Date published: 2008/02/04
The BBC says:
Many London motorists have noticed the new banks of cameras appearing on major roads around the city and wondered whether they are part of some new extension of CCTV Britain.
They are in fact for the new London low emission zone, said to be the biggest urban environmental control in the world.
To enter the new zone, lorries will have to meet the so-called European Category Three standard for airborne pollutants and nitrogen oxides - most modern vehicles now meet this requirement, but those with vehicles which do not will have to pay £200 a day to enter central London.
The new restrictions and charges currently only cover 12-tonne lorries with diesel engines, but buses and coaches weighing 3.5 tonnes will be included from July, and other vehicles from 2010.
Only cars and motorcycles will be exempt, and London's transport authority insists there are no plans to bring them into the scheme.
...
The controversial aspect of this policy relates to the cost to businesses forced to comply with the new restrictions.The Freight Transport Association (FTA) estimates 10,000 lorries may breach the minimum standard.
Some companies are fitting "pollution traps" to their exhausts; others will replace old vehicles with newer ones.
Both are expensive options, and the FTA believes the haulage industry will spend £100m adapting to the new system.
...
The St John Ambulance service believes it could be facing a bill for £4m if it has to replace its non-compliant mobile treatment centres.
...
The Mayor of London believes there are still 1,000 people a year at risk of premature death due to smog, particularly those with existing lung or heart conditions.Ken Livingstone says seven out of 10 Londoners are worried about the air they breathe, and that this justifies the new system.
It all starts today and apparently (in spite of all the signs) lots of people were unaware of what was going on. So the BBC decided to run several stories today about the new rules. Unfortunately the stories were mostly propaganda and not that informative. Indeed, none of the stories even bothered to give a map of the zone. (Apparently the BBC believes that if you mention the zone is 610 square miles in size then that is good enough.)
The real question, as always, is the cost versus the benefit. The cost of 100 million pounds estimated by the FTA is probably an exaggeration (it's part of the game: industry organisations always exaggerate). On the other hand the St John Ambulance (not part of the FTA, of course) just by itself is claiming a high cost of compliance (the BBC provided two figures on this front, 1 million and 4 million pounds, so take your pick). And we have buses and other vehicles still to come. So 100 million might actually be a low estimate. This is not to mention the cost of implementation of the scheme, which the BBC claimed was 57 million pounds. And there is the running cost (which perhaps Livingstone will try to meet via the fines for non-compliance). So the scheme could easily cost at least 150 million pounds in total.
On the benefit side, Ken Livingstone provides absolutely no analysis. So he "believes" that "1,000 people a year [are] at risk of premature death due to smog" (but how much will change with these new rules?). And he says, as a joke, that "seven out of 10 Londoners are worried about the air they breathe, and that this justifies the new system". Evidently this is what passes for a cost-benefit analysis amongst today's politicians. You make up some survey which asks Mom and apple pie questions ("do you want free education?", "do you want it to be sunny every day?", "do you want less pollution?") without providing any context or suggesting any cost for implementing some unspecified policy, and then, hey presto, people opt for the obvious "free cake" alternatives. What a surprise. Some day in the primary schools of London they will read about how Livingstone the great hero managed to overcome the laws of economics and provide something for nothing to the eternally grateful citizens of London. (It will have to be in the primary schools because by the time kids are in secondary school they will know that anything government tells them is at best a misrepresentation and at worst a blatant lie.)
Unfortunately the BBC completely fails its public service duty and just lets Livingstone get away without providing any justification for his policy.
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").