A page one story in The Times shows the size of the battle confronting diesel car supporters.
Talking about the Government's (regrettable) delay in bringing forward its plan to curb older diesel vehicles, the newspaper criticises the delay of the proposals "even though they would prevent thousands of lives being cut short by toxic emissions from diesel vehicles."
That's a shocking overstatement, if you ask me. These are proposals, remember. We don't even yet know what's in them. And even if they eliminate every toxic automotive molecule at a stroke, most of today's toxic molecules will go on being produced tomorrow - from industry, home heating, aviation, shipping and the rest.
As a professional hack, I'd be ashamed to have such an shocking piece of unsubstantiated sub-tabloid nonsense attached to my name. It comes straight from the so-it's-okay-if-children-die-is-it-sir? school of argument, where truth takes a back seat.
Here is the truth: late model diesel cars and vans are responsible for a tiny proportion of our nation's total toxic emissions, and (despite blips presented as catastrophes) they're in decline. Our progress towards electrification - rightly desired by all - depends on continuing profitability of existing cars for the medium-term.
Anything else will harm our longer-term goals. I so hate the way critics - in all walks - get such a delicious buzz from holding alleged miscreants to account that they wilfully ignore the big picture.
Volkswagen denies its Dieselgate fix causes breakdowns
Volkswagen emissions scandal: one year on
Volvo boss predicts the death of diesel
Diesel scrappage scheme: diesels should be made cleaner, not scrapped
Join the debate
Add your comment
"As a professional hack, I'd
"Our progress towards electrification - rightly desired by all..."
Proof, if it were needed that Cropley doesn't read back over his work with any sort of critical eye.
As to the subject matter, electric cars are useless and would solve nothing. If the majority of people did start using them (they won't), the government would simply transfer the tax on petrol (read and diesel throughout) over to electricity so that a charge cost the same as a tank of petrol. Governments don't give up that kind of money, so the idea of running electric cars virtually free as claimed by some deluded posters on here is a fallacy. Hence the cost would be the same for a vehicle with none of the freedom and convenience of petrol cars, which will run all day long with the odd couple of minutes to fill up, and can carry cans on board to fill up just as quickly and easily when miles from anywhere.
If electricity is so fantastic, why not convert the big polluters, ships and planes, to electric and leave cars alone? The simple answer is, it isn't fantastic at all for unfettered transportation, like a bicycle isn't great for going into space.
The argument against petrol is the damage it does to health in cities. Proponents of electricity say that pollution wil be transferred to rural areas where power stations are sited. How would that be just? Why should we have to suffer for the pollution created by others? If you lived down the road from a pub would you accept having smoking allowed inside the pub on condition that the fumes were piped into your house twenty-four hours a day? Of course not.
The answer is to encourage those in cities to drive smaller cars with smaller engines. Getting rid of the jeeps is a wiser move than changing the way they are powered. Congestion charges based on tailpipe emissions are silly, they don't ease congestion, because a sixteen-foot car emitting half the pollution of a twelve-foot car still causes more congestion and hence contributes to higher emissions, while also requiring more parking space. Keeping traffic moving is the better solution. Narrower cars would allow more lanes and faster movement, so make the tax concessions for small cars with small engines.
On the subject of the health risks, if it's so bad why are we constantly hearing about pension crises because we are all living longer? The truth is over time nature will evolve us to cope with the conditions. Rather like nature will evolve to cope with alleged man-made climate change, which was firstly an imminent ice-age, then global warming, now climate change because the scientists don't actually have a clue what's happening but recognize a nice little earner where research grants are concerned. Nature adjusts the temperature of the planet as nature sees fit and it is beyond our control. Likewise, smog isn't pleasant, but it isn't the long-term health hazard that is being claimed, for the same reason.
The real issues needing to be addressed are the congestion/movement issue which I described above, and the environmental issues as regards use of resources, which demands that we make better use of the cars (and everything else) we manufacture, by keeping them going for longer. A person should only be allowed to buy one brand new car in any ten year period, so that they will choose a car which is likely to last well. There has never been made, and never will be made, a car which merits scrapping an existing car with useful life remaining in order to make it. Longevity is everything in environmental terms, and the tax system should reflect that also.
So that's no tax for keeping old cars running, and low tax for the smallest new cars, and tax new jeeps out of existence.
One day something will probably be invented which will replace the internal combustion engine, and be better in all respects, but that day has not yet arrived so government should be encouraging the best use of petrol engines, putting them into smaller, longer-lasting cars, and stop wasting time and money on this stupid electric/autonomous fantasy. Electric cars are going nowhere.
Power Stations.........!?
The UK grid ran on 100%
Petrol is actually worse than diesel..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection (skip to the bit about emissions)
and this
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwjk29TI38TTAhVMBiwKHbxrAMcQFgg4MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aecc.eu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F08%2F05-TE-how-to-avoid-another-scandal-AECC-RDE-PN-seminar.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE0uMf37J-wdF61vWJABg1t5wPE8Q
Since the invention of direct gasoline injection engines, it turns out that a new petrol engine is spewing out as much or more NOx than a diesel, more CO and 10 times as much soot as a diesel with a DPF. Due to the sole focus on using less fuel and producing less CO2 we've forgotten about the more immediate effects of air pollution. This is potentially the next dieselgate, as no one seems to be aware!