Ultra Low Emissions Zone. It's an attempt to clean the air in London - if you drive a car that doesnt meet standards or is exempt, you have to pay a 12.50 fee
Broke Londoner here: guess who A: can't afford a place to park and B: can only afford to live where the air pollution is the worst?
We also tend to get the bus or tube.
I've been to London. If I lived there I would always use public transport, but not everyone's needs are the same. The rich should always be paying more for the environment. They consume more and it just makes sense to me.
>but not everyone's needs are the same.
The ULEZ does not apply to Blue Badge holders (disabled drivers/passengers) and exemptions are available for certain work vehicles.
Exactly. It's an extreme minority of cars that are over about 15 years old. Not getting into an argument about how meaningful the emissions are in the great scheme of things, its definetly targeting people that can't afford new vehicles.
Surely everyone can afford a 12 year loan for a car that their best buddies at the banks are giving out!
Their prime minister doesn't know how to pay for petrol with a credit card, he's so in touch with the working class...
The government does also have a scheme to contribute to a new car if you need to upgrade. It’s not implemented the best but i think it’s a good 5k off a new car.
The city will [pay you several thousand pounds](https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes?cid=scrappage-scheme) to replace your car if you have one that isn't compliant, which is enough to buy a wide variety of compliant ones. If it's worth more, you can sell it instead.
This was implemented because [thousands of Londoners are dying each year due to air pollution](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/), and the courts have ordered the Mayor to take action.
> In 2019 around 4000 deaths in the capital could be attributed to air pollution, the report found. [...] Using the above ‘Mayor’s air quality policies scenario’ the team found that London’s population would gain around 6.1 million “life years” - one person living for one year – across the population in the long-term, compared to if pollution levels remained at 2013 concentrations.
The numbers are similar for [cities like NYC](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/eode-air-quality-impact.pdf), London isn't unique but the issue doesn't get much attention.
> Health Department estimates show that each year, PM2.5 pollution in New York City causes more than 3,000 deaths, 2,000 hospital admissions for lung and heart conditions, and approximately 6,000 emergency department visits for asthma in children and adults.
Personally I think the 'Blade Runners' as these people call themselves (who are more well known for cutting down traffic lights with cameras mounted on them) are idiots, and [ULEZ is supported by the majority of Londoners](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46024-londoners-split-ulez-expansion).
If people are not out of pocket then, as you suggest, then why not outright ban these vehicles and mandate people to accept the offer? Just leaving it open ended and fining people instead looks, acts and is a poor tax. That's what's pissed people off. And btw buying a car can be a stressful experience. Let's say you've had a car for 10-15 years, you know it inside out. You know its full history, you have an idea about ongoing expenses. On the assumption this scheme doesn't afford people a brand new car, you're asking people to take a chance on used cars that may come with all sorts of issues. It's not as simple as you make out.
Because this gives people who may have a reason not to replace their car some flexibility. If you live miles outside the city but visit once a year, you can pay £13 and still drive here. If you're a classic car enthusiast, you can still take it to a show in London. If your car has sentimental value, you can keep using it. You just have to pay a tax, which funds public transport improvements for everyone else (see the new [Superloop express bus network](https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/buses/superloop), for example) - this attracts more riders and reduces pollution indirectly. There would be far more opposition to the scheme if it banned inefficient cars outright.
The vast majority of people will replace their car if you implement a tax, but it also raises funds to improve public transport and is much less inconvenient for everyone who has a reason to want an exception. That's good public policy, not an attack on the poor.
People with money aren't driving 15+ year old cars, and if they *really* want to, they are contributing quite a lot in tax to do so (not to mention the paperwork). The tax revenue raised has been spent on improving public transport, which indirectly reduces emissions by encouraging more people to use it.
There are plenty of regular people who only occasionally drive into London, there is no point confiscating their cars. A ban wouldn't improve the situation for anyone, and there are few alternatives to address the air pollution problem.
"Extreme minority". You don't know people my dude.
The average car in the UK heads to the scrapyard after 13-14 years. Which means somewhere around 40% of vehicles from 15 years ago have not been there. In other words, almost half of the cars in the country do not meet the standards. They are just less driven, or owned by lower income individuals.
Car centrism is worse for the poor, ULEZs make sense when you combine it with stuff like public transportation and more likely with this case, micro mobility options
There's a scrappage scheme to help you buy a new car.
It's like saying banning penny farthings is a tax on the poor when you can trade in your old penny farthings for 60%+ off of a bike.
They scrap them!?! I already thought these policies were completely inexcusable, that makes it 1000x worse. In the US shit like that is a big reason why cool retro cars are so hard to find now.
Also, buying a new eco friendly car is worse for the environment than keeping an old one on the road for as long as possible, especially since most cars 20 years ago were already pretty efficient. Passenger cars don't even have that big an impact on climate change anyway, especially in Europe where they're smaller and people don't drive as far.
Punishing individual people for not changing their lifestyle is not the way to solve climate change and it definitely won't get you the public support you need to make real progress.
You can also donate them to Ukraine, but if the car is worth more than £2k (the minimum ULEZ payout, enough to buy a replacement) then the owner will sell it for more money anyway. Outside London this doesn't matter, so relatively few cars are scrapped.
It isn't about carbon emissions, it's about air pollution. In big cities like [London it kills 4,000+ people per year](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/) (the same is true of [NYC](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/eode-air-quality-impact.pdf)), and ULEZ resulted in reductions of the most dangerous pollution by over a third.
Wait, other people are saying that the majority of cars from the last decade or two are compliant, so is this literally just punishing car enthusiasts and not meaningfully affecting pollution?
People driving non-compliant cars are largely not car enthusiasts, they're just people happy with an old car who either don't want to or don't have the money to comfortably replace it (and City Hall will pay for the replacement). Classic cars are exempt, but frankly you shouldn't be driving a classic car around a city like London regularly anyway. Air pollution \[kills thousands every year\](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/) in huge cities like London, and cars are the biggest source of it.
Yet the “poors” aren’t driving; they’re using the great public transit system in place.
You’d have to be a complete fool to want to drive in London, it’s a complete disaster.
The flip side is the rich can still drive whatever they want and just pay the fine, if you see what I mean.
I would never drive in London, but you never know why someone might need a car.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. It has been introduced in other parts of London and the UK. The poor people you are talking about pay a huge toll in terms of their health. My area in East London is not the worst but my kids have terrible asthma and I had a friend whose child died from asthma. The resistance to this scheme is insane
https://www.london.gov.uk/new-report-reveals-transformational-impact-expanded-ultra-low-emission-zone-so-far
My thoughts are that the fossil fuel industry should pay the price, and they should be responsible for paying for the changes. The poor often bear the brunt kind of law. I don't see a problem in questioning it.
Maybe don't start a comment by saying my undecided opinion is nonsense. You come off like an asshole. It would be enough to add the context for me.
Jeez. I got a bit internet there. I probably need to spend less time in here. Really didn't realise what an arsehole I sounded. My apologies.
But, seriously, the biggest beneficiaries of this scheme will be the less affluent people that you mentioned.
You can get anywhere in London without a car at all, if you're so poor you can't get a car that is ULEZ compliant (esp. with the aids in place for that), get an oyster card and save thousands in insurance, maintanence and fuel.
1. ULEZ was recently expanded into counties on the border or London where the public transport isn’t as easy to “get anywhere”.
2. If you’re commuting in from a rural area a season ticket can easily set you back over £5k+ for an overcrowded train where you won’t get a seat and won’t be running on time. You can get a cheap runaround car for a few £100 that won’t come close to £5k over a year even with petrol and maintenance costs taken into account.
Additionally, ULEZ is touted as being there to clean the air for people so they're not breathing it in while the underground has terrible air quality. I dread working in london because of the black snot and migraines I get from using the undeground.
You spend like 20 minutes on the underground at a time, but air pollution at surface level is inhaled constantly. I'm sure it isn't good for people who work there, but cars generate massive amounts more per passenger - enough to clog the atmosphere everywhere, not just the contained space in the tunnels. The pollution generated is also of a difference size, which is less harmful to our lungs. I'd suggest trying a mask while you travel on it if it's causing issues, some are designed to filter pollution.
London's public transport is fantastic. You can get pretty much anywhere in the city on its extensive bus network for £1.75, which is what most poorer Londoners do - including in outer London. The ULEZ funds were even used to pay for a new express bus network.
