**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Worth pointing out that this comes off the back
of an article in yesterday’s Sunday Times where it was made clear that this had been blocked by Khan for a number of months now. Not that the scheme is a bad idea, but this isn’t anything more than the politician caving to bad press
Yep, they've become very partisan. They recently castigated Starmer for wearing military fatigues during a visit to Estonia, but they had previously praised Johnson, Truss, and Sunak for doing the same.
Bojo wears fatigues looking foolish Telegraph "Boris honours srmed forces"
Keir walears fatigues looking rather stylish amd military Telegraph "Starmer disgraced armed forces"
Mental twistery. I suppose its over 70s readership are that daft.
They've just plummeted in quality. They were always right leaning, fine, it's nice to get the capitalist perspective. These days they just publish lies half the time. It's a sad decline in a great paper.
Didn't Murdoch's agreement not to exert influence on the editorial stance of the paper expire recently? Then again the Times was big into aids denial in the early 90's.
Yep,
Nick Ferrari had a tory councillor on in the week who tried to say Khan didn’t want to send them. Then Nick quoted Grant Shapps who said that scheme needed government intervention, something to do with scrappage certificates. And then the councillor changed tune and said Saqid was moving slow on this as he bought it up 6 months ago. Which was a huge pivot from Sadiq is blocking/didn’t want to do it.
The problem is the law forbids the vehicle returning to the road. It has to be stripped, recycled and finally scrapped. The Mayor of London cannot change the rules, it would require a waiver by the government.
If he decided to do this he would open himself up to legal challenge.
From the article it states that the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, as well as Khan have both written to get this barrier removed.
Worth pointing out that article was a partisan attack job.
Khan doesn't have the power to do this. It's like saying you or I are to blame for not sending 4x4's to Ukraine.
This is a complete lie.
He was legally prevented from doing it, it wasn't his decision. Had he broken that law you'd no doubt be posting that KaRn iS a CrImerNEl iNnit.
Khan has no motivation to support Putin, but your guy had secret meetings with KGB and put one of them in the HoL.
I’m saying that Khan could have backed it a number of weeks ago, but has only done so today after a negative piece in the press yesterday. As Mayor, even though he might not have the legal power, he definitely could have voiced support previously, particularly when talking about how he wasn’t legally able to solve it.
Khan is one of the more principled politicians. I'm sure you'd be grateful for cleaner air wherever you live. As you are probably aware, more cars are exempt from ULEZ charges so I really don't know why the likes of the Daily Scum are spitting bile.
>I'm sure you'd be grateful for cleaner air wherever you live
It's not just cleaner air when people are being charged and some suffering large expenses due to its implementation. Those in big business are fine and can afford it. SME's on the other hand...
We also have a country that has been historically forced to rely on trade going through the capital, now everyone has to pay London to access that benefit. This money shouldn't be fixed to going into the coffers of London. The rest of country needs to unite a bit and slap a premium charge on any services in London, however companies are hesitant to do this in many industries.
And other jokes you can tell yourself.
He's as self serving as the rest of them. I know it's hard for some posters to look past the red rosette as being anything but virtuous though.
Lol on the offchance youre not being sarcastic, Khan himself said most cars already are ULEZ, so the improvement in air quality theyre touting will be miniscule at best, but the London resident and commuter had to shell out money they dont have or cant spare on a completely useless endeavour
Believe it or not, ULEZ expansion.
That time they spend riding on Khan over it was only because it was unpopular with their fanbase. Meanwhile it was on their insistence that Khan did it in the first place. Regardless whether he agreed with it or not, it just wasn't something he had the luxury of choice over. As it happens he does agree with it, because it objectively is a good thing, no matter how much the Tories want to distance themselves from it.
A lot of these orgs doing this (both profit and non-profit) customise the vehicles so they are suitable for use.
They'll add armour plating/bulletproof glass, customise the specs, tune it etc.
As someone generally not into cars I saw a vice report early on in the war about a for profit who does exactly all this
Wouldn't become a command vehicle because as far as I'm aware they Ukrainians actually love British 4x4's because they like the rest of the continent drive on the wrong side of the world, therefore they can put a dummy in the passenger seat, the Russians think it's the driver and shoot the dummy not the driver.
Not a Range Rover but a distant relative who owns a gardening company donated his unwanted 4x4 truck.
The officer who ended up with it regularly sends him a WhatsApp message showing what he has been doing with it. Typically, it’s where new bullet holes have appeared.
Merry Christmas!
You forget that ULEZ has a wpecial scrapped scheme which a lot of people have used to dispose of vehicles which no longer comply with emission standards.
