Tag Archives: Cars

Diesel fumes: Is the UK’s witch-hunt against diesel cars driven by zealotry and greed, not science?

(Author’s Note: This paper is an example of a relatively new phenomenon; “citizen science.” And citizen science deserves citizen peer review. I would, therefore, greatly appreciate review of this paper by those with the skills to do so; whether or not they live in the UK, or drive diesel cars. Thank you.)

The recent uproar over “toxin taxes” on diesel cars in the UK raises many questions. So, in this (long) essay, I’m going to try to get a handle on how big the cost of pollution from diesel cars really is, and whether the schemes being proposed to ameliorate it are sensible or not. To do that, I’ll try to estimate the so-called “social cost” of particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from diesel cars of different ages in the UK, in pounds per car per year.

If my calculations are right, there is some justification for central London pollution charges for diesel cars built before 2006; for, as I work it out, the social cost of the pollution from these cars is almost £300 per car per year. However, the further schemes in London and countrywide, that are planned to start as early as 2019, are out of all proportion to the reality of the problem. They will cost 8 million or so drivers of diesel cars, first registered between January 2006 and August 2015, orders of magnitude more than the social cost of the pollution their cars emit. Worse, these drivers – including me – may be forced to scrap our cars well before the end of their designed lives. Is this not grossly unjust?

According to my calculations, for a diesel car first registered between September 2010 and August 2015, like mine, the London ULEZ entry fees from 2019 for just two days in a year will be almost as much as the social cost of pollution from that car for the whole year, in comparison to a new (since September 2015) car, which won’t be charged at all. That is both unreasonable and unfair. Indeed, for both these cars and those first registered between 2006 and 2010, it would be far better and easier to collect the social cost of pollution through the yearly licence fee.

Read more


The GreeNazis don’t really want people to get about

Michael Winning

Over at Englishman’s castle it says that “an environmental group” is saying that “electric cars could increase carbon emissions”. He gives a link, which does not say which group (not the Englishguys fault of course.) I did a bit of devilling and found oout it’s these people here, “Biofuels Digest” whatever that is.

Clearly a little turf war going to go on between the electric-greenies who don’t want us to travel much, and the ethanol-greenies who also don’t want us to travel much. How funny.

You can’t distribute food in any modern sense without motor transport. That means, these days, trucks. Wonder whay I’ve never seen an electric 44-tonne HGV being promoted? Perhaps they want us all to starve and the Boss is right after all.

But the bugger has at least six cars….

(And The Devil has spotted that Iain Dale has spotted the latest assault on motorists’ legal standing in the case of accidents with cyclists and pedestrians…bet 50p Charles won’t be charged if a cyclist hits his stationary Aston and injures himself…)

David Davis

I can’t decide, taken over a period of many years, whether…

(1) to like the Prince of Wales as an intelligent and thoughtful man who is troubling to find feasible solutions to what he honestly thinks are real problems,

(2) to despise him as hypocritically uninvolved in the real day-to-day business of being one of his future subjects – or,

(3) merely as a poor sad tormented intellectual weakling, adopting the squashed shape of whichever Fake Charity sat on his head most recently.

Today, owning a fine Aston Martin which he loves to drive (naturally enough), and at least five other personal vehicles, he goes on yet more about us needing to be persuaded of things such as this:

“We must surely be able to organise ourselves… in ways in which we are not dependent on it [the “car”] to such a great extent for our daily needs.”

He may be sincere, or more likely just pressured by strong and committed members of the Enemy Class. If the latter, then “choice-editing” as proposed by people like Madeleine Bunting will not come up into the poor sad bloke’s radar – he’ll just assume that – because he’s a sort of nice harmless bloke who wouldn’t hurt a fly, literally – ordinary individuals will just want to and also can go along with these dis-mobolisation plans the Enemy Class has for Teh Masses.

I'm all right, Jeeves - you can walk, it's good for you.

I'm all right, Jeeves - you can walk, it's good for you.

A rather nifty scam…

to do these things:-

David Davis

(1) get lots of poor-people’s cars confiscated,

(2) get another nail in the coffin of non-surveillance,

(3) increase the income-stream of the insurance-arms of busticated banks owned by the taxpayer government.

The Englishman’s noticed it too. Wouldn’t be surprised in the Devil and Obotheclown say something mild also.

The “civil liberties campaigners” apologists for mild surveillance, and the “motorists’ organisations” semi-detached arms of State Transport Control always go about rearguard actions the wrong way. They say things like “the scheme is sound in principle, but…” and “it will penalise law-abiding drivers who forget…” – all of which is quite irrelevant to the principle of defending liberty under Common Law.

The tobacco manufacturers made exactly the same mistakes in the early 1980s, when smoking and tobacco advertising was under assault. They tried to justify resisting an ad-ban by saying that it was “all about persuading people to switch brands” – rather than actively and politically resisting what amounted to State-censorship of information about legal products. Nobody was going to swallow the brand-switching nonsense, and the Enemy Class certainly didn’t.

So here we are again.

« Older Entries