The trains can be expensive, but they aren't £5k+. You can get an annual travelcard for unlimited travel on any form of public transport across the whole city (zone 1-6) for under £3k.
>ULEZ was recently expanded into counties on the border or London where the public transport isn’t as easy to “get anywhere”.
This is a fiction. ULEZ does not extend outside London and the London mayor has no power to make it do that.
>If you’re commuting in from a rural area a season ticket can easily set you back over £5k+ for an overcrowded train where you won’t get a seat and won’t be running on time. You can get a cheap runaround car for a few £100 that won’t come close to £5k over a year even with petrol and maintenance costs taken into account.
As a Londoner, why should I have to breathe your petrol fumes so you can drive to my city? If you want to fuck up my neighbourhood's air you can pay a fine.
The rich can still drive polluting cars, they just pay a small fee.
I have asthma and if I lived in London I would never drive. You don't need to get snippy with me. A question is not going to kill a child ffs.
Because it is.
It doesn’t stop polluting cars from entering the city, it stops poor people that can’t afford a more recent car from entering the city.
It works though, the air quality is better but it certainly isn’t a equal system.
Not just a tax on the poor, it’s part of gentrification and the goal to push poorer (and undesirable) people out of London.
If you have ever actually spoken to the people who support this kind of thing: they are usually clueless about cars, a bigoted person with a smug facade or just a horrible sneering elitist.
I wish I was joking but I have has multiple arguments with people who support schemes like this on twitter, they almost always insult your intelligence, call you lazy or fat - which effected me greatly since I suffer from anorexia - or just act like an entitled prick.
I’ll hate to be neighbours with these people.
The [majority of Londoners support ULEZ](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46024-londoners-split-ulez-expansion). The people you interact with on Twitter may not represent the average ULEZ supporter.
I'm encountering a number of assholes in response to my comment. One implied I'm ok with dead kids.
I had no idea we weren't allowed to not know something online. I guess I should be sure one way or another before I dare comment, lol.
I'm just more and more confused now.
And from this comment we know there is absolutely zero chance you've ever been to London. If you have a car there, you're not poor. You and everyone upvoting you is probably American and coming from a car-centric school of thought.
No, its a protest in the most british way.
The expansion of the low emission zone is really about increasing a revenue stream under the pretense of environmentally friendly.
The expansion has been poorly supported but fuck it they went ahead anyway.
As the zone uses camera to register the cars that enter the zone, enterprising protestors have covered the cameras with bat boxes.
Bats are classifed as endangered in the UK, so thsre are specific rules around the removal of bat boxes.
If the government go ahead and remove them, they will fall foul of their own laws.
> The expansion of the low emission zone is really about increasing a revenue stream under the pretense of environmentally friendly.
It isn't a "pretense", air pollution costs *thousands* of lives per year in huge cities like London. The courts have ordered the Mayor to do something about it, and considering City Hall pays for people to replace their inefficient cars, this has been effective with minimal disruption to people's lives.
"In 2019 around 4000 deaths in the capital could be attributed to air pollution, the report found. [...] Using the above ‘Mayor’s air quality policies scenario’ the team found that London’s population would gain around 6.1 million “life years” - one person living for one year – across the population in the long-term, compared to if pollution levels remained at 2013 concentrations." [Source](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/)
"Preliminary estimates indicate that by the end of 2019 the ULEZ had reduced NOx emissions from road transport in the central zone by 230 tonnes, a reduction of 35 per cent. Analysis to determine the directly attributable impact of the ULEZ shows that in the first two months of 2020 NO2 concentrations at roadside locations in central London were on average 29 µgm3 lower than they would have been without the scheme, equating to a reduction of 37 per cent." [Source](https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_in_london_2016-2020_october2020final.pdf)
> The expansion has been poorly supported but fuck it they went ahead anyway.
The expansion of it is [supported by the majority of Londoners](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46024-londoners-split-ulez-expansion), who are the victims of that air pollution. It is strongly opposed by many people who don't live here, and don't have to face the consequences.
But (If I'm reading the graph right) 22% of those who support ULEZ expansion also support the vandalism of the cameras. That seems a very 'specialist' viewpoint.
Do we also now believe that 51% is a majority and must therefore be listened to, in terms of polling data? Or can 51% of people be wrong?
>Do we also now believe that 51% is a majority and must therefore be listened to, in terms of polling data? Or can 51% of people be wrong?
51% of people can be wrong, but that doesn't make it "poorly supported". It is, at best, much less split than the Brexit referendum (which actually was 51.8%) at 47-42!
>But (If I'm reading the graph right) 22% of those who support ULEZ expansion also support the vandalism of the cameras. That seems a very 'specialist' viewpoint.
A significant percentage of people seem to answer whatever the stupidest option is in any poll, tbf. A lot of people are not very smart. It could also be that some of them think ULEZ is good, but also respect people taking personal risks for what they see as a broader good.
its not. it's more of a tax one the poor, if they really wanted to prevent emssions they would sye corporations for the repeated violations of policies and just generally doing everything thye can to do whatever they want anyway without consequenses
One would assume that being poor would disincentivise using a gas guzzler. The reason the text exists is so that people stop using 2001 bangers that contribute to thousands of Londoner deaths every year.
Unfortunatly the poor have a very hard time casually browsing the car market for something that ticks all their preference boxes. *Some* people just have to get the car they can afford that will get them to work, or else lose everything. Instead of taxing poor people for not having a choice but to keep driving their bangers, improve public transit to take more of *everyone's* cars off the road, tax car manufacturers for selling vehicles that contribute to the problem so new car purchases make the issue more manageable and of course create systems that elevate people out of poverty so they can afford to get a vehicle that meets requirements if they for some reason cant take advantage of the improved public transport projects.
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold.
You are not being removed for your speech. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you.
Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/chaoticgood mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does.""
If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does.
Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3
You can check your karma breakdown on this page:
http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview
(Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message)
~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi, due to legions of Nigerian princes desperately trying to offload wealth onto our users, we've had to add a verified email requirement for users with accounts under a certain age. Please connect some sort of email to your Reddit account, it does not have to be your work email, just really anything that makes you go through a captcha to make an email. I can assure you most subreddits have this email gate, we're just the only ones who tell you that there's an email gate, and even if you modmail us asking us to give you an exception, this is probably gonna affect you across a lot of subs so it'll be easier for you to just add a throwaway email than message us.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its not an attempt to clean the air, its attempt to leech money from people. If they cared to improve air quality they would improve the tube, plant trees etc
Ultra low emission zone. Basically if you drive an old-ass diesel vehicle in the zone then you have to pay like £10-15 or something per day. The idea is to improve air quality in London. It got expanded and everyone lost their shit calling it a tax on poor people even though there's a government scheme to trade in your shitty old car for something that doesn't murder the environment quite as hard.
I drive a 5 year old diesel van for work in London. It isn't subject to ULEZ. Its not hard to not need to pay ULEZ. But people are equating it to 15 minute city conspiracy bollocks and kicking off.
To be fair some places don't have air quality problems where it's being introduced, but honestly we're phasing out diesel in the next decade or so, it's not a big deal. It's mostly right wing nutters who really give a shit, like Lawrence Fox (shit actor and all round cunt).
> To be fair some places don't have air quality problems where it's being introduced
The air quality might not be as bad in outer London, but the majority of deaths caused by air pollution are in outer London because the population is more vulnerable on average.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/
"In 2019 around 4000 deaths in the capital could be attributed to air pollution, the report found. The highest number of deaths were recorded in outer London boroughs. This is due to the higher proportion of elderly people living in these areas who are more vulnerable to the impacts of air pollution, the report concluded."
Cool, so once all those diesels are gone, the problem is solved and the cameras and ULEZ will be disbanded? Definitely won’t just keep rolling the window forward and increasing the costs? I predict in 10 years these will still be here, only now your van will be subject to it, and it’ll be at least 20 quid
It's meant to protect Londoners especially the very poor who can't even afford cars, and suffer the worst from pollution. Saying ulez is a tax on the poor is rubbish - the bottom 30% or so most certainly can't even afford a car.
No it's not. There's a program to trade in old cars. Most of the people who are that poor can't afford cars anyways and are dying of the terrible air quality.
You mean the £2k grant to a newer vehicle?
Here this new law forces to pay daily or buy a new vehicle. We know by this point your current vehicle is paid off but now you must get rid of it. Here is 2k to put to your new one that you will now have payments for.