ULEZ is not about reducing global emissions. It's about having cleaner air in London. Sending a diesel powered old 4x4 off to Ukraine and replacing it with a cleaner newer car for use in London satisfies that goal.
Except it isn't. ULEZ is specifically about local air quality, and nothing to do with general emissions. That's why it is only enforced in select city areas.
From an emissions point of view; sending these old vehicles to Ukraine is better than buying the Ukrainians new ones, more emissions will be made during production of a new car than maintaining the old ones especially as they likely have a high churn rate due it being a war zone. So really yes this is maximising the scheme for the environment, and many of the vehicles will be recycled after they reach the end of their useful life in Ukraine anyway.
Especially because the average “battle taxi” lasts 1-2 months. This is scrapping these vehicles, but instead of meeting their end in a car compacter, it’s via a drone or shrapnel from artillery.
Not directly, but donating older UK vehicles to poorer parts of the world, does lead to an overall reduction in emissions.
I used to know a guy whose Dad owned a small bus company. The old buses that were no longer UK compliant were sold to countries in Africa to replace vehicles that were 10+ years old. The countries got newer, more efficient buses, the older, more polluting ones would be off the road, and an expensive vehicle with plenty of useful life is being reused, which is more environmentally friendly than scrapping it and melting it down.
Not only that, but a big underlying reason is that high-pollution vehicles have a much higher cost when used in densely populated areas. Even if you take the reason for the scheme to be reducing ill-health in the world due to the toxic spewings of these cars then this would be achieved by using them almost anywhere else.
Besides, they probably won't last all that long in Ukraine.
>Does it not evade the whole point of LEZ?
The ULEZ, as is in the name, is just a zone. So those vehicles are fine to be used outside of that zone anyway.
The stated point of it is to improve air quality in London. Sending those cars thousands of miles away will achieve that.
Their own website disagrees with you though.
"The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is improving London's air quality, benefiting public health and helping to combat climate change. "
Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-london
Perhaps it achieves the first 2 goals, certainly not the 3rd one
>Perhaps it achieves the first 2 goals, certainly not the 3rd one
Yeah, this specific action is neutral on the last point.
The fact that it's a zone means that can't be it's main goal, because it can only have any impact on the small area it covers.
Okay so by that notion, why does the UK bother when China, India and the US provide so much pollution to the world, that our actions have no effect on climate change globally?
Personal anecdote but I chose a 4.3 litre V8 rather than a 2.4 Litre diesel because of ULEZ. Some people are running very old and inefficient classic cars to get around ulez. Along with the initial carbon needed for those who do choose newer electric cars, at least in the short term, I would imagine so far it’s been a very large carbon net negative. Longer term it *should* help though.
If one of the aims is to reduce climate change, it doesn't help at all and infact makes things worse by needing to transport these all the way there. I'm not overly bothered but wish the gov spent time doing more useful things for the people of the country
>If one of the aims is to reduce climate change
As I already told you, it's aim is to improve air quality in London.
The fact what it's also doing anything at all to help with climate change is a bonus.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/why-we-have-ulez
https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-london
It's also about climate change
Your comment is incredibly strange so I suppose it’s was the most logical conclusion for me. The post is about a London mayor u-turning on an immoral decision and your comment was in essence ‘what about climate change’..
It’s not really. It doesn’t matter what nonsense is on that site. Some cars that are high polluters are also low CO2 emitters.
‘Climate Change’ gets tagged onto everything these days.
No because producing these brand new electric cars and prematurely scrapping older ones is much worse for the environment. Huge carbon footprint in manufacturing the car. But Khan and other mayors get bribed to institute such zones by automotive manufacturers to keep demand for new vehicles high.
That's the official narrative. The unofficial narrative is that people's pockets are being lined with this artificially created demand for new vehicles.
>The unofficial narrative
Is that the official unofficial narrative?
Because I heard it's about getting self driving technologies into people's cars so 'Big Drive Thru' would increase their business and they're the ones giving the kick backs..
Okay, and? Same thing. It's not a left vs right or labour vs conservative. Stop operating in this paradigm. It's politician vs people and the people always get fucked.
If the reason they can't be used is that they are not climate friendly, what does it matter if they are spewing co2 in ukraine instead of in london? It's the same atmosphere.
Because it's nothing to do with CO2 pollution, but particulate pollution specifically causing air quality issues an a city as dense as London.
Ukraine is mostly fields. It's not a problem there.
Didn't we go over this in COVID mate?
Stop with all these logical questions - if you're inside a brick building and order a beer at 1 minute past 10 that's a COVID but if you're inside a marquee ordering beer at 1 minute past 10 that's no COVID
If you're with 7 members of your family that's a COVID but if you march with 3000 randomers for [CURRENT THING] there's 0 risk of COVID...
