My letter on Air Quality Alarmism published in LTT (17/12/14)

As 2014 draws to a close, it might well be remembered as the year of air quality alarmism. Given that air pollutants have fallen markedly since 1990, life expectancy in the UK from birth is at record levels, the pension age is being raised, and the Government struggles with the increased cost of elderly care, we might well ask where are the headline-grabbing 29,000 who supposedly die each year due to air pollution?

The fact is that the 29,000 aren’t real people – they are merely an extrapolation of ‘life years lost’ guesswork based on ‘junk epidemiology.’

Even the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (CoMEAP) that produced this figure in 2010 (based on 2008 pollution levels) admits that it: “considers it very unlikely that this represents the number of individuals affected”. Instead it speculates that “air pollution, acting together with other factors, may have made some smaller contribution to the earlier deaths of up to 200,000 people”.

A paper published in The Lancet in March 2014 purported to have studied the “effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality” exemplifies what I mean by ‘junk epidemiology’. Just for starters, mortalities were mostly from the 1990s, yet air pollution was estimated using 2008 to 2011 data! Perhaps Client Earth would like to take up the cases of people killed in the 1990s by air pollution in the 2000s?

This brings me to Client Earth’s hollow court victory over the failure of some areas of the UK to meet EU 2010 targets for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (‘Pressure grows for air quality action following European court ruling’ LTT 28 Nov).

Government money is taxpayers’ money, so the burden of fines, new taxes levied, damage to the economy and mobility as a result of the ruling will be shouldered by the British people.

The economy that sustains us all runs on diesel and petrol, providing the wealth that has increased our life expectancy. Perhaps we should be fining the EU, given the fact that Euro V diesel engines and the accompanying flawed Particulate Filter (DPF) technology imposed by the EU has apparently increased their NOx exhaust emissions back to 1992 levels – a demonstration that the EU focusing on individual exhaust components can make emissions of other components much worse.

Furthermore, it’s a known fact that a proportion of UK NOx is blown over from mainland Europe. Perhaps we should fine Boris Johnson who, as custodian of London’s congestion charge, has exempted ‘low CO2’ diesel cars along with diesel buses and taxis.

Better still, maybe we should tell the EU what to do with their targets and fines – another reason for seeking an exit from the EU sooner rather than later.

I’ll finish with some statistics that are much more reliable than epidemiological guesswork: the average UK life expectancy is 78 for men and 82 for women. In Kensington & Chelsea (average salary £88,000) it is 85 for men and 90 for women. In Glasgow (average salary £23,500) it is 71 for men and 78 for women. Life expectancy is related to a number of factors, including genetics, wealth, lifestyle, and environment, but the balance of these factors in modern times is strongly positive in favour of greater longevity.

Let’s not jeopardise our new-found longevity with deeply flawed policies based on unfounded environmental alarmism. Instead, let’s continue to reduce air pollution on an achievable timescale rather than one set by the broken and dictatorial EU.

Transport Majority Letter Published in LTT

Most people prefer to do their shopping by car
Paul Biggs, Transport Majority, Tamworth, Staffs B77

I don't like poor or inconsiderate parking any more than John Dales (I park, therefore I am, LTT 3rd Feb) but this is often a symptom of the wider problem of a deliberate lack of affordable or available parking. I'm sure many of us are familiar with the mantra of 'remove the parking space, remove the car journey' (Lynn Sloman of Transport 2000 in 1998) and John '2 Jags' Prescott's 'PPG13' buffoonery. Many town centres have to cope with the effects of nearby retail parks surrounded by free and available parking. This is true of my own home town of Tamworth in Staffordshire with 'Ventura Park' located on the edge of the town centre, and no one can deny the devastating effect of the Merry Hill Centre on shops in Dudley in the West Midlands. Wednesfield high street, near Wolverhampton, has the nearby Bentley Bridge Retail Park and the additional problem of the recent changes to a bus route, which now bypasses the high street resulting in a loss of passing trade from those who used to arrive at bus stops. Parking charges are supposed to cover the cost of parking provision and reflect the service provided, not fund the wasteful spending of local councils. Nor should yellow lines be installed simply to remove perfectly good parking spaces. How do most people really want to shop and carry home their often bulky shopping? On a wobbly bike in the rain or struggle onto the bus? No - they want the convenience of putting it into the boot of their parked car and driving it home. Even those who have never owned a car benefit from being taken shopping or elsewhere by friends or relatives who own or have the use of a car. This isn't to say that public transport isn't important for those that want to or have to use it, or that it doesn't make a significant retail contribution, but we must realise that 'modal shift' policies work against the travel aspirations of the majority. It doesn't really come as a surprise that the minority who are obsessed with cycling or public transport have responded angrily to one point about affordable parking out of the 28 points summarising the Portas Report on the future of high streets, or that they would lay the blame for the perceived problems of danger, air quality, noise and congestion on the car. Many of our high streets and town centres are pedestrianised, or access is restricted to buses and taxis. We need to consider the emissions from the large diesel engines fitted to buses and 'busgestion' rather than always seek to blame the car. I don't know if Mary Portas has the answers to reversing the decline of the high street, but her report shouldn't be dismissed simply because she dared to mention cars and parking.