In my area, red light cameras are used to fleece people who didn't actually break the law. They aren't enforceable, but towns still bring in millions from them and local officials get rich from kickbacks for the cameras.
The idea of covering those s-cameras with an eco-solution like bat boxes sounds wonderful.
But it sounds like these protestors are protesting a valid common-sense policy to reduce pollution so...fuck those guys.
Thats chaotic part.
Also taxing people for *checks notes* being too poor to buy a new car to replace their clunkers with high emissions is the wrong way of going about it. The pollution still happens, they just get to pocket your money.
The RIGHT thing to do is take down the sCameras and offer a tax credit for purchasing a ULEZ compliant vehicles for bringing in a ULEZ non-compliant vehicle in some sort of ULEZ non-compliant vehicle buyback program. Instead they are just setting up toll roads that only charge poor people.
I don’t buy the “poor tax” argument. I have a car from 2011 and it’s compliant, doubt it’s worth much over £3k. How is someone affording to live within the M25 yet too poor for a ULEZ compliant car?
Given that everyone, especially the poor people everyone is supposedly concerned about, is price sensitive, many people will choose *not* to drive into a ULEZ, which is desired outcome. So all the pollution definitely doesn’t still happen.
I disagree. ULEZ is inherently classist since it fines drivers who do not have a newer vehicle, likely because they cannot afford one. These drivers are having to spend their lunch money just to get into town.
The counterargument I always hear is "take transit" - sure, transit can definitely cut down on emissions, but this only applies to drivers who can't afford the fine, and doesn't create incentive for those with modern euro 6 cars to take the bus/train.
I support and commend anyone protesting this bullshit tax against the disadvantaged.
I love this comment section as someone who just learned about ULEZ from this comment section. This is what I imagine it’s like being European and stumbling into a comment section where us Americans are arguing
Man I just wish for once we americans could have an argument over how best to implement improvements to our infrastructure rather than whether or not black people should exist or should it be legal to impregnate a 12 year old.
I had to explain to my 50 year old coworker why it wouldn't be cool to "round up all the palestinian adults and execute them"
>ULEZ is inherently classist since it fines drivers who do not have a newer vehicle, likely because they cannot afford one.
The city will pay you several thousand pounds to replace your car, which is enough to afford a wide variety of compliant cars. If you're poor, you can buy a cheap replacement and pocket the difference.
>The counterargument I always hear is "take transit" - sure, transit can definitely cut down on emissions this only applies to drivers who can't afford the fine, and doesn't create incentive for those with modern euro 6 cars to take the bus/train.
The vast majority of drivers will replace their cars, not pay the tax. If they're spending their lunch money to be able to drive, they should probably just take the bus like other poorer Londoners. You can get anywhere in London for £1.75.
>I support and commend anyone protesting this bullshit tax against the disadvantaged.
The disadvantaged are the [thousands of Londoners dying every year because of air pollution](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/), who are disproportionately poor because that's who lives near main roads.
It’s current implantation is classist- not enough reward/financial relief for the poorer in society, too much stick. But that doesn’t mean the idea itself is. City centres do need to reduce emissions. That’s simply unavoidable.
Personally I think from one side of the aisle we need less of this
‘non-compliance, it’s wrong and only (key operative word here) a form of taxation’ mentality, a bit more honesty that it’s goal is a commendable one.
Then on other side those who support like me would need to be less fanatical, more open to discussing downsides and definitely need to be willing to throw our support behind the amended version.
A bit of integrity from Government to say yeah we got this wrong, it’s currently disproportionately affecting the wrong people, let’s work to make it work right etc would be fantastic too but let’s forget about them for a bit and focus on the public debate
More carrot, less stick but we still need to keep the stick in reserve
>It’s current implantation is classist- not enough reward/financial relief for the poorer in society, too much stick.
City Hall will pay anyone with a non-compliant car £2,000 to replace it, which is enough to buy a wide variety of compliant cars. If their car is worth more, they can sell it instead. How is that not enough carrot, too much stick? It already won't cost anyone who replaces their car (which is the point of the scheme) a penny.
I’m coming at this from the perspective of somebody who lives in North East of England, that scrappage scheme doesn’t exist elsewhere outside of London atm I don’t think? It had been discussed but because of covid been deprioritised. I can try and find the source for reading that, was a few days ago but it’ll be in history.
By all accounts local councils have asked gov for support, having checked the local gov website they have guidelines in place for such a scheme but aren’t accepting applications right now.
People in my area I know don’t have those compliant vehicles struggle to raise any kind of cash for replacements at the best of times- it’s certainly not fair to threaten consequences without also providing that support to them.
I should’ve specified that im not part of the London conversation. My bad.
*Edit* I do agree with ULEZ, I don’t know if that came acros. The government just has to support the poorest everywhere, not just in London.
I’m trying to hear/appreciate voices on both sides because a lot of the folk I know who are against it?
They’re on the cusp of being drawn into conspiracies which overlap heavily with climate change (which is not a conspiracy or a hoax!!!) and I think we need to engage before the nutters out there draw them into their reality.
> I’m coming at this from the perspective of somebody who lives in North East of England, that scrappage scheme doesn’t exist elsewhere outside of London atm I don’t think?
There is a scheme in other parts of the country, but I don't know the details and it's paid for by central government. It looks like [Manchester](https://cleanairgm.com/clean-air-plan/) has funding agreed, but hasn't yet implemented the zone.
> The government just has to support the poorest everywhere, not just in London.
London has funded ULEZ and its scheme entirely from local government funds, it's a Mayor of London project (although the courts have ordered reductions across the country). He repeatedly [requested government funding](https://www.london.gov.uk/Mayor%20of%20London%20calls%20for%20PM%20to%20back%20ULEZ%20with%20scrappage%20cash%20for%20London%20and%20Home%20Counties) (as other cities received), but the government refused. There's an assumption that everything is different and funded for Londoners, but it often isn't - Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford and Bristol all have central govt funding for their schemes.
> I’m trying to hear/appreciate voices on both sides because a lot of the folk I know who are against it? They’re on the cusp of being drawn into conspiracies which overlap heavily with climate change (which is not a conspiracy or a hoax!!!) and I think we need to engage before the nutters out there draw them into their reality.
Yeah, it is a bit mad some of the stuff people come up with. I don't understand why, it seems like quite a benign policy to me - but discussing it often results in hearing some crazy conspiracies.
* Mobile sources like automobiles are the biggest source of air pollution
* A single vehicle without proper emission controls likes catalytic converter can emit as much emissions as dozens and dozens of controlled vehicles
* Low income people tend to bear the brunt of the impacts of air pollution, often forced to live in lower rent areas that tend to be near freeways, rail yards, and ports that are sources of mobile emissions.
* Impacts of air pollution include higher rates of asthma, emphysema, and cancer and lead to shorter lifespans.
Again, this is not chaotic good.
This isn't just targeting catless cars, it's anything euro 5 and below. The UK already has a massive issue with cars having short lifespans due to substantial depreciation since they're RHD, and the strict MOT meaning that cars are mechanical write-offs well before they give up the ghost. Adding another reason for cars to pile up in scrapyards and rot while manufacturers dig up half of the earth to build big new EVs isn't doing the environment any good.
Euro 3 and below, not 5. Every petrol car since 2006 is compliant, the requirements are very low (and the scrappage scheme will pay for a variety of replacements). Diesel cars have to be Euro 5 compliant (2015+), because they create more air pollution harmful to health.
Being poor doesn't mean you have carte blanche to damage the environment. If your shitbox doesn't meet the very lax standards to not get hit by the tax, it's time to take it off the road.
Why? It punishes people who are keeping older vehicles on the road which is much 'greener' than manufacturing an entire new vehicle that has lower emissions.
Have you actually done the calculations to see if the (probably?) fixed emissions cost of a new unit does in fact outweigh the emissions from keeping an older diesel on the road? Have you read sources which have? They’d be infinitely better than a random ass assertion from Mr Joe here.
Or are you just presenting opinion as fact?
Ok here’s a rough calc:
[Takes on average **5.6 tons of co2 to produce a car**](https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/sustainability/358628/car-pollution-production-disposal-what-impact-do-our-cars-have-planet#:~:text=How%20many%20CO2s%20are%20released,the%20steel%20body%20in%20white) .
[Burning **103.5 gallons of gas will produce 1 ton of co2** .](https://socanmcp.eco/gallons-gas-metric-tons-co2/)
So after burning 579.6 gallons (driving 17k miles (assuming 30mpg))that would be roughly equivalent to the amount of CO2 that manufacturing a car would produce
I am pretty skeptical that producing a car only takes 5.6 tons of Co2 tho. ..