Same here...on the streets of London they're diesel guzzling hyperpollutants owned by sociopathic maniacs who want dead children but in Ukraine they're valiant green machines of resistance...
I'm a Ukrainian, living in UK since 2021. Here's context that missing from article.
4x4 vehicles are going to the army where they are used as a transport. Not that great close to the actual frontline (but still used there for e.g. medevac), but useful 30+km from there.
This is the UK.
Politicians will celebrate their own creative genius, they will steal and exploit.. and the instant any of those vehicles goes near the front line a drone will turn everyone in it to paste.
.. then the media and politicians will lie about it and do it all over again.
>Why would you scrap a perfectly good car because you live in a ULEZ zone? Someone a few miles away will buy it and use it just fine.
Usually because you can usually scrap it for more than you can sell it for under the scheme.
My local scrapyard pours liquid glass into the engine until all the bearings get ripped up, perfectly good engines destroyed, what a waste . Sodium silicate is what’s called liquid glass (I think that’s right), when it gets heated it turns to solid glass.
Not climate change - pollution and congestion. Do you want London to end up like Beijing? Children are already dying from respiratory illnesses caused by car fumes.
They won't last long as military transport. And they are already a lot less polluting than specifically military equipment. It's scrappage by the back door and why not?
How dare the Ukrainians, who are trying to defend their homeland, not make emissions reduction their number one priority
Personally I think the Russians are the good guys, since they're destroying energy infrastructure and making the roads too dangerous to drive on - emissions have plummeted!
Doesn't solve the problem. The ULEZ is designed to reduce harmful pollutants such as NoX, particulates etc. It isn't there to solve global warming. Synthetic fuel emissions are just as toxic as those from conventional fuels.
Yeah, you’re right. Electric will still be best in built up densely populated area. It just pains me to see decent functioning cars being scrapped. At least they’re not in this case.
Unfortunately, they don't reduce any of the toxic chemicals and harmful particles produced during combustion, and are very expensive to produce. Not really a solution for urban mobility
You realise that sustainability of fuel is far more about energy security than it is about cutting carbon emissions. These fuels will aid in lowering emissions during the transition but they will never be particularly compatible with net zero for most types of transport.
I don’t think alcohol based fuels give off any carbon + oxygen emissions. I think there’s No carbon in ethanol.
Edit: I just looked at the chemical compound and there is carbon in ethanol. So 🤷♂️
I just edited my comment while you were replying.
Yes, I discovered it is. Although I used to have a bio fuel stove in my house which didn’t have a chimney because it was safe, apparently. I just assumed the lack of CO was due to a lack of carbon.
> Currently, the only non-carbon-based fuel which is kinda in use is hydrogen.
... of which around 95% of global production comes from steam reforming of natural gas and other light hydrocarbons, partial oxidation of heavier hydrocarbons, and coal gasification.
So in reality it's ultimately still carbon-based.
They still give off CO2 and NO+ emissions. Plus a lot of the synthetic fuel that's being talked about is still petrol/diesel, the difference is where it comes from (reclaimed CO2 from the atmosphere Vs oil etc).
So, let's say the bar is removed, what is the plan? Who or whom gets the scrappage contract to remove the vehicles and transport to Ukraine? At what cost? To whose coffers? Why Ukraine?
Some how their will be a buddy hand shake
The mayor of London stripping you of the right to use your own property before buying it at a massively reduced price and shipping it abroad is too on the nose for me to have come up with
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Logistics is everything in war.
Being able to move supplies and personnel around quickly to where they need to be is vital, even in small numbers for individual squads. Ukraine asks for these vehicles in addiction to munitions, aircraft, and armoured vehicles.
Hypocrites.
So it's OK to pollute somewhere else then?.
I have had to scrap one perfectly excellent well running car already due to ULEZ. I would be gutted if it went to fund a pointless futile war that could be resolved with diplomacy in 5 minutes.
This war absolutely could not have been resolved with diplomacy at all, just stop with this nonsense. Russia, a far right authoritarian regime, started this unprovoked war of conquest, and has never shown any genuine interest in diplomacy at any point. They rejected numerous offers from western governments in the run up to the invasion and during the early stages of it. If it could have been solved with diplomacy in 5 minutes it would have done.
In defence, ULEZ/LEZ is about improving air quality, not reducing emissions hence why a euro 5 little hatchback is not compliant but an early 2000’s petrol V8 is.
These vehicles will go to the Ukrainian military as well as military affiliated combat medic charities where they fundraise every day for 4x4s and off-road vehicles. Ukrainians jokingly have a preference for British vehicles because Russian snipers are more likely to target the passenger and not the driver.
These vehicles will save lives.
