ULEZ raised over £224m last year

So many can’t afford a newer vehicle Maizie. I read that the scrappage scheme only pays £1k. My petrol car just scrapes in. My husband has a diesel (lauded at the time as being better for the environment than petrol) which doesn’t. We don’t live in or near the ULEZ and are unlikely to be affected but so many people with older vehicles can neither replace them nor rely on public transport. Tradesmen who can’t afford to change to a compliant vehicle can’t be expected to absorb the charges, can they?

Thank you, GG13

Germanshepherdsmum

So many can’t afford a newer vehicle Maizie. I read that the scrappage scheme only pays £1k. My petrol car just scrapes in. My husband has a diesel (lauded at the time as being better for the environment than petrol) which doesn’t. We don’t live in or near the ULEZ and are unlikely to be affected but so many people with older vehicles can neither replace them nor rely on public transport. Tradesmen who can’t afford to change to a compliant vehicle can’t be expected to absorb the charges, can they?

That's why I keep saying that the scrappage scheme should be better...

And others have said that public transport should be better (and cheaper)

Public transport won’t help tradesmen reliant on using their vans though.

Yes, the scrappage scheme has to pay enough to actually buy another suitable vehicle. For some that will be a very small car, others need people carriers.

Germanshepherdsmum

I feel very sorry for people who have to use their vehicle - tradespeople for instance. It’s a very big expense. I don’t know if disabled people using a car because they can’t manage public transport have an exemption.
Out in the sticks we haven’t a hope of any public transport but I appreciate it’s our choice to live here, though some are now too old to reasonably be expected to move.

We are both disabled and we are exempt, our number plates (if motability cars of free tax claimed) come up on systems and are ignored. However, many places do not have as much blue badge parking as is actually needed; we avoid our nearest 2 cities for exactly this reason.

Veganstock Ot would ne grrat if there was a decent public transport system. Nearest bus dtop fir me is a mile away accessed over a busy A toad, then through a shelttered housing complex area, then a quarter mile to bus stop. You can shout all you like about cars but punliv transport is almost non existent on many places.

That’s tough Treetops. I don’t think there’s much provision in my area either, which is a popular holiday area and has a significant older population, so there must be a lot of competition for what places there are. I’m truly thankful that I can still drive and don’t need a blue badge, but I recognise that things can change in an instant.

Was fuming, pardon the pun, at original ulez in London. Had to sell my amazing diesel old car (never once broke down, 50mpg in town) for peanuts. Originally bought because was told by government that diesel cars are better for environment! Now the enemy for particulates in air. Fair enough.
But new evidence is showing electric cars are potentially as bad because of particulates given off by tyres, as they’re much heavier. Also the emissions by building new and scrapping old cars. Never mind the kids in Africa mining for the precious metals needed for batteries.
Glad I’ve got that off my chest! Yes to clean air. But it’s such a mess politically and scientifically.

Agree with GSM about the much overlooked problems for tradesmen and small businesses for whom better public transport would make no difference . And for whom buying new vans is out of the question.

Also agree with whoever raised the myriad technical problems associated with turning the whole country over to electric cars in 7 years time. Apparently we need more factories making batteries….

The principle may be good and targets must be ambitious, but 2030 is unrealistic and the fines are too savage.

and in the meantime, our grandchildrens' world is buring all around us- and you say we must be 'less ambitious'.

I did not say that we must be less ambitious Fleurpepper I said we must be ambitious but not unrealistic.

How about our government subsidising and improving and even publicly own rail and buses like they do elsewhere ? That might good for a start. This idea that every individual has a right to pollute the air as much as they like is one I’d question.

I agree vegansrock.

The problem is that addressing global warming, is complex and radical solutions are the only way of making a real difference, otherwise we are just tinkering around the edges.

Radical solutions that would require a major shift in our economy without the constant expected growth, indeed a decline, and we would have to live much simpler, sustainable lifestyles.

Would any government or populations agree to this? I doubt it, until it’s too late (if it isn’t already).

winterwhite

I did not say that we must be less ambitious Fleurpepper I said we must be ambitious but not unrealistic.

and yet- we increasingly know that we do not have time ... and that it may even be too late. So where does 'realistic or unrealistic' fit in here?

I know many who are already at the 'we are f***ed, so might as well enjoy it while it lasts'

and our grandchildren? No wonder so many have MH issues- wanting to have all the latest gadgets, and at the same time, save the World. What a mess.

I’m not at that stage Fleurpepper but do become disheartened when the urgency of the situation, or the sacrifices necessary do not seem to be addressed either by government or individuals.

It’s our grandchildren and their children who will suffer the consequences of our seeming inability to act.

For example one of the biggest polluters in the world is China, and this is the country we import from most, along with Germany.
Clothing forms quite a proportion of the goods we import from China. We may not manufacture much any more in the U.K. but we’re good at outsourcing to polluting countries. Are we prepared to stop over consuming, in addition to the myriad sacrifices we will have to make? I wish we were.

We may end up happier in the long run.

With you all the way Farzanah. We will be remembered, for as long as this world is going, as the generation that f***ed it all up, and were not prepared to give up over consumption, and said 'ambitious but not unrealistic'.

The ULEZ scheme is a regressive tax on people who can't afford to buy better transport. It targets the poor. Improving public transport is a desperate need but self-employed tradesmen have to transport tools and materials, nurses have get home after late shifts and the disabled cannot always use public transport. The scrappage allowance does not meet the need given the premium on the price of compliant used vehicles. We need a scheme that supports people to go about their daily lives, not one that hinders them

I think that we would all agree that clean water is one of life's necessities and that we have a right to it. Air is also one of life's necessities and we should also have a right to clean air.

Whatever peoples' reasons for not upgrading their car, or van their right to work should not be more important than mine and everybody else's right to clean air.

Thousands of people are incapacitated with a variety of lung diseases which can hinder their ability to work, to play sport and to keep fit.

A few facts:

Approx 585,000 respiratory disease diagnoses are made each year. These will all be new ones.

It is estimated that 12 million people have had a lung disease diagnosis. Nearly 1 in 5 of the population.

Lung disease is the 3rd largest cause of death after cancer and cardio vascular disease.

A large proportion of people with COPD will be, or have been smokers but this will reduce as the number of smokers continues to reduce. In 1993 27% of adults were smokers. In 2022 the number had fallen to 6%.