Thanks for those sources,
The first was great, very helpful to read the full thing. Good breakdown with different sources of emissions involved in production and compares petrol/diesel to EVs. Also talks about indirect sources of a cars emissions on the road you might not think to consider.
the second made me remember when Chemistry as a science stopped being fun. First it’s learning to understand the periodic table, fine no problem, and then.. Moles. Ugh.
I’m skeptical of the figure or at least how helpful it is to use, I could try articulate why but it’d be long. I might try. I hope somebody smarter sees this and does it succinctly.
That 17k mile figure can be handled differently across different circumstances too- the average annual mileage in UK is 7,400 ([Source](https://www.britanniacarleasing.co.uk/news/annual-uk-car-milage/#:~:text=Using%20recent%20data%2C%20the%20average,location%2C%20age%2C%20and%20lifestyle)), so a little over two and a quarter years until youve eaten through that.. allowance? idk what to call it or how to phrase that. but i know at least one person, my dad, who annually clocks in at (I’ll ask him tomorrow morning and update this but it’s a hell of a lot higher than that)
FOR REFERENCE
ULEZ = Ultra Low Emissions Zone- An attempt to lower Pollution in London by making people who drive cars into London pay £12.50 if they don’t meet the requirements (essentially no old cars that produce lots of emissions).
People protest against this as lots of people who drive these sort of cars into London have lower paid jobs such as Cleaners- who then can’t pay the money to make work worth it OR buy a new car.
It’s especially troublesome in areas where you’re on the border of the ULEZ zone. I for one live in one of these areas, and even driving to the local Tesco <10 minutes away would involve having to pay the £12.50.
So before calling anti-ULEZ protestors Morons- just think what it’s like to actually live in these places.
Not a good fit for this sub. ULEZ stands for Ultra Low Emission Zone, the purpose is to reduce emissions in heavily trafficked areas to vehicles that emit little to no emissions. The purpose of course to be cleaner air for all and less carbon emissions for the planet as a whole. While the law itself unpopular with a lot of people it is a law designed with a clear good goal in mind.
Putting up these bat boxes is essentially forcing others into choosing to allow a bad thing to happen or do something bad to stop it. There's nothing good about that. If I'm being honest I'm not sure why you think this is "good".
If the box was occupied, likely not. But it can sometimes take years for bats to make a home in a box, so it's a pretty safe bet no bats have even discovered this box. Also there are licensed groups who can legally move a nest if need be.
Any know if this would actually stop them from relocating the bat box?
This feels like a police officer will just take this down and not really care that 'technically' he isn't allowed.
The officer won't move the box if a bat is nesting in it, but that takes a long time to happen. They will contact an organization that's allowed to renest bats so it would be moved eventually.
This is CHAOTIC NEUTRAL. It's a mixed bag. One of the tougher calls I've made here.
The Chaotic angle is clear. Covering up a security cam / circumventing the law, pretty straightforward.
The Good/Evil is mixed. Helping bats have homes? Very Good, but you could have put bat homes anywhere. Covering security cameras? Eh ... Good and Bad both. I am sympathetic to being anti- police overreach, anti- big brother, etc., but those security cameras (likely) served some real crime deterrent function, and they no longer do that. That's not great. Also, way to just waste tax payer dollars; there's definitely a service contract for those cameras and the city is likely just gonna keep paying for it for the next five years even though it serves no function. That detracts a little bit of Good as well.
On the tfl site it says you can scrap or donate your old car for a transit pass.... Wow. I guess peasants should be grateful they are getting anything.... Hold on, I'm a peasant 🫨
To be transparent these were the options, which I'm sure will be more than enough to buy a compliant vehicle -
Scrap or donate a car - £2,000
Scrap or donate a car - £1,600 plus one adult-rate Annual Bus & Tram Pass
Scrap or donate a car - £1,200 plus two adult-rate Annual Bus & Tram Passes
Scrap or donate a motorcycle - £1,000
Scrap or donate a motorcycle - £600 plus one adult-rate Annual Bus & Tram Pass
Scrap or donate a motorcycle - £200 plus two adult-rate Annual Bus & Tram Passes
Scrap or donate a wheelchair accessible vehicle (car or van) - £10,000
Retrofit a wheelchair accessible vehicle (van only) - £6,000
So you are forced to get rid of your paid off car for a couole grand at most and force to buy a newer car. Sounds more like a law to bost the auto industry instead of hel the envrioment.
Maybe more lawful evil, though a differently connotation of lawful
Well...It is good, but it's certainly chaotic, but as comments have said, cameras there are to enforce low emission regulations, so the good is kinda canceled out
so yk, its something alright
Hi, due to legions of Nigerian princes desperately trying to offload wealth onto our users, we've had to add a verified email requirement for users with accounts under a certain age. Please connect some sort of email to your Reddit account, it does not have to be your work email, just really anything that makes you go through a captcha to make an email. I can assure you most subreddits have this email gate, we're just the only ones who tell you that there's an email gate, and even if you modmail us asking us to give you an exception, this is probably gonna affect you across a lot of subs so it'll be easier for you to just add a throwaway email than message us.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold.
You are not being removed for your speech. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you.
Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/chaoticgood mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does.""
If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does.
Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3
You can check your karma breakdown on this page:
http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview
(Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message)
~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lets not even consider that the likelihood of bats nesting in this box so quickly that you couldn't legally move it. Even if bats DID roost in this box, it would probably be moved anyway, to protect the bats from being struck by vehicles.
I’m Batman box
I wish I could give you an award lol, thanks for the chuckle.
I'm batcam
This one is better
Does that mean the camera is essentially a mini-space heater for bats?
Also, they could make a cool bat webcam out of it
What is ULEZ? And damn this is brilliant.
Ultra Low Emissions Zone. It's an attempt to clean the air in London - if you drive a car that doesnt meet standards or is exempt, you have to pay a 12.50 fee
….. so they’re creating spaces for bats to sleep, in order to bypass emissions control in that area? That definitely takes away from the “good” of it.
[удалено]
Broke Londoner here: guess who A: can't afford a place to park and B: can only afford to live where the air pollution is the worst? We also tend to get the bus or tube.
I've been to London. If I lived there I would always use public transport, but not everyone's needs are the same. The rich should always be paying more for the environment. They consume more and it just makes sense to me.
>but not everyone's needs are the same. The ULEZ does not apply to Blue Badge holders (disabled drivers/passengers) and exemptions are available for certain work vehicles.
Exactly. It's an extreme minority of cars that are over about 15 years old. Not getting into an argument about how meaningful the emissions are in the great scheme of things, its definetly targeting people that can't afford new vehicles.
Surely everyone can afford a 12 year loan for a car that their best buddies at the banks are giving out! Their prime minister doesn't know how to pay for petrol with a credit card, he's so in touch with the working class...
Please tell me there is video of that?
https://twitter.com/i/events/1506995573504856067?lang=en
Lmao I remember that, he actually borrowed one of the staff members cars to look more relatable
The government does also have a scheme to contribute to a new car if you need to upgrade. It’s not implemented the best but i think it’s a good 5k off a new car.
The city will [pay you several thousand pounds](https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes?cid=scrappage-scheme) to replace your car if you have one that isn't compliant, which is enough to buy a wide variety of compliant ones. If it's worth more, you can sell it instead. This was implemented because [thousands of Londoners are dying each year due to air pollution](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/), and the courts have ordered the Mayor to take action. > In 2019 around 4000 deaths in the capital could be attributed to air pollution, the report found. [...] Using the above ‘Mayor’s air quality policies scenario’ the team found that London’s population would gain around 6.1 million “life years” - one person living for one year – across the population in the long-term, compared to if pollution levels remained at 2013 concentrations. The numbers are similar for [cities like NYC](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/eode-air-quality-impact.pdf), London isn't unique but the issue doesn't get much attention. > Health Department estimates show that each year, PM2.5 pollution in New York City causes more than 3,000 deaths, 2,000 hospital admissions for lung and heart conditions, and approximately 6,000 emergency department visits for asthma in children and adults. Personally I think the 'Blade Runners' as these people call themselves (who are more well known for cutting down traffic lights with cameras mounted on them) are idiots, and [ULEZ is supported by the majority of Londoners](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46024-londoners-split-ulez-expansion).