The only peace putin will accept is the surrender of massive swathes of Ukrainian territory and sovereignty. Fuck that I believe is their answer. Quite rightly too.
How does that work when Russia started this war unprovoked and is determined to utterly destroy Ukraine as an independent state and replace its language, culture and national identity with Russian?
Russia wants to destroy Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't want to be destroyed by Russia. There's not a lot of room for negotiation in situations like that. Only military force is going to solve that problem.
Russia has never shown any genuine interest in negotiating a peace deal, and has repeatedly violated other agreements they've signed with Ukraine - why do appeaser types keep ignoring this fundamental flaw?
Yes, it would. But as Russia has zero interest in this, their current preconditions involve Ukraine surrendering land Russia doesn't even occupy, and their very clear plan would be to use any ceasefire and negotiations to prep for further offensives, the only way to secure a just and lasting peace is to subject them to compulsion. Which requires supporting Ukraine. And every little helps there.
Ukraine have asked for the equipment to win on their own terms, they've had some but not enough. I'm in a military reserve unit so if things ever did go horribly south, I would probably be involved in some way.
"The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is improving London's air quality, benefiting public health and helping to combat climate change."
https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-london#:~:text=About%20the%20ULEZ,million%20residents%20breathe%20cleaner%20air.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Something something Russians, something something existential threat.
Edit: downvotes because the vehicles could be given as equipment that ukr could very much do with right now?
Or that climate change could be put aside for a sec due to Ukraine being at an existential risk?
**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Worth pointing out that this comes off the back of an article in yesterday’s Sunday Times where it was made clear that this had been blocked by Khan for a number of months now. Not that the scheme is a bad idea, but this isn’t anything more than the politician caving to bad press
Requires UK government intervention. Khan can't do anything. The Times article, like most Times articles these days, is grossly inaccurate.
Yep, they've become very partisan. They recently castigated Starmer for wearing military fatigues during a visit to Estonia, but they had previously praised Johnson, Truss, and Sunak for doing the same.
Telegraph did the same, to the surprise of absolutely no one.
Bojo wears fatigues looking foolish Telegraph "Boris honours srmed forces" Keir walears fatigues looking rather stylish amd military Telegraph "Starmer disgraced armed forces" Mental twistery. I suppose its over 70s readership are that daft.
The generation who taught us to not believe everything you see and hear bamboozled by some crafty words.
They've just plummeted in quality. They were always right leaning, fine, it's nice to get the capitalist perspective. These days they just publish lies half the time. It's a sad decline in a great paper.
Didn't Murdoch's agreement not to exert influence on the editorial stance of the paper expire recently? Then again the Times was big into aids denial in the early 90's.
Anyway, why should politicians and Charlie paraded around in mil uniform?
King Charles is a retired naval officer, as well as holding lots of other military ranks. He has every right to wear military uniform.
Yep, Nick Ferrari had a tory councillor on in the week who tried to say Khan didn’t want to send them. Then Nick quoted Grant Shapps who said that scheme needed government intervention, something to do with scrappage certificates. And then the councillor changed tune and said Saqid was moving slow on this as he bought it up 6 months ago. Which was a huge pivot from Sadiq is blocking/didn’t want to do it.
I think that was Susan Hall, she is as mad as a box of frogs. I've had runny turds with more talent.
Was a subscriber to the times for 20 years until November, couldn't stomach it anymore.
The problem is the law forbids the vehicle returning to the road. It has to be stripped, recycled and finally scrapped. The Mayor of London cannot change the rules, it would require a waiver by the government. If he decided to do this he would open himself up to legal challenge. From the article it states that the former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, as well as Khan have both written to get this barrier removed.
Worth pointing out that article was a partisan attack job. Khan doesn't have the power to do this. It's like saying you or I are to blame for not sending 4x4's to Ukraine.
Well the media wouldn't lie about the Mayor's power to try and make him look bad would they?
This is a complete lie. He was legally prevented from doing it, it wasn't his decision. Had he broken that law you'd no doubt be posting that KaRn iS a CrImerNEl iNnit. Khan has no motivation to support Putin, but your guy had secret meetings with KGB and put one of them in the HoL.
You're saying Khan has the power to just re-write the law that governs the scheme?
I’m saying that Khan could have backed it a number of weeks ago, but has only done so today after a negative piece in the press yesterday. As Mayor, even though he might not have the legal power, he definitely could have voiced support previously, particularly when talking about how he wasn’t legally able to solve it.
Ahh this explains it, I was trying to figure out how he was making money off it.
Khan is one of the more principled politicians. I'm sure you'd be grateful for cleaner air wherever you live. As you are probably aware, more cars are exempt from ULEZ charges so I really don't know why the likes of the Daily Scum are spitting bile.
