Upload
For or Against Low Emission Zones?
Loading ...
Why is everyone coughing? Is it due to cold season? No, but perhaps the cocktail of nitrogen dioxide and fine particles that surrounds us is the culprit.
To remedy this, many Swedish cities, Berlin, London and soon Paris, will gradually prohibit access to the most polluting vehicles.They have taken this provision due to pressure from Brussels, as countries struggle to meet EU air quality standards.
But the sentiments towards Low Emission Zones are far from unanimous.
Consider some of the pros. Let’s remember that the fine particles emitted by diesel vehicles are responsible for cardiac and respiratory diseases like asthma. Creating a tax disincentive for big polluters has reduced these emissions by 19% in London, Berlin 25% and 40% in Stockholm. In addition, the law encourages companies to renew their fleet and to replace their old vehicles with new vehicles that are more efficient and less polluting.
Now consider some of the cons. We can consider this standard to be socially unfair because it is the most modest drivers running on diesel, who will foot the bill. The law is also accused of being anti-ecological as it always prompts us to change our products, while the ABCs of ecology is to make them last. On the other hand, this measure would only shift pollution. Under this assumption, the old truck would have a second life in developing countries less concerned with air pollution. In addition, not all business owners can afford to get rid of their vehicles and purchase new ones.
What do you think ? Are you for or against Low Emission Zones ?
Replies
I understand why they're doing this in terms of health and safety concerns but i don't think small business owners should be forced to sell their vehicles when some cant afford to. They shouldn't foot the bill. Take a look at this video i found on youtube of an English business owner who is refusing to sell his truck because it's vital to his business. He explains why, in the video I've attached.
It's a difficult issue to take a stand on, I feel that neither have better pros, only thought-challenging cons. Modest families should not have to pay the price for environment, but this tax seems like a good idea on the short term.
I think it's a great idea to eventually tackle air pollution, even if the method is tacless. Indeed, once again, it is all about taxes, and modest families will be in the front line. Maybe we should focus more on eco driving and oil alternatives ? So this measure is a first step, but other solutions have to be implemented. If you have any suggestions, be my guest !
I agree with Bike on that one : not everyone can afford to buy less polluting car...