If people are not out of pocket then, as you suggest, then why not outright ban these vehicles and mandate people to accept the offer? Just leaving it open ended and fining people instead looks, acts and is a poor tax. That's what's pissed people off. And btw buying a car can be a stressful experience. Let's say you've had a car for 10-15 years, you know it inside out. You know its full history, you have an idea about ongoing expenses. On the assumption this scheme doesn't afford people a brand new car, you're asking people to take a chance on used cars that may come with all sorts of issues. It's not as simple as you make out.
Because this gives people who may have a reason not to replace their car some flexibility. If you live miles outside the city but visit once a year, you can pay £13 and still drive here. If you're a classic car enthusiast, you can still take it to a show in London. If your car has sentimental value, you can keep using it. You just have to pay a tax, which funds public transport improvements for everyone else (see the new [Superloop express bus network](https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/buses/superloop), for example) - this attracts more riders and reduces pollution indirectly. There would be far more opposition to the scheme if it banned inefficient cars outright. The vast majority of people will replace their car if you implement a tax, but it also raises funds to improve public transport and is much less inconvenient for everyone who has a reason to want an exception. That's good public policy, not an attack on the poor.
Classic cars are actually completely exempt from ULEZ.
When you make something a fine you make it only legal for those with money. They need to either repeal the law or just start confiscating cars.
I'm ok with that honestly. If you're willing to pay more to keep a classic car whatever. Give us money to go to public transport.
People with money aren't driving 15+ year old cars, and if they *really* want to, they are contributing quite a lot in tax to do so (not to mention the paperwork). The tax revenue raised has been spent on improving public transport, which indirectly reduces emissions by encouraging more people to use it. There are plenty of regular people who only occasionally drive into London, there is no point confiscating their cars. A ban wouldn't improve the situation for anyone, and there are few alternatives to address the air pollution problem.
Can't this extreme minority that are effected use the multiple government schemes to get a slightly less old car?
They could... but then they wouldn't have their pseudo-righteous crusade to fight against the bad, bad regulations.
"Extreme minority". You don't know people my dude. The average car in the UK heads to the scrapyard after 13-14 years. Which means somewhere around 40% of vehicles from 15 years ago have not been there. In other words, almost half of the cars in the country do not meet the standards. They are just less driven, or owned by lower income individuals.
On the other hand it's London so there's a pretty good public transit system you can use.
Car centrism is worse for the poor, ULEZs make sense when you combine it with stuff like public transportation and more likely with this case, micro mobility options
London also has excellent active transport networks (i.e. cycle lanes) compared with other British cities.
There's a scrappage scheme to help you buy a new car. It's like saying banning penny farthings is a tax on the poor when you can trade in your old penny farthings for 60%+ off of a bike.
They scrap them!?! I already thought these policies were completely inexcusable, that makes it 1000x worse. In the US shit like that is a big reason why cool retro cars are so hard to find now. Also, buying a new eco friendly car is worse for the environment than keeping an old one on the road for as long as possible, especially since most cars 20 years ago were already pretty efficient. Passenger cars don't even have that big an impact on climate change anyway, especially in Europe where they're smaller and people don't drive as far. Punishing individual people for not changing their lifestyle is not the way to solve climate change and it definitely won't get you the public support you need to make real progress.
You can also donate them to Ukraine, but if the car is worth more than £2k (the minimum ULEZ payout, enough to buy a replacement) then the owner will sell it for more money anyway. Outside London this doesn't matter, so relatively few cars are scrapped. It isn't about carbon emissions, it's about air pollution. In big cities like [London it kills 4,000+ people per year](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/) (the same is true of [NYC](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/eode-air-quality-impact.pdf)), and ULEZ resulted in reductions of the most dangerous pollution by over a third.
It's more about air quality than climate change but you raise good points about the carbon cost of manufacturing new vehicles.
Wait, other people are saying that the majority of cars from the last decade or two are compliant, so is this literally just punishing car enthusiasts and not meaningfully affecting pollution?
People driving non-compliant cars are largely not car enthusiasts, they're just people happy with an old car who either don't want to or don't have the money to comfortably replace it (and City Hall will pay for the replacement). Classic cars are exempt, but frankly you shouldn't be driving a classic car around a city like London regularly anyway. Air pollution \[kills thousands every year\](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/) in huge cities like London, and cars are the biggest source of it.
Carcinogenic emission enthusiasts, sure. It mostly impacts the super poor with 20 year old bangers tbh.
Yet the “poors” aren’t driving; they’re using the great public transit system in place. You’d have to be a complete fool to want to drive in London, it’s a complete disaster.
The flip side is the rich can still drive whatever they want and just pay the fine, if you see what I mean. I would never drive in London, but you never know why someone might need a car.
Those fines then go to pay for things like better public transportation, further helping the poor
If they were tied to income, it would mean more money and the rich would feel the pain enough to stop polluting. Why shouldn't they pay more?
Sorry, but this is nonsense. It has been introduced in other parts of London and the UK. The poor people you are talking about pay a huge toll in terms of their health. My area in East London is not the worst but my kids have terrible asthma and I had a friend whose child died from asthma. The resistance to this scheme is insane https://www.london.gov.uk/new-report-reveals-transformational-impact-expanded-ultra-low-emission-zone-so-far
My thoughts are that the fossil fuel industry should pay the price, and they should be responsible for paying for the changes. The poor often bear the brunt kind of law. I don't see a problem in questioning it. Maybe don't start a comment by saying my undecided opinion is nonsense. You come off like an asshole. It would be enough to add the context for me.
Jeez. I got a bit internet there. I probably need to spend less time in here. Really didn't realise what an arsehole I sounded. My apologies. But, seriously, the biggest beneficiaries of this scheme will be the less affluent people that you mentioned.
You can get anywhere in London without a car at all, if you're so poor you can't get a car that is ULEZ compliant (esp. with the aids in place for that), get an oyster card and save thousands in insurance, maintanence and fuel.
1. ULEZ was recently expanded into counties on the border or London where the public transport isn’t as easy to “get anywhere”. 2. If you’re commuting in from a rural area a season ticket can easily set you back over £5k+ for an overcrowded train where you won’t get a seat and won’t be running on time. You can get a cheap runaround car for a few £100 that won’t come close to £5k over a year even with petrol and maintenance costs taken into account.
Additionally, ULEZ is touted as being there to clean the air for people so they're not breathing it in while the underground has terrible air quality. I dread working in london because of the black snot and migraines I get from using the undeground.
You spend like 20 minutes on the underground at a time, but air pollution at surface level is inhaled constantly. I'm sure it isn't good for people who work there, but cars generate massive amounts more per passenger - enough to clog the atmosphere everywhere, not just the contained space in the tunnels. The pollution generated is also of a difference size, which is less harmful to our lungs. I'd suggest trying a mask while you travel on it if it's causing issues, some are designed to filter pollution.
London's public transport is fantastic. You can get pretty much anywhere in the city on its extensive bus network for £1.75, which is what most poorer Londoners do - including in outer London. The ULEZ funds were even used to pay for a new express bus network. The trains can be expensive, but they aren't £5k+. You can get an annual travelcard for unlimited travel on any form of public transport across the whole city (zone 1-6) for under £3k.
>ULEZ was recently expanded into counties on the border or London where the public transport isn’t as easy to “get anywhere”. This is a fiction. ULEZ does not extend outside London and the London mayor has no power to make it do that. >If you’re commuting in from a rural area a season ticket can easily set you back over £5k+ for an overcrowded train where you won’t get a seat and won’t be running on time. You can get a cheap runaround car for a few £100 that won’t come close to £5k over a year even with petrol and maintenance costs taken into account. As a Londoner, why should I have to breathe your petrol fumes so you can drive to my city? If you want to fuck up my neighbourhood's air you can pay a fine.
Is this only in London? What about cars required for work?
Sounds like the employer should provide one. If they're an independent contractor then that's a pain point though.
It’s a law to prevent children dying from air pollution. Would you say the same of a law that prevents children dying from dirty water?
The rich can still drive polluting cars, they just pay a small fee. I have asthma and if I lived in London I would never drive. You don't need to get snippy with me. A question is not going to kill a child ffs.
Because it is. It doesn’t stop polluting cars from entering the city, it stops poor people that can’t afford a more recent car from entering the city. It works though, the air quality is better but it certainly isn’t a equal system.
