Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
cab

UK faces court case over air pollution breaches

Story here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/02/air-pollution-laws-britain-eu

Our air quality is too poor, because we've got too much traffic clogging up our roads. Between 12000 and 24000 deaths per year due to particulate pollution.

The solution? Well, we need less happening on our roads...
dpack

umm
vegplot

Re: UK faces court case over air pollution breaches

cab wrote:

The solution? Well, we need less happening on our roads...


Less traffic density where pollution is a problem. This doesn't necessarily translate to less overall traffic or numbers of vehicles on roads.
Jonnyboy

Quote:
The EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said that PM10 pollution was particularly bad in London. "There are PM10 exceedances in London along more than 200km of roads,"


Two things, Stavros - Great name

and, is there are marked difference in PM10 pollution figures inside the congestion zone I wonder?
cab

Re: UK faces court case over air pollution breaches

vegplot wrote:

Less traffic density where pollution is a problem. This doesn't necessarily translate to less overall traffic or numbers of vehicles on roads.


Yes and no. Traffic happens where people are and where they want to go, we can't simply spread all of the traffic out and have the same amount of traffic over a larger area. Simply put, the way we do things now is killing thousands, without reducing traffic in cities it'll continue to happen.

And as the article reminds us, while particulates are a special problem close to the traffic, NO2 spreads far wider. It isn't just cities that have this problem.
Treacodactyl

Are there any other countries in the EU with the same problem or has every other large city solved it? Is is mainly because we're a large country?

I notice the article mentions Low Emission Zones, looking into the London one road users were targeted because they were the easiest target and not because they were the main polluters.
vegplot

Re: UK faces court case over air pollution breaches

cab wrote:
vegplot wrote:

Less traffic density where pollution is a problem. This doesn't necessarily translate to less overall traffic or numbers of vehicles on roads.


Yes and no. Traffic happens where people are and where they want to go, we can't simply spread all of the traffic out and have the same amount of traffic over a larger area. Simply put, the way we do things now is killing thousands, without reducing traffic in cities it'll continue to happen.

And as the article reminds us, while particulates are a special problem close to the traffic, NO2 spreads far wider. It isn't just cities that have this problem.


True, but we can reduce traffic concentration in areas which are better served by other less polluting forms.
Milo

Treacodactyl wrote:
Is is mainly because we're a large country?
.... one road users were targeted because they were the easiest target and not because they were the main polluters.


I hadn't thought of ours as a large country. Is it? And if road users weren't, who were the main polluters?

Anyway, it looks to me as if we thoroughly deserve those "unlimited daily fines". That's probably the only way in which a nation can be pushed towards paying true environmental costs, as opposed to financial costs only.

Here's what I think is a very valid article: http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/Seg/PB3ch13_ss1.htm
Treacodactyl

Milo wrote:
Treacodactyl wrote:
Is is mainly because we're a large country?
.... one road users were targeted because they were the easiest target and not because they were the main polluters.


I hadn't thought of ours as a large country. Is it? And if road users weren't, who were the main polluters?


Sorry, I meant a large number of people for it's size.
OP

Quote:
The only feasible way that Britain can meet its new NO2 target is by tackling traffic congestion with schemes such as low emission zones, which bar the most polluting vehicles from entering areas, or congestion charging as in London.

Err ... I thought we already had congestion charging in London. Does this mean congestion charging doesn't work?

Let's just hope the fines can be paid in sterling and not euros.
cab

Re: UK faces court case over air pollution breaches

vegplot wrote:

True, but we can reduce traffic concentration in areas which are better served by other less polluting forms.


Yet we don't Sad
OP

Re: UK faces court case over air pollution breaches

cab wrote:
vegplot wrote:

True, but we can reduce traffic concentration in areas which are better served by other less polluting forms.


Yet we don't Sad

No we don't, because that would be totally counter to government policy. There are some significant contradictions in UK transport planning policy, but the key objective has always been to raise revenue. Enabling people to travel easily and with minimum environmental impact is not really an objective. Reducing pollution from motor transport may feature in our transport policy, but in practice it is only an objective insofar as it can be used to help raise more revenue from congestion charging.