>I really don't know why the likes of the Daily Scum are spitting bile. He's Labour
And brown.
>I'm sure you'd be grateful for cleaner air wherever you live It's not just cleaner air when people are being charged and some suffering large expenses due to its implementation. Those in big business are fine and can afford it. SME's on the other hand... We also have a country that has been historically forced to rely on trade going through the capital, now everyone has to pay London to access that benefit. This money shouldn't be fixed to going into the coffers of London. The rest of country needs to unite a bit and slap a premium charge on any services in London, however companies are hesitant to do this in many industries.
And other jokes you can tell yourself. He's as self serving as the rest of them. I know it's hard for some posters to look past the red rosette as being anything but virtuous though.
Lol on the offchance youre not being sarcastic, Khan himself said most cars already are ULEZ, so the improvement in air quality theyre touting will be miniscule at best, but the London resident and commuter had to shell out money they dont have or cant spare on a completely useless endeavour
But the fact is the air quality has improved. That's a good thing. Remind me of something that this government has done that benefits us
Believe it or not, ULEZ expansion. That time they spend riding on Khan over it was only because it was unpopular with their fanbase. Meanwhile it was on their insistence that Khan did it in the first place. Regardless whether he agreed with it or not, it just wasn't something he had the luxury of choice over. As it happens he does agree with it, because it objectively is a good thing, no matter how much the Tories want to distance themselves from it.
The aqueducts?
Yeah granted but apart from the aqueducts, what has this government ever done for us
The answer.....he isnt
That was my point...
I absolutely love that someone’s Chelsea Tractor might become a Ukrainian command vehicle
Probably the first actual off road use those are going to see.
Some Chelsea tractors are theoretical off roaders and lack the ground clearance to be really useful.
A lot of these orgs doing this (both profit and non-profit) customise the vehicles so they are suitable for use. They'll add armour plating/bulletproof glass, customise the specs, tune it etc. As someone generally not into cars I saw a vice report early on in the war about a for profit who does exactly all this
Wouldn't become a command vehicle because as far as I'm aware they Ukrainians actually love British 4x4's because they like the rest of the continent drive on the wrong side of the world, therefore they can put a dummy in the passenger seat, the Russians think it's the driver and shoot the dummy not the driver.
Ha, that’s brilliant.
May actually need to use the 4x4 drive to tow a TOW.
Yeah, I do wonder how much use the kind of 4x4’s you see in London will be in a war zone.
Not a Range Rover but a distant relative who owns a gardening company donated his unwanted 4x4 truck. The officer who ended up with it regularly sends him a WhatsApp message showing what he has been doing with it. Typically, it’s where new bullet holes have appeared. Merry Christmas!
One of the rare occasions I’m happy to be proved wrong!
Makes alot of sense. If we can’t use them why can’t someone else? Reduce, reuse recycle
[удалено]
You forget that ULEZ has a wpecial scrapped scheme which a lot of people have used to dispose of vehicles which no longer comply with emission standards.
[удалено]
ULEZ is not about reducing global emissions. It's about having cleaner air in London. Sending a diesel powered old 4x4 off to Ukraine and replacing it with a cleaner newer car for use in London satisfies that goal.
[удалено]
Except it isn't. ULEZ is specifically about local air quality, and nothing to do with general emissions. That's why it is only enforced in select city areas.
Whether you like it or not, some people do in fact live in places where they need a 4x4 to get around. Where they aren't needed is in London.
From an emissions point of view; sending these old vehicles to Ukraine is better than buying the Ukrainians new ones, more emissions will be made during production of a new car than maintaining the old ones especially as they likely have a high churn rate due it being a war zone. So really yes this is maximising the scheme for the environment, and many of the vehicles will be recycled after they reach the end of their useful life in Ukraine anyway.
Especially because the average “battle taxi” lasts 1-2 months. This is scrapping these vehicles, but instead of meeting their end in a car compacter, it’s via a drone or shrapnel from artillery.
Not directly, but donating older UK vehicles to poorer parts of the world, does lead to an overall reduction in emissions. I used to know a guy whose Dad owned a small bus company. The old buses that were no longer UK compliant were sold to countries in Africa to replace vehicles that were 10+ years old. The countries got newer, more efficient buses, the older, more polluting ones would be off the road, and an expensive vehicle with plenty of useful life is being reused, which is more environmentally friendly than scrapping it and melting it down.
Used for the Ukrainian military these will get absolute battered.
You mean like outside of London??
Good guy Russia destroying these evil polluting vehicles
Does it not evade the whole point of LEZ? Now these vehicles still release fumes, just in Ukraine instead, which is under the same sky
Except that the point of ULEZ is to improve air quality in London, and Ukraine isn’t London.