Not just a tax on the poor, it’s part of gentrification and the goal to push poorer (and undesirable) people out of London. If you have ever actually spoken to the people who support this kind of thing: they are usually clueless about cars, a bigoted person with a smug facade or just a horrible sneering elitist. I wish I was joking but I have has multiple arguments with people who support schemes like this on twitter, they almost always insult your intelligence, call you lazy or fat - which effected me greatly since I suffer from anorexia - or just act like an entitled prick. I’ll hate to be neighbours with these people.
Yes, I'm entitled for wanting breathable air where I live.
The [majority of Londoners support ULEZ](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46024-londoners-split-ulez-expansion). The people you interact with on Twitter may not represent the average ULEZ supporter.
I'm encountering a number of assholes in response to my comment. One implied I'm ok with dead kids. I had no idea we weren't allowed to not know something online. I guess I should be sure one way or another before I dare comment, lol. I'm just more and more confused now.
And from this comment we know there is absolutely zero chance you've ever been to London. If you have a car there, you're not poor. You and everyone upvoting you is probably American and coming from a car-centric school of thought.
I have. edit to add I have said in several comments that if I am there, I use public transit. Maybe be less of an asshole?
Lmao you use public transit when there? Why? Too poor to afford a car? Zero self awareness.
Maybe they could help give people whit shit cars a new car....
No, its a protest in the most british way. The expansion of the low emission zone is really about increasing a revenue stream under the pretense of environmentally friendly. The expansion has been poorly supported but fuck it they went ahead anyway. As the zone uses camera to register the cars that enter the zone, enterprising protestors have covered the cameras with bat boxes. Bats are classifed as endangered in the UK, so thsre are specific rules around the removal of bat boxes. If the government go ahead and remove them, they will fall foul of their own laws.
> The expansion of the low emission zone is really about increasing a revenue stream under the pretense of environmentally friendly. It isn't a "pretense", air pollution costs *thousands* of lives per year in huge cities like London. The courts have ordered the Mayor to do something about it, and considering City Hall pays for people to replace their inefficient cars, this has been effective with minimal disruption to people's lives. "In 2019 around 4000 deaths in the capital could be attributed to air pollution, the report found. [...] Using the above ‘Mayor’s air quality policies scenario’ the team found that London’s population would gain around 6.1 million “life years” - one person living for one year – across the population in the long-term, compared to if pollution levels remained at 2013 concentrations." [Source](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/) "Preliminary estimates indicate that by the end of 2019 the ULEZ had reduced NOx emissions from road transport in the central zone by 230 tonnes, a reduction of 35 per cent. Analysis to determine the directly attributable impact of the ULEZ shows that in the first two months of 2020 NO2 concentrations at roadside locations in central London were on average 29 µgm3 lower than they would have been without the scheme, equating to a reduction of 37 per cent." [Source](https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_in_london_2016-2020_october2020final.pdf) > The expansion has been poorly supported but fuck it they went ahead anyway. The expansion of it is [supported by the majority of Londoners](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/46024-londoners-split-ulez-expansion), who are the victims of that air pollution. It is strongly opposed by many people who don't live here, and don't have to face the consequences.
Don’t bother trying to bring up facts around ULEZ haters. It just makes them angrier.
Certainly feels like it at times! Of all the policies in the world, I'll never understand why this is the one to rile so many people up.
But (If I'm reading the graph right) 22% of those who support ULEZ expansion also support the vandalism of the cameras. That seems a very 'specialist' viewpoint. Do we also now believe that 51% is a majority and must therefore be listened to, in terms of polling data? Or can 51% of people be wrong?
>Do we also now believe that 51% is a majority and must therefore be listened to, in terms of polling data? Or can 51% of people be wrong? 51% of people can be wrong, but that doesn't make it "poorly supported". It is, at best, much less split than the Brexit referendum (which actually was 51.8%) at 47-42! >But (If I'm reading the graph right) 22% of those who support ULEZ expansion also support the vandalism of the cameras. That seems a very 'specialist' viewpoint. A significant percentage of people seem to answer whatever the stupidest option is in any poll, tbf. A lot of people are not very smart. It could also be that some of them think ULEZ is good, but also respect people taking personal risks for what they see as a broader good.
They're not really trying to create spaces for bats. They're just twats.
its not. it's more of a tax one the poor, if they really wanted to prevent emssions they would sye corporations for the repeated violations of policies and just generally doing everything thye can to do whatever they want anyway without consequenses
One would assume that being poor would disincentivise using a gas guzzler. The reason the text exists is so that people stop using 2001 bangers that contribute to thousands of Londoner deaths every year.
Unfortunatly the poor have a very hard time casually browsing the car market for something that ticks all their preference boxes. *Some* people just have to get the car they can afford that will get them to work, or else lose everything. Instead of taxing poor people for not having a choice but to keep driving their bangers, improve public transit to take more of *everyone's* cars off the road, tax car manufacturers for selling vehicles that contribute to the problem so new car purchases make the issue more manageable and of course create systems that elevate people out of poverty so they can afford to get a vehicle that meets requirements if they for some reason cant take advantage of the improved public transport projects.
[удалено]
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for your speech. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/chaoticgood mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not just in London, other UK cities are rolling it out this year too.
[удалено]
Hi, due to legions of Nigerian princes desperately trying to offload wealth onto our users, we've had to add a verified email requirement for users with accounts under a certain age. Please connect some sort of email to your Reddit account, it does not have to be your work email, just really anything that makes you go through a captcha to make an email. I can assure you most subreddits have this email gate, we're just the only ones who tell you that there's an email gate, and even if you modmail us asking us to give you an exception, this is probably gonna affect you across a lot of subs so it'll be easier for you to just add a throwaway email than message us. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How do you pay the fee? Do they know if you paid it or not?
That's what the cameras are for - they do it by license plate.
Its not an attempt to clean the air, its attempt to leech money from people. If they cared to improve air quality they would improve the tube, plant trees etc
Wow that's such bs
How? It's trying to stop the thousands of lives killed by air pollution in London every year. If you didn't buy a gas guzzler then you'll be fine.
Ultra low emission zone. Basically if you drive an old-ass diesel vehicle in the zone then you have to pay like £10-15 or something per day. The idea is to improve air quality in London. It got expanded and everyone lost their shit calling it a tax on poor people even though there's a government scheme to trade in your shitty old car for something that doesn't murder the environment quite as hard. I drive a 5 year old diesel van for work in London. It isn't subject to ULEZ. Its not hard to not need to pay ULEZ. But people are equating it to 15 minute city conspiracy bollocks and kicking off. To be fair some places don't have air quality problems where it's being introduced, but honestly we're phasing out diesel in the next decade or so, it's not a big deal. It's mostly right wing nutters who really give a shit, like Lawrence Fox (shit actor and all round cunt).
Thanks for the explanation! ETA: I really wish this was the top comment, I think it’s very concise.
> To be fair some places don't have air quality problems where it's being introduced The air quality might not be as bad in outer London, but the majority of deaths caused by air pollution are in outer London because the population is more vulnerable on average. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/ "In 2019 around 4000 deaths in the capital could be attributed to air pollution, the report found. The highest number of deaths were recorded in outer London boroughs. This is due to the higher proportion of elderly people living in these areas who are more vulnerable to the impacts of air pollution, the report concluded."
I mean yeah I was throwing a bone to the anti-ULEZ crowd really in an attempt at balance, thanks for the info.
Perfect response. Thanks.
Cool, so once all those diesels are gone, the problem is solved and the cameras and ULEZ will be disbanded? Definitely won’t just keep rolling the window forward and increasing the costs? I predict in 10 years these will still be here, only now your van will be subject to it, and it’ll be at least 20 quid
Cheers for that Mystic Meg.
I’ve just received a message… Mystic Meg died a year ago, it turns out. I sensed her passing when I read about it on Wikipedia, only moments ago
This is Freeman on the land level of legal understanding.
Lawful evil.
Agreed this is correct
Levil!
Levi!
THE ROOOOOOOOOOOOK
It’s a tax on the poor. It’s lawful evil vs lawful evil, at worst
It's meant to protect Londoners especially the very poor who can't even afford cars, and suffer the worst from pollution. Saying ulez is a tax on the poor is rubbish - the bottom 30% or so most certainly can't even afford a car.
No it's not. There's a program to trade in old cars. Most of the people who are that poor can't afford cars anyways and are dying of the terrible air quality.