Road users generate £40bn of income for the government per year - half of which comes from petrol taxes, and the rest from VAT, VED etc. Of that, less than £7bn goes back into road infrastructure AND subsiding public transport. The rest is pure profit to the government. This lack of investment means we are bottom of the pile in Europe when it comes to spending on transport infrastructure, despite having one of the highest population densities.

Anything that reduces private car usage hits the government. Although there is a lot of talk of modal shift from the car to public transport, if that were to actually happen on a large scale the (already high) price to use public transport would have to go up further to compensate for the loss of income. And whilst you might think local authorities would be rewarded for reducing congestion, if anything the opposite is generally true because congestion has been seen as an opportunity to introduce congestion-charging in major cities and on motorways. (The government may be having second thoughts over that, after the defeat of its plans for congestion charging in Manchester).

Because the government takes so much and puts back so little, our road network is the most congested in Europe. Unfortunately the government mantra for some time has been "we cannot build our way out of congestion". This argument might have made some sense, were not another part of government busy setting massive house-building targets for local authorities.

Historically the government has also tried to blame motorists for not using public transport, whilst failing to invest in public transport. The UK has the lowest level of public subsidy for public transport and consequently the highest prices. When the government tried to impose congestion charging in Birmingham a few years ago, the local authorities insisted that it first invest in public transport alternatives ... the government refused and the scheme was shelved.

There is some good news, in general, the UK roads are amongst the safest in Europe.

Anyway, against this backdrop of policy failure, it is not surprising that air pollution levels are breaching targets, and as we all know, transport is one of the main reasons. And hitting the government with fines is the right way to tackle it, because money is the only thing it understands when it comes to transport policy. It is just unfortunate that the travelling public will ultimately have to pay these fines.
Jonnyboy

Excellent post OP, sums up my feelings on the subject.
cab

Re: UK faces court case over air pollution breaches

orangepippin wrote:

No we don't, because that would be totally counter to government policy. There are some significant contradictions in UK transport planning policy, but the key objective has always been to raise revenue. Enabling people to travel easily and with minimum environmental impact is not really an objective. Reducing pollution from motor transport may feature in our transport policy, but in practice it is only an objective insofar as it can be used to help raise more revenue from congestion charging.

Road users generate £40bn of income for the government per year - half of which comes from petrol taxes, and the rest from VAT, VED etc.


The figures on Wikipedia suggest a figure closer to £30bn... Not a major issue with your argument in itself...

Quote:
Of that, less than £7bn goes back into road infrastructure AND subsiding public transport.


Actually its not as simple as that. VED doesn't pay for roads, most road maintenance is paid for by local authorities so it comes from your council tax. VED is not hypothecated for transport. Looking at Hansard records, something in the region of £9bn was spent on road maintenance and building in the 2005-2006 year. Another billion or so is spent on road safety (see here:
http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/expenditure.pdf )
Road accidents cost us £8bn per year:
http://www.mycarcheck.com/news/2007/02/26/injuries-and-deaths-in-road-accidents-cost-uk-economy-8billion-per-year/
PM10 polluton costs Britain between £9bn and £21bn per year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jan/02/pollution

Add in other forms of pollution from transport... The sums don't add up. Road transport isn't a cash cow, the total cost is greater than the revenue. Obviously you have to add on the massive economic benefits of transport, but it clearly isn't a simple matter of road traffic being a cash cow for the government. In simple terms the eeconomic cost is equal to or greater than the tax revenues.
OP

I am fairly sure the government raises £40bn from road transport.

Low-level road maintenance is carried out by local authorities, and only 25% of their funding comes from council tax. Strategic road investment or lack of it (which is the cause or solution to the pollution issue depending on your point of view) is paid for by central government.

I do not doubt that road accidents cost the economy (as well as the victims), nor do I doubt that roads create pollution (although more roads might create less). My point is that the key objective of our government's transport policy is to raise revenue, everything else is subordinate. Until that attitude changes it will be difficult to make progress. Other European countries manage to spend more on transport, and have apparently less pollution - so it can be done, but just not here it seems.
Treacodactyl

Re: UK faces court case over air pollution breaches

cab wrote:
The sums don't add up.


Especially if you don't want them to. VED for example goes to central government but then they give some money to councils so road maintenance doesn't all come from council tax.