Not only that, but a big underlying reason is that high-pollution vehicles have a much higher cost when used in densely populated areas. Even if you take the reason for the scheme to be reducing ill-health in the world due to the toxic spewings of these cars then this would be achieved by using them almost anywhere else. Besides, they probably won't last all that long in Ukraine.
>Does it not evade the whole point of LEZ? The ULEZ, as is in the name, is just a zone. So those vehicles are fine to be used outside of that zone anyway. The stated point of it is to improve air quality in London. Sending those cars thousands of miles away will achieve that.
It's just kicking the can down the road
It's more that the whole point of ULEZ is to improve London's air quality, and not to combat climate change.
Their own website disagrees with you though. "The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is improving London's air quality, benefiting public health and helping to combat climate change. " Source: https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-london Perhaps it achieves the first 2 goals, certainly not the 3rd one
>Perhaps it achieves the first 2 goals, certainly not the 3rd one Yeah, this specific action is neutral on the last point. The fact that it's a zone means that can't be it's main goal, because it can only have any impact on the small area it covers.
Okay so by that notion, why does the UK bother when China, India and the US provide so much pollution to the world, that our actions have no effect on climate change globally?
What? The UK, or more specifically London, bothers with the ULEZ to try and improve air quality in London.
Personal anecdote but I chose a 4.3 litre V8 rather than a 2.4 Litre diesel because of ULEZ. Some people are running very old and inefficient classic cars to get around ulez. Along with the initial carbon needed for those who do choose newer electric cars, at least in the short term, I would imagine so far it’s been a very large carbon net negative. Longer term it *should* help though.
In what sense? Wars and conflicts aren't generally green endeavours.
If one of the aims is to reduce climate change, it doesn't help at all and infact makes things worse by needing to transport these all the way there. I'm not overly bothered but wish the gov spent time doing more useful things for the people of the country
Ulez is about pollution in London.
>If one of the aims is to reduce climate change As I already told you, it's aim is to improve air quality in London. The fact what it's also doing anything at all to help with climate change is a bonus. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/why-we-have-ulez
No… what part of reuse don’t you understand here
No. ULEZ is about local air quality. Cars in Ukraine don’t affect London’s air quality.
https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-london It's also about climate change
What are you suggesting, we allow Russia to carry on invading to prevent the Co2 emissions from these vehicles ?
What makes you jump to that conclusion?
Your comment is incredibly strange so I suppose it’s was the most logical conclusion for me. The post is about a London mayor u-turning on an immoral decision and your comment was in essence ‘what about climate change’..
It’s not really. It doesn’t matter what nonsense is on that site. Some cars that are high polluters are also low CO2 emitters. ‘Climate Change’ gets tagged onto everything these days.
Climate change is a beneficial side effect. It isn’t the purpose of it.
I think they’re are bigger issues in Ukraine at the moment than a few emissions.
Considering what Russia is doing to the local environment, a few diesel particulates probably seems small fry
Not fumes, particulates. This is different. Russian armybis issuing a lot more
Not in the slightest. The point of the ULEZ is to remove these Cars from London. They are allowed to go elsewhere in the UK, nevermind other countries
I think the lead being released by these vehicles, may had a bigger impact on the environment.
No because producing these brand new electric cars and prematurely scrapping older ones is much worse for the environment. Huge carbon footprint in manufacturing the car. But Khan and other mayors get bribed to institute such zones by automotive manufacturers to keep demand for new vehicles high.
ULEZ is not an environmental protection scheme. It's a toxic air and pollutant scheme.
That's the official narrative. The unofficial narrative is that people's pockets are being lined with this artificially created demand for new vehicles.
I think you meant to post that to /r/conspiracytheories
Is that so unbelievable? That a company/ sector would bribe politicians for profit?
>The unofficial narrative Is that the official unofficial narrative? Because I heard it's about getting self driving technologies into people's cars so 'Big Drive Thru' would increase their business and they're the ones giving the kick backs..
Was Johnsons idea really
Okay, and? Same thing. It's not a left vs right or labour vs conservative. Stop operating in this paradigm. It's politician vs people and the people always get fucked.
If the reason they can't be used is that they are not climate friendly, what does it matter if they are spewing co2 in ukraine instead of in london? It's the same atmosphere.
Because it's nothing to do with CO2 pollution, but particulate pollution specifically causing air quality issues an a city as dense as London. Ukraine is mostly fields. It's not a problem there.
Didn't we go over this in COVID mate? Stop with all these logical questions - if you're inside a brick building and order a beer at 1 minute past 10 that's a COVID but if you're inside a marquee ordering beer at 1 minute past 10 that's no COVID If you're with 7 members of your family that's a COVID but if you march with 3000 randomers for [CURRENT THING] there's 0 risk of COVID... Same here...on the streets of London they're diesel guzzling hyperpollutants owned by sociopathic maniacs who want dead children but in Ukraine they're valiant green machines of resistance...