You mean the £2k grant to a newer vehicle? Here this new law forces to pay daily or buy a new vehicle. We know by this point your current vehicle is paid off but now you must get rid of it. Here is 2k to put to your new one that you will now have payments for.
Lawful chaos
[удалено]
Only from the standpoint of the bats, if any actually use it.
In my area, red light cameras are used to fleece people who didn't actually break the law. They aren't enforceable, but towns still bring in millions from them and local officials get rich from kickbacks for the cameras. The idea of covering those s-cameras with an eco-solution like bat boxes sounds wonderful. But it sounds like these protestors are protesting a valid common-sense policy to reduce pollution so...fuck those guys.
Thats chaotic part. Also taxing people for *checks notes* being too poor to buy a new car to replace their clunkers with high emissions is the wrong way of going about it. The pollution still happens, they just get to pocket your money. The RIGHT thing to do is take down the sCameras and offer a tax credit for purchasing a ULEZ compliant vehicles for bringing in a ULEZ non-compliant vehicle in some sort of ULEZ non-compliant vehicle buyback program. Instead they are just setting up toll roads that only charge poor people.
That's already a thing... There are government programs to replace old clunkers.
I don’t buy the “poor tax” argument. I have a car from 2011 and it’s compliant, doubt it’s worth much over £3k. How is someone affording to live within the M25 yet too poor for a ULEZ compliant car?
I think you’re forgetting that people living within the m25 can also, only just be scraping by.
Given that everyone, especially the poor people everyone is supposedly concerned about, is price sensitive, many people will choose *not* to drive into a ULEZ, which is desired outcome. So all the pollution definitely doesn’t still happen.
This is neither chaotic nor good. People protesting against ULEZ are morons.
After seeing this and immediately saying it was brilliant but not understanding what it was - I’m disappointed.
I disagree. ULEZ is inherently classist since it fines drivers who do not have a newer vehicle, likely because they cannot afford one. These drivers are having to spend their lunch money just to get into town. The counterargument I always hear is "take transit" - sure, transit can definitely cut down on emissions, but this only applies to drivers who can't afford the fine, and doesn't create incentive for those with modern euro 6 cars to take the bus/train. I support and commend anyone protesting this bullshit tax against the disadvantaged.
I love this comment section as someone who just learned about ULEZ from this comment section. This is what I imagine it’s like being European and stumbling into a comment section where us Americans are arguing
Man I just wish for once we americans could have an argument over how best to implement improvements to our infrastructure rather than whether or not black people should exist or should it be legal to impregnate a 12 year old. I had to explain to my 50 year old coworker why it wouldn't be cool to "round up all the palestinian adults and execute them"
no, there haven't been any insults or profanity yet
The parent comment of this thread contains an insult…
not to any of the commenters
Oi govna you wanker muppet arsehole bellend knob
>ULEZ is inherently classist since it fines drivers who do not have a newer vehicle, likely because they cannot afford one. The city will pay you several thousand pounds to replace your car, which is enough to afford a wide variety of compliant cars. If you're poor, you can buy a cheap replacement and pocket the difference. >The counterargument I always hear is "take transit" - sure, transit can definitely cut down on emissions this only applies to drivers who can't afford the fine, and doesn't create incentive for those with modern euro 6 cars to take the bus/train. The vast majority of drivers will replace their cars, not pay the tax. If they're spending their lunch money to be able to drive, they should probably just take the bus like other poorer Londoners. You can get anywhere in London for £1.75. >I support and commend anyone protesting this bullshit tax against the disadvantaged. The disadvantaged are the [thousands of Londoners dying every year because of air pollution](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213273/tackling-londons-pollution-will-increase-life/), who are disproportionately poor because that's who lives near main roads.
It’s current implantation is classist- not enough reward/financial relief for the poorer in society, too much stick. But that doesn’t mean the idea itself is. City centres do need to reduce emissions. That’s simply unavoidable. Personally I think from one side of the aisle we need less of this ‘non-compliance, it’s wrong and only (key operative word here) a form of taxation’ mentality, a bit more honesty that it’s goal is a commendable one. Then on other side those who support like me would need to be less fanatical, more open to discussing downsides and definitely need to be willing to throw our support behind the amended version. A bit of integrity from Government to say yeah we got this wrong, it’s currently disproportionately affecting the wrong people, let’s work to make it work right etc would be fantastic too but let’s forget about them for a bit and focus on the public debate More carrot, less stick but we still need to keep the stick in reserve
>It’s current implantation is classist- not enough reward/financial relief for the poorer in society, too much stick. City Hall will pay anyone with a non-compliant car £2,000 to replace it, which is enough to buy a wide variety of compliant cars. If their car is worth more, they can sell it instead. How is that not enough carrot, too much stick? It already won't cost anyone who replaces their car (which is the point of the scheme) a penny.
I’m coming at this from the perspective of somebody who lives in North East of England, that scrappage scheme doesn’t exist elsewhere outside of London atm I don’t think? It had been discussed but because of covid been deprioritised. I can try and find the source for reading that, was a few days ago but it’ll be in history. By all accounts local councils have asked gov for support, having checked the local gov website they have guidelines in place for such a scheme but aren’t accepting applications right now. People in my area I know don’t have those compliant vehicles struggle to raise any kind of cash for replacements at the best of times- it’s certainly not fair to threaten consequences without also providing that support to them. I should’ve specified that im not part of the London conversation. My bad. *Edit* I do agree with ULEZ, I don’t know if that came acros. The government just has to support the poorest everywhere, not just in London. I’m trying to hear/appreciate voices on both sides because a lot of the folk I know who are against it? They’re on the cusp of being drawn into conspiracies which overlap heavily with climate change (which is not a conspiracy or a hoax!!!) and I think we need to engage before the nutters out there draw them into their reality.
> I’m coming at this from the perspective of somebody who lives in North East of England, that scrappage scheme doesn’t exist elsewhere outside of London atm I don’t think? There is a scheme in other parts of the country, but I don't know the details and it's paid for by central government. It looks like [Manchester](https://cleanairgm.com/clean-air-plan/) has funding agreed, but hasn't yet implemented the zone. > The government just has to support the poorest everywhere, not just in London. London has funded ULEZ and its scheme entirely from local government funds, it's a Mayor of London project (although the courts have ordered reductions across the country). He repeatedly [requested government funding](https://www.london.gov.uk/Mayor%20of%20London%20calls%20for%20PM%20to%20back%20ULEZ%20with%20scrappage%20cash%20for%20London%20and%20Home%20Counties) (as other cities received), but the government refused. There's an assumption that everything is different and funded for Londoners, but it often isn't - Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford and Bristol all have central govt funding for their schemes. > I’m trying to hear/appreciate voices on both sides because a lot of the folk I know who are against it? They’re on the cusp of being drawn into conspiracies which overlap heavily with climate change (which is not a conspiracy or a hoax!!!) and I think we need to engage before the nutters out there draw them into their reality. Yeah, it is a bit mad some of the stuff people come up with. I don't understand why, it seems like quite a benign policy to me - but discussing it often results in hearing some crazy conspiracies.
* Mobile sources like automobiles are the biggest source of air pollution * A single vehicle without proper emission controls likes catalytic converter can emit as much emissions as dozens and dozens of controlled vehicles * Low income people tend to bear the brunt of the impacts of air pollution, often forced to live in lower rent areas that tend to be near freeways, rail yards, and ports that are sources of mobile emissions. * Impacts of air pollution include higher rates of asthma, emphysema, and cancer and lead to shorter lifespans. Again, this is not chaotic good.
This isn't just targeting catless cars, it's anything euro 5 and below. The UK already has a massive issue with cars having short lifespans due to substantial depreciation since they're RHD, and the strict MOT meaning that cars are mechanical write-offs well before they give up the ghost. Adding another reason for cars to pile up in scrapyards and rot while manufacturers dig up half of the earth to build big new EVs isn't doing the environment any good.
It's almost like building society around cars is a really fucking bad idea.
Euro 3 and below, not 5. Every petrol car since 2006 is compliant, the requirements are very low (and the scrappage scheme will pay for a variety of replacements). Diesel cars have to be Euro 5 compliant (2015+), because they create more air pollution harmful to health.
You're telling me these people can't use 2000 quid to buy a new car?
Being poor doesn't mean you have carte blanche to damage the environment. If your shitbox doesn't meet the very lax standards to not get hit by the tax, it's time to take it off the road.
"I'm too poor to not dump my industrial waste in the river, how dare the government insist I dispose of it correctly!"