http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/opinion/?id=29959

Boris's Hybrid Buses Cost £1.4 million Each

Eight Hybrid 'Routemaster' buses will be on the streets of London today at a cost of £1.4 million each, compared to £190,000 for an ordinary double-decker bus. Apparently they are twice as fuel efficient as a diesel bus (that must be about 12mpg then).

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/welcome-back--remodelled-routemaster-set-to-hit-the-streets-of-london.html

Greening cools on 80mph, but Eagle sees it as opportunity for more lowered limits

The Telegraph reports that Labour's Transport spokesperson Maria Eagle is ready to support an 80mph speed limit. However, there's a catch or two. 70mph would be cut elsewhere and the 10% plus 2mph guideline for the speeding prosecution threshold would be cut. Thanks, but no thanks Maria! Drivers would be better off if the motorway limit remained at 70mph. The 80mph motorway speed limit proposal is a red-herring - speed limits lowered to unreasonable levels in rural and urban areas is a bigger problem for drivers. The best policy would be that all speed limits on all roads should be based on the '85th percentile.'

Read the Telegraph story 'Labour ready to back 80mph motorway limit' here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9096303/Labour-ready-to-back-80mph-motorway-limit.html

New drivers to 'be supervised by an over-25?'

Prime Minister David Cameron is hosting an 'Insurance Summit' at Downing Street today. Aside from discussing how to tackle spurious whiplash injury claims and rising insurance costs, a scheme for new drivers may also be considered whereby a new driver will have to carry an over 25-year old as a passenger for a probationary period.

I don't think that this is a practical idea - are there enough police on the roads to stop and question passengers of new drivers about their age, or to check that new drivers are still on their probationary period despite not dispalying 'P' plates? This would also have the effect of restricting essential car use for new or young drivers - no over 25-year old passenger - no travel! I see a business opportunity here - rent a passenger!

If so many new young drivers aren't fit to drive on the road, then this is a reflection on the current standards of driver training. Surely it would be better to make them drive with 'P' plates until they have successfully completed advanced training, or make them complete advanced training before they are given a full licence?

Chinese Study Compares Petrol, Diesel & Electric Vehicle Emissions

Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies, focusing on dangerous fine particles.

They found that the electricity generated to power electric cars caused more particulate matter pollution than that caused by an equivalent number of petrol driven vehicles.

Particulate matter comes from the combustion of fossil fuels and includes acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.

Professor Cherry said: 'An implicit assumption has been that air quality and health impacts are lower for electric vehicles than for conventional vehicles.
'Our findings challenge that by comparing what is emitted by vehicle use to what people are actually exposed to.'

Professor Cherry and his team focused on China because of the popularity of electric vehicles. E-cars and e-bikes in the country now outnumber conventional vehicles two to one.

For electric vehicles, combustion emissions occur where electricity is generated rather than where the vehicle is used.

In China, 85 per cent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 per cent of that is from coal.

The authors discovered that the power generated in China to operate electric vehicles emitted fine particles at a much higher rate than gasoline vehicles. In terms of air pollution impacts, they found, electric cars are more harmful to public health per kilometre traveled in China than conventional vehicles


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2100936/Could-e-cars-cause-pollution-normal-ones-Study-shows-impact-worse-petrol-powered-vehicles.html#ixzz1mMNuB7QN

7% Biodiesel is the limit for Common Rail Engines and DPFs

Those of us who drive modern cars with 'Common Rail' diesel engines (or the VW 'PD' engine) and Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) should be aware that using diesel fuel that contains more than 7% Biodiesel can cause very expensive damage to the engine. (7% Biodiesel is known as BS EN 590).

Having mandated DPFs for Euro V compliant vehicles, EU bureaucrats have also mandated the gradual increase of Biodiesel content over the coming years (Directive 2003/30/EC). B30 (30% Biodiesel) certainly isn't DPF compatible and obviously nor is 100% Biodiesel. Only the Soviet EU could dream up and implement two such incompatible mandates that are likely to cause problems for drivers and their wallets. I hope that the biofuel content of diesel (and petrol) is going to be labelled at the pumps so we know exactly what we are actually putting into our tanks!

See the VW statement on Biodiesel here:

www.volkswagen.co.uk/assets/common/pdf/general/biodiesel.pdf