (EEA) show that fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) continues to cause the most substantial health impacts.

www.eea.europa.eu

Health matters: air pollution

www.gov.uk

As I have explained, the number of legitimate cases of 'poor air quality' on a death certificate is zero.

No, you have not "explained" it, you have "claimed" it. You might not accept the coroner's decision as legitimate, but that most certainly doesn't mean it wasn't. In the light of the above links, it's pretty obvious that the problem is vastly understated.

And nothing is perfect in this world. There are negative consequences for any large scale industrial process. Turning the emotional argument around: it leaves you with the very tricky dilemma of having to decide that if you think one child cobalt miner's death is acceptable, what number you pick to draw the line at, beyond which you regard it as a problem?

ANY miner's death is a tragedy, of course, and if you want to get emotive about it, a child death is arguably even worse. That's why the EV industry is reducing (and in may cases, entirely eliminating) the use of cobalt. Remind me what the oil industry is doing about it? Furthermore, the vast majority of cobalt is commercially mined by large companies. "Artisanal cobalt" as it's known, is a tiny fraction of total cobalt output. EV manufacturers are already starting to address the problem:

Sourcing ethical cobalt: EV manufacturers begin work to stop child and environmental exploitation...

Sourcing ethical cobalt: EV manufacturers begin work to stop child and environmental exploitation Bryce Gaton : Cobalt's dirty secret, and how manufacturers are trying to clean up their act.First published on TheDriven.io, November 22nd 2019...

aeva.asn.au

And I don't see you proposing any alternatives, either. Are you happy with the way oil is sourced and processed?

Nope, not in the slightest.

No, it is saying that something else is far, far worse and that we should address that first.

It is claiming that something else is far, far worse. And while I don't doubt that air quality in the tube is lousy, to understand the scale of the problem and prioritise it, you also need to look at the number of people exposed to it and for how long each day. That's the difference.

Who said anything about giving up on improving street air quality?

Pretty much everything you've posted has been an attempt to deny the scale of the problem! Are you now saying that it IS a problem and that we SHOULD try to tackle it?

My point was that Khan is resolutely refusing to do anything to tackle the air quality on the Tube. Hence supporting the point that @Mottie made

BTW, The Imperial College research mentioned earlier, concluded that the existing (inner London) ULEZ had had minimal impact on air quality. So expanding it to outer London is likely to have no more impact.

You don't post any link so I can't comment, but I very much doubt that the report would conclude that extending the ULEZ would have no more impact than the current ULEZ. Certainly this guy from Imperial doesn't seem to share your view!

Expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ): why is it causing so much controversy? - Imperial Medicine Blog

Professor Frank Kelly who leads the Environmental Research Group at Imperial explains that there are strong health grounds for expanding London's ULEZ.

blogs.imperial.ac.uk

No idea what point you are making. That seems in agreement with me that priority s/b given to cleaning up the Tube.

I'm not sure how you could conclude that from what I've said, but then, I'm also not sure how you conclude that Imperial College don't think expanding the ULEZ will make any difference, either!

 

[Mottie]

Hey, you two. Stop wearing out your quote buttons!

 

[Avocet]

Hey, you two. Stop wearing out your quote buttons!

 

[norseman]

It will be pretty filthy compared to a current diesel, I'm afraid. You could also say your 60 year old car was much better than a steam wagon, but that still doesn't make it "clean" in absolute terms! (And I speak as someone who has a 34 year old petrol car with no cat, but I do try to use it sparingly)!

36 years without a feline in my case, but I am rural.
You can keep your crowded cities as far as I'm concerned

 

[DiyNutJob]

As far as I can see, this seems to incentivise the use of older gas guzzlers above anything else, which seems utterly crazy!

I can only guess you are blind and talk bull ox. Those f*ers only know how to send free money to ukraine, while local hyper-inflation is going through the roof.

 

[JP_]

I have 2 cars. They are both red.
Hyundai i10, £30 a year
Focus Focus Estate 1.0 Ecoboost, £30 a year.
Both have more than enough power!

 

[Avocet]

I can only guess you are blind and talk bull ox. Those f*ers only know how to send free money to ukraine, while local hyper-inflation is going through the roof.

View attachment 311929

Like most of your guesses, it's a long way from the mark, but hey, why change the habit of a lifetime?

 

[norseman]

Sorry guys, but for me this once informative discussion has become tedious.

At the end of the day us plebs will never know the truth, every mainstream media article & internet blog will put forward 'facts' that none of us will be able verify.

Trading insults on forums won't change people's opinions, in fact are more likely to cement them. You are either for or against EV's but I find it ironical that we had a similar situation back in the days when LPG was all the rage. Owners claimed that having the conversion was doing their bit to save the planet, whereas saving on running costs was the real driving force behind their decision

LPG turned out to be a one-trick pony & IMO the EV craze will go the same way when/if a real emission-free solution is found & developed.

Demand for new EV's is falling (so we are told) ownership is too expensive for the majority of the motoring public, they are only really practical for those fortunate enough to have home-charging facilities & depreciate alarmingly.

I'm now clicking the 'un-watch' box.

 

[Avocet]

Sorry guys, but for me this once informative discussion has become tedious.

At the end of the day us plebs will never know the truth, every mainstream media article & internet blog will put forward 'facts' that none of us will be able verify.

Trading insults on forums won't change people's opinions, in fact are more likely to cement them. You are either for or against EV's but I find it ironical that we had a similar situation back in the days when LPG was all the rage. Owners claimed that having the conversion was doing their bit to save the planet, whereas saving on running costs was the real driving force behind their decision

LPG turned out to be a one-trick pony & IMO the EV craze will go the same way when/if a real emission-free solution is found & developed.

Demand for new EV's is falling (so we are told) ownership is too expensive for the majority of the motoring public, they are only really practical for those fortunate enough to have home-charging facilities & depreciate alarmingly.

I'm now clicking the 'un-watch' box.

Fair enough, but for anyone still watching...

There are two completely separate environmental problems we are facing.

1. CO2 - climate change and all that unpalatable stuff.

2. Air quality - NOx, particulates, and all that nasty stuff.

Some technologies are good on one and bad on the other (like diesel and petrol). Some are a bit better on both (like LPG and CNG). Some are very good on both, but come with other drawbacks (like BEVs).

LPG (whilst helping with some of those problems), didn't provide enough of a benefit to be worthwhile for most consumers. Part of this, isn't LPG's fault, it's just that it was a bit ahead of its time and public awareness of environmental problems wasn't that great. Now that it is, BEVs represent a better environmental solution to the above problems than LPG anyway.

Will BEVs fade away too, when something better comes along? Yes, probably. But only IF something better comes along before we run out of oil. Or, maybe we won't run out of oil, before we all get fed up being alternately flooded or burned to a crisp in wildfires. Either way, I think most reasonable people understand that we can't carry on the way we are, indefinitely.

So, all I ask, is that you maybe come back to this thread in (say) 5 or 10 years and see how it looks then?

 

[norseman]

So, all I ask, is that you maybe come back to this thread in (say) 5 or 10 years and see how it looks then?

Fair comment 'A' though in 5 yrs. I'll be even more past caring & as for 10? .. I'll either be gar-gar or dead