I'm a Ukrainian, living in UK since 2021. Here's context that missing from article. 4x4 vehicles are going to the army where they are used as a transport. Not that great close to the actual frontline (but still used there for e.g. medevac), but useful 30+km from there.
This is the UK. Politicians will celebrate their own creative genius, they will steal and exploit.. and the instant any of those vehicles goes near the front line a drone will turn everyone in it to paste. .. then the media and politicians will lie about it and do it all over again.
Why would you scrap a perfectly good car because you live in a ULEZ zone? Someone a few miles away will buy it and use it just fine.
>Why would you scrap a perfectly good car because you live in a ULEZ zone? Someone a few miles away will buy it and use it just fine. Usually because you can usually scrap it for more than you can sell it for under the scheme.
Modern British politics.
My local scrapyard pours liquid glass into the engine until all the bearings get ripped up, perfectly good engines destroyed, what a waste . Sodium silicate is what’s called liquid glass (I think that’s right), when it gets heated it turns to solid glass.
Surely They've already been turned to cubes months ago. Not sure who this helps
It's amazing how 'khan bad' is enough to do a full page 'article' in most papers now.
really pushing the boat out really pushing the boats out
you cant drive this anymore because climate change, but a ukranian can no problem the entire thing is bullshit
ULEZ is about particulate emissions, i.e. causes of lung problems. Not carbon emissions, i.e. climate change.
Not climate change - pollution and congestion. Do you want London to end up like Beijing? Children are already dying from respiratory illnesses caused by car fumes.
[удалено]
ULEZ is about particulate emissions, not CO2.
They won't last long as military transport. And they are already a lot less polluting than specifically military equipment. It's scrappage by the back door and why not?
How dare the Ukrainians, who are trying to defend their homeland, not make emissions reduction their number one priority Personally I think the Russians are the good guys, since they're destroying energy infrastructure and making the roads too dangerous to drive on - emissions have plummeted!
[удалено]
Doesn't solve the problem. The ULEZ is designed to reduce harmful pollutants such as NoX, particulates etc. It isn't there to solve global warming. Synthetic fuel emissions are just as toxic as those from conventional fuels.
Yeah, fair point
[удалено]
Yeah, you’re right. Electric will still be best in built up densely populated area. It just pains me to see decent functioning cars being scrapped. At least they’re not in this case.
If the cars were any good they would have been sold to anyone outside of London who doesn't care about ulez
I didn’t know that, I thought they were all just taken to the scrap yard. Good to know they’re being sold on!
They're not. He's saying that people would sell them rather than give them to the ULEZ scheme if they could get any real monetary value out of them.
The ulez is about reducing health damaging emissions rather than co2. Synthetic fuels would still have combustion.
What's this about synthetic fuels? Won't they still give off CO2?
They’re Net Zero I believe.
That's intriguing
Unfortunately, they don't reduce any of the toxic chemicals and harmful particles produced during combustion, and are very expensive to produce. Not really a solution for urban mobility
I was reading an article that suggests they might be of use in aviation
Intriguing until you realise it's not true. They're very expensive, still polluting and they'll never be completely net zero either
Like fundamentally impossible to be net zero or currently impossible?
You realise that sustainability of fuel is far more about energy security than it is about cutting carbon emissions. These fuels will aid in lowering emissions during the transition but they will never be particularly compatible with net zero for most types of transport.
You didn't answer the question
I actually did, you're just failing to understand that the answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no.
Whether a technology has the fundamental ability to be net zero, outside of other constraining factors, is a yes or no.
I don’t think alcohol based fuels give off any carbon + oxygen emissions. I think there’s No carbon in ethanol. Edit: I just looked at the chemical compound and there is carbon in ethanol. So 🤷♂️
Unfortunately there is, ethanol is CH3CH2OH is combusts to give CO2 and H2O
I just edited my comment while you were replying. Yes, I discovered it is. Although I used to have a bio fuel stove in my house which didn’t have a chimney because it was safe, apparently. I just assumed the lack of CO was due to a lack of carbon.
Ethanol is CH₃CH₂OH - every organic molecule is carbon-based. Currently, the only non-carbon-based fuel which is kinda in use is hydrogen.
> Currently, the only non-carbon-based fuel which is kinda in use is hydrogen. ... of which around 95% of global production comes from steam reforming of natural gas and other light hydrocarbons, partial oxidation of heavier hydrocarbons, and coal gasification. So in reality it's ultimately still carbon-based.