You're also assuming the government knows and accepts all the various numbers for accidents, pollution etc and has carefully worked it all out rather than just seeing a nice load of tax revenue. I'm sure some thought goes into things but I doubt it is as much as you seem to think.
cab

Re: UK faces court case over air pollution breaches

Treacodactyl wrote:

Especially if you don't want them to. VED for example goes to central government but then they give some money to councils so road maintenance doesn't all come from council tax.


Granted, but the numbers remain the same; expenditure on roads and linked to roads (including costs of pollution, accidents etc.) is equal to or greater than tax revenue, however you slice it up.

Quote:
You're also assuming the government knows and accepts all the various numbers for accidents, pollution etc and has carefully worked it all out rather than just seeing a nice load of tax revenue. I'm sure some thought goes into things but I doubt it is as much as you seem to think.


Whether or not the Government has thought that through is also irrelevent to whether or not the claim that road transport is a cash cow really adds up. I'm pretty sure that they have done the maths, the civil service isn't entirely daft. The problem is that the cash required to solve these problems and the political issues involved with dealing with traffic congestion are perhaps tougher to crack than the EU fines that will be imposed.
cab

orangepippin wrote:
I am fairly sure the government raises £40bn from road transport.


Ain't what I found on Wikipedia; doesn't matter though, the point is that the revenue will be there or thereabouts, and the cost will be there or thereabouts (add in NO2 pollution and it'll be higher). Road transport is not a cash cow. If the goal IS to raise tax revenue then it is a complete failure.
Treacodactyl

Re: UK faces court case over air pollution breaches

cab wrote:
I'm pretty sure that they have done the maths, the civil service isn't entirely daft.


I don't agree and you often see reports which indicate poor maths by governments. For example, at the moment it seems more money is being spent in paying compensation claims relating to potholes than is spent on repairing them in England and Wales. I can't see how the 'maths' of that is right.
OP

cab wrote:
orangepippin wrote:
I am fairly sure the government raises £40bn from road transport.


Ain't what I found on Wikipedia; doesn't matter though, the point is that the revenue will be there or thereabouts, and the cost will be there or thereabouts (add in NO2 pollution and it'll be higher). Road transport is not a cash cow. If the goal IS to raise tax revenue then it is a complete failure.

According to the RAC using figures from DVLA and HMRC the most recent figures are £45.9bn tax revenues and £8.7bn spending of which about £4bn is on capacity. Rather a lot of tax profit for a "complete failure"?
vegplot

We're back on the topic of road taxation and revenue. Hasn't the various facets of this been discussed in depth on several occasions in the recent past on this forum?
cab

orangepippin wrote:

According to the RAC using figures from DVLA and HMRC the most recent figures are £45.9bn tax revenues and £8.7bn spending of which about £4bn is on capacity. Rather a lot of tax profit for a "complete failure"?


If you'll forgive me for saying so I hope, the RAC do tend to exaggerate rather the cost of motoring (as it always has since it splintered away from the CTC!). The raw figures from Wikipedia suggest £30bn, without VAT, but even then you're under £40bn. Doesn't matter, when you factor in the costs then they're still roughly equivalent or greater (and we didn't add in figures for NO2 pollution etc. - the costs are greater than we've yet dug out).

If the goal IS to raise more revenue than is spent then it fails.
cab

vegplot wrote:
We're back on the topic of road taxation and revenue. Hasn't the various facets of this been discussed in depth on several occasions in the recent past on this forum?


Its the relative cost versus tax revenue; the claim is that pollution is ignored because the roads contribute more tax revenue, it is not supported by the available data. The total economic benefit of road transport however, is a different matter!
Jonnyboy

Quote:
The deficiencies of UK transport infrastructure do not reflect a shortage of tax revenues from transport. In 2006 private road users paid around £32bn in transport-related taxes. Of this £32bn, just £8bn was spent on the road network. And of this £8bn – which is enough in theory to construct at least 400 miles of six-lane motorway – a large proportion was spent on repairing damage to the roads (caused primarily by goods vehicles) and another significant portion on anti-traffic and safety measures. The report’s authors, Richard Wellings and Briar Lipson, argue new roads have also tended to be built for political reasons rather than to tackle congestion.

Just 6 per cent of passenger travel is undertaken by train, compared with 84 per cent by car, yet the railways receive annual subsidies totalling almost £6.5 billion – nearly as much as the government spends on roads.


£32bn in 2006, I quote this one as it appears to come from a pro road building report.
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home