That's an unconvincing argument. I would expect that air pollution would contribute to the cause of death, but only the primary reason for death be recorded on the death certificate. Example: emphysema on the certificate, but smoking 80/day not recorded on the certificate.Specmaster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:14 amI'm not so sure, it is, under the FOI scheme, it was declared that in 20 years, there has only been 1 recorded death attributed to air pollution in London. Add to this, that in a few years time, new cars have to EV, and also that many manufactures are now dropping some cars from their range and the replacements, are all EV's and this is happening now, then by default the pollution is being reduced all the time.bd139 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 10:56 pm This is about air pollution. There is fairly rigorous analysis of excess deaths caused by pollution in London.
The way to prevent this is to tax people for bad behaviour to both fund the schemes and make untenable behaviour unaffordable.
There is no conspiracy other than a lot of people not wanting to be told what to do because they don't give a fuck if it inconveniences them. I can see a lot of that in this thread.
There are many ways in which air pollution can screwup people's lives without causing death.
I've yet to see a decent analysis of how 20mph zones, traffic calming and other mechanisms will reduce overall pollution.It would also make a lot of sense to remove obstacles to the flow of traffic, so vehicles spend less time idling in jams. It seems to be the case that these days there are more restrictions on roads, speed bumps, cycle lanes, traffic-calming measures, 20mph zones, it is a fact engines produce more pollutants at low speeds. Another way to help the position, is to make sure that the workers actually have way more disposable money in their pockets, and then many will make the switch to newer, cleaner, more reliable and therefore less expensive cars to run, automatically, and that would improve everyone's standard of living at the same time.
By what measure do engines at low speed produce more pollutants? How does that measure relate to driving in city centres, cf suburban driving.
Considering 20mph zones in cities....
They are indeed a minor pain.
A lot of the fuel in congested city centres is used while stationary: the 20mph limit doesn't change that.
Accelerating from 0 to 30mph uses 2.25* the fuel/pollution that accelerating from 0 to 20mph does; (30/20)2 and all that.
Badly maintained diesels visibly emit much more filth when accelerating.
I can noticeably reduce pollution (i.e. increase mpg averaged over a journey) in my local city by reducing the number of accelerations and coasting at 20mph to the next holdup.
Thus handwaving indicates it a isn't simple one-sided calculation.