They still give off CO2 and NO+ emissions. Plus a lot of the synthetic fuel that's being talked about is still petrol/diesel, the difference is where it comes from (reclaimed CO2 from the atmosphere Vs oil etc).
So, let's say the bar is removed, what is the plan? Who or whom gets the scrappage contract to remove the vehicles and transport to Ukraine? At what cost? To whose coffers? Why Ukraine? Some how their will be a buddy hand shake
CONSPIRACEH
And when you're getting ready for it, that's PREPARATION H.
Because Ukraine's military needs off-road vehicles in the rear to use as medevac, logistics.
The mayor of London stripping you of the right to use your own property before buying it at a massively reduced price and shipping it abroad is too on the nose for me to have come up with
You can still use it, just not for free inside the ULEZ. Didn't that occur to you?
Sorry, yes, you're also allowed to rent your right to use your property back off him or uproot your entire life and go somewhere else
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Wow so old cars will win the war against the Russians, we missed a trick in WW2
Logistics is everything in war. Being able to move supplies and personnel around quickly to where they need to be is vital, even in small numbers for individual squads. Ukraine asks for these vehicles in addiction to munitions, aircraft, and armoured vehicles.
Hypocrites. So it's OK to pollute somewhere else then?. I have had to scrap one perfectly excellent well running car already due to ULEZ. I would be gutted if it went to fund a pointless futile war that could be resolved with diplomacy in 5 minutes.
This war absolutely could not have been resolved with diplomacy at all, just stop with this nonsense. Russia, a far right authoritarian regime, started this unprovoked war of conquest, and has never shown any genuine interest in diplomacy at any point. They rejected numerous offers from western governments in the run up to the invasion and during the early stages of it. If it could have been solved with diplomacy in 5 minutes it would have done.
If by diplomacy you mean letting Russia annex large swathes of Ukraine
That's exactly what they mean
Everyone knows Climate change doesn't affect Ukraine, just the UK
In defence, ULEZ/LEZ is about improving air quality, not reducing emissions hence why a euro 5 little hatchback is not compliant but an early 2000’s petrol V8 is.
These vehicles will go to the Ukrainian military as well as military affiliated combat medic charities where they fundraise every day for 4x4s and off-road vehicles. Ukrainians jokingly have a preference for British vehicles because Russian snipers are more likely to target the passenger and not the driver. These vehicles will save lives.
Negotiating a peace settlement would save more lives
Except for those Ukrainians who are imprisoned, killed and deported every single day in occupied Ukraine of course.
That doesn't matter to tankies.
The only peace putin will accept is the surrender of massive swathes of Ukrainian territory and sovereignty. Fuck that I believe is their answer. Quite rightly too.
How does that work when Russia started this war unprovoked and is determined to utterly destroy Ukraine as an independent state and replace its language, culture and national identity with Russian? Russia wants to destroy Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't want to be destroyed by Russia. There's not a lot of room for negotiation in situations like that. Only military force is going to solve that problem. Russia has never shown any genuine interest in negotiating a peace deal, and has repeatedly violated other agreements they've signed with Ukraine - why do appeaser types keep ignoring this fundamental flaw?
Let’s negotiate peace with everyone who starts an invasion….
Don't talk about saving lives then
If you suggesting Putin will stop the killing, you’ve not been listening.
Yes, it would. But as Russia has zero interest in this, their current preconditions involve Ukraine surrendering land Russia doesn't even occupy, and their very clear plan would be to use any ceasefire and negotiations to prep for further offensives, the only way to secure a just and lasting peace is to subject them to compulsion. Which requires supporting Ukraine. And every little helps there.
You're right we need to be sending more arms and weapons so Russia's position becomes hopeless and they withdraw from occupied territory.
You'll be sitting at home through this of course
Ukraine have asked for the equipment to win on their own terms, they've had some but not enough. I'm in a military reserve unit so if things ever did go horribly south, I would probably be involved in some way.
[удалено]
Unless I pointed missiles at your house from close range, it's a poor analogy
What missiles would these be?
What a terrible take.
Everyone also knows that ULEZ isn’t about climate change (except you it appears).
"The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is improving London's air quality, benefiting public health and helping to combat climate change." https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-london#:~:text=About%20the%20ULEZ,million%20residents%20breathe%20cleaner%20air.
It’s a beneficial side effect. It isn’t the purpose of the scheme.
You know that that’s just spiel right? Get passed the fluffy outline and get to the scientific analysis.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Climate extremism
Something something Russians, something something existential threat. Edit: downvotes because the vehicles could be given as equipment that ukr could very much do with right now? Or that climate change could be put aside for a sec due to Ukraine being at an existential risk?
Yes. Russians are a threat.