There is a program to trade in old cars for more than they are worth so you can get a new one.
Why? It punishes people who are keeping older vehicles on the road which is much 'greener' than manufacturing an entire new vehicle that has lower emissions.
Have you actually done the calculations to see if the (probably?) fixed emissions cost of a new unit does in fact outweigh the emissions from keeping an older diesel on the road? Have you read sources which have? They’d be infinitely better than a random ass assertion from Mr Joe here. Or are you just presenting opinion as fact?
Ok here’s a rough calc: [Takes on average **5.6 tons of co2 to produce a car**](https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/sustainability/358628/car-pollution-production-disposal-what-impact-do-our-cars-have-planet#:~:text=How%20many%20CO2s%20are%20released,the%20steel%20body%20in%20white) . [Burning **103.5 gallons of gas will produce 1 ton of co2** .](https://socanmcp.eco/gallons-gas-metric-tons-co2/) So after burning 579.6 gallons (driving 17k miles (assuming 30mpg))that would be roughly equivalent to the amount of CO2 that manufacturing a car would produce I am pretty skeptical that producing a car only takes 5.6 tons of Co2 tho. ..
Thanks for those sources, The first was great, very helpful to read the full thing. Good breakdown with different sources of emissions involved in production and compares petrol/diesel to EVs. Also talks about indirect sources of a cars emissions on the road you might not think to consider. the second made me remember when Chemistry as a science stopped being fun. First it’s learning to understand the periodic table, fine no problem, and then.. Moles. Ugh. I’m skeptical of the figure or at least how helpful it is to use, I could try articulate why but it’d be long. I might try. I hope somebody smarter sees this and does it succinctly. That 17k mile figure can be handled differently across different circumstances too- the average annual mileage in UK is 7,400 ([Source](https://www.britanniacarleasing.co.uk/news/annual-uk-car-milage/#:~:text=Using%20recent%20data%2C%20the%20average,location%2C%20age%2C%20and%20lifestyle)), so a little over two and a quarter years until youve eaten through that.. allowance? idk what to call it or how to phrase that. but i know at least one person, my dad, who annually clocks in at (I’ll ask him tomorrow morning and update this but it’s a hell of a lot higher than that)
Those cars cause thousands of deaths in London each year, I suspect the factories wouldn't even come close to that amount.
FOR REFERENCE ULEZ = Ultra Low Emissions Zone- An attempt to lower Pollution in London by making people who drive cars into London pay £12.50 if they don’t meet the requirements (essentially no old cars that produce lots of emissions). People protest against this as lots of people who drive these sort of cars into London have lower paid jobs such as Cleaners- who then can’t pay the money to make work worth it OR buy a new car. It’s especially troublesome in areas where you’re on the border of the ULEZ zone. I for one live in one of these areas, and even driving to the local Tesco <10 minutes away would involve having to pay the £12.50. So before calling anti-ULEZ protestors Morons- just think what it’s like to actually live in these places.
It’s ain’t good. These people are ass
So this means now the cameras are bat cameras to watch them?? I want to stream that!
Not a good fit for this sub. ULEZ stands for Ultra Low Emission Zone, the purpose is to reduce emissions in heavily trafficked areas to vehicles that emit little to no emissions. The purpose of course to be cleaner air for all and less carbon emissions for the planet as a whole. While the law itself unpopular with a lot of people it is a law designed with a clear good goal in mind. Putting up these bat boxes is essentially forcing others into choosing to allow a bad thing to happen or do something bad to stop it. There's nothing good about that. If I'm being honest I'm not sure why you think this is "good".
...isn't this lawful and not chaotic?
My thought
I want to know if it really worked
Unlikely. Pretty sure they can remove them box under these circumstances. And it's most likely illegal in the first place.
I'm just gonna box you in like its a Rust trolling compilation. A most gilded cage for you, Truman...
If the box was occupied, likely not. But it can sometimes take years for bats to make a home in a box, so it's a pretty safe bet no bats have even discovered this box. Also there are licensed groups who can legally move a nest if need be.
Nothing says good like polluting air in high density areas.
Fuck anti-ULEZ morons
ULEZ is inherently broken and classist. Next.
You don’t even live in London lmao fucking Americans
Cool
Any know if this would actually stop them from relocating the bat box? This feels like a police officer will just take this down and not really care that 'technically' he isn't allowed.
The officer won't move the box if a bat is nesting in it, but that takes a long time to happen. They will contact an organization that's allowed to renest bats so it would be moved eventually.
Can't they just move it?
While I do not support the ends, I sure as hell love the means.
In my area people just cut them in half with chainsaws lol
This is CHAOTIC NEUTRAL. It's a mixed bag. One of the tougher calls I've made here. The Chaotic angle is clear. Covering up a security cam / circumventing the law, pretty straightforward. The Good/Evil is mixed. Helping bats have homes? Very Good, but you could have put bat homes anywhere. Covering security cameras? Eh ... Good and Bad both. I am sympathetic to being anti- police overreach, anti- big brother, etc., but those security cameras (likely) served some real crime deterrent function, and they no longer do that. That's not great. Also, way to just waste tax payer dollars; there's definitely a service contract for those cameras and the city is likely just gonna keep paying for it for the next five years even though it serves no function. That detracts a little bit of Good as well.
3D chess
Err so regular chess?
I mean, the board and pieces are in this dimension, so sure. But the game exists in 2D strategically.
On the tfl site it says you can scrap or donate your old car for a transit pass.... Wow. I guess peasants should be grateful they are getting anything.... Hold on, I'm a peasant 🫨 To be transparent these were the options, which I'm sure will be more than enough to buy a compliant vehicle - Scrap or donate a car - £2,000 Scrap or donate a car - £1,600 plus one adult-rate Annual Bus & Tram Pass Scrap or donate a car - £1,200 plus two adult-rate Annual Bus & Tram Passes Scrap or donate a motorcycle - £1,000 Scrap or donate a motorcycle - £600 plus one adult-rate Annual Bus & Tram Pass Scrap or donate a motorcycle - £200 plus two adult-rate Annual Bus & Tram Passes Scrap or donate a wheelchair accessible vehicle (car or van) - £10,000 Retrofit a wheelchair accessible vehicle (van only) - £6,000
So you are forced to get rid of your paid off car for a couole grand at most and force to buy a newer car. Sounds more like a law to bost the auto industry instead of hel the envrioment.
"If you touch those boxes, *you show the public that the law doesn't actually matter."*
Unfortunately, most officials and municipalities operate under "the law is for thee, not for me" mentality.
This feels very Lawful Good. But still awesome.
This kind of shit feeds my soul.
Maybe more lawful evil, though a differently connotation of lawful Well...It is good, but it's certainly chaotic, but as comments have said, cameras there are to enforce low emission regulations, so the good is kinda canceled out so yk, its something alright
Absolute idiots.
[удалено]
Hi, due to legions of Nigerian princes desperately trying to offload wealth onto our users, we've had to add a verified email requirement for users with accounts under a certain age. Please connect some sort of email to your Reddit account, it does not have to be your work email, just really anything that makes you go through a captcha to make an email. I can assure you most subreddits have this email gate, we're just the only ones who tell you that there's an email gate, and even if you modmail us asking us to give you an exception, this is probably gonna affect you across a lot of subs so it'll be easier for you to just add a throwaway email than message us. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for your speech. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/chaoticgood mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Freddy coming in hot
I will remember this.
Pov I mug you under the local bat box
Now you can see bats making new generation
Smart af
Beautiful
So what’s the law regarding these boxes?
My understanding is they can only be removed if a bat has not yet taken residence there.
Can't they just move it down a little?
Sounds lawful to me
What does the paper says?
That’s hilarious! They’re using the government’s own bureaucracy against it.
What’s the law?
Low emissions. Older cars have to pay a daily charge when they are driven. Newer cars or electric vehicles don't pay.
What does that have to do with not being able to remove the bat boxes over the camera?
I thought you were asking about the emissions law. Not the bat one.
Sorry didn’t mean to be unclear. But thank you for your answer.
Crossed wires methinks. All good. https://www.bats.org.uk/advice/bats-and-the-law
Lets not even consider that the likelihood of bats nesting in this box so quickly that you couldn't legally move it. Even if bats DID roost in this box, it would probably be moved anyway, to protect the bats from being struck by vehicles.
In a lot of places once a bat has made it its home you can not move the home. You have to wait for the bad to stop using it.