I'm incredibly outspoken when it comes to walkable neighborhoods and better public transportation. I want all of that globally. What I see as the issue here is that people who can't afford newer...
I'm incredibly outspoken when it comes to walkable neighborhoods and better public transportation. I want all of that globally. What I see as the issue here is that people who can't afford newer cars are being screwed because they can't afford to get a new car, and can't afford to pay the daily fine. And there is no increase in more reliable public transportation to make up for the tax on the cars.
Install the public transportation, make it robust, and then levy the tax.
I agree that public transportation should be expanded. London's system is already pretty phenomenal. There are plenty of gaps, especially south of the Thames, which should be addressed. You need...
Exemplary
I agree that public transportation should be expanded. London's system is already pretty phenomenal. There are plenty of gaps, especially south of the Thames, which should be addressed. You need more than just "attractive" factors though; some people will never give up their cars because they actively refuse to take public transportation. Others will choose not to switch to electric because they qualitatively dislike those vehicles. It is necessary to save our planet from destruction by actively and intentionally stopping people from destroying it.
People should be aware that their choice to own and operate a gas-powered vehicle is actively harmful to the environment. A small tax is not going to force every single car owner to immediately purchase a new vehicle: that's ridiculous. Not that many people are driving gas vehicles older than 2006 (that's 17 years, far beyond the average of 10 years), which is the cutoff for the tax. (Honestly, you are paying more in annual maintenance for a car that old than a £12/day tax, which for weekday commuters is about £3k/yr.) The £2k scrappage incentive isn't going to cover an entire vehicle, but it sure goes a long way. And diesel-powered cars manufactured before 2015 are so toxic to people's health that a tax on them is more than worthwhile. How many millions are we spending in medical bills over lung cancer? That externality doesn't stop affecting drivers just because it's indirect. (Diesel automobiles are only 34% of the UK market to begin with, and diesel cars 8+ years in age are approximately half that.)
The truly poorest and most disadvantaged people in the system do not own vehicles to begin with. They are stuck breathing in noxious exhaust fumes on the streets because they are forced to suffer the costs of lifestyles of their wealthier counterparts. It is not more equitable to continue exposing disadvantaged people to poisonous gases or long-term environmental effects which they, and not drivers, will experience the most harshly; especially when this plan specifically targets old vehicles that are due for replacement anyway.
I've bought a 2015 ulez vehicle for £2.3k with a year MOT last month and that was out of a decent choice so it's not the biggest issue of shortfall on the scrappage.
I've bought a 2015 ulez vehicle for £2.3k with a year MOT last month and that was out of a decent choice so it's not the biggest issue of shortfall on the scrappage.
People that are still using old cars are being environmentally responsible. A lot of a car’s emissions are from the construction process. But if you’re buying a brand new gas guzzler there should...
People that are still using old cars are being environmentally responsible. A lot of a car’s emissions are from the construction process. But if you’re buying a brand new gas guzzler there should be taxes to push you towards better choices.
It is untrue that the manufacturing process of an ICE is a worse pollutant than the emissions of the vehicle. The vast majority of ICE automobile emissions are exhaust pollutants and tire...
It is untrue that the manufacturing process of an ICE is a worse pollutant than the emissions of the vehicle. The vast majority of ICE automobile emissions are exhaust pollutants and tire microplastics. The manufacturing process of a lithium-ion battery (or any battery) is not net-zero, but it is also not very significant. Source: IEA: Comparative life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of a mid-size BEV and ICE vehicle.
It depends how much you drive and how many cars you buy. My point of reference is the SF Bay Area, where you have lots of rich people buying “environmentally responsible” cars, but they have one...
It depends how much you drive and how many cars you buy. My point of reference is the SF Bay Area, where you have lots of rich people buying “environmentally responsible” cars, but they have one Tesla Model 3, one EV sports car, and their spouse has their own car. Compared to that, my friends that split one SUV between themselves and their SO are doing less harm and being less wasteful.
Is there a difference between tire micro plastics based on the age of the car? Do older cars have tires that release more microplastics than newer ice or electric cars?
Is there a difference between tire micro plastics based on the age of the car? Do older cars have tires that release more microplastics than newer ice or electric cars?
There have been few or no attempts to regulate tire microplastics from leaching into soils and groundwater. I don't think tire manufacturers have had any incentive to structurally engineer their...
There have been few or no attempts to regulate tire microplastics from leaching into soils and groundwater. I don't think tire manufacturers have had any incentive to structurally engineer their tires to not degrade over time; in fact, making tires longer-lasting kind of hurts their business model. The problem with tires is relatively clear, but there isn't a ton of research on the specifics yet and the public couldn't care less. Most general discussion is about tailpipe emissions. I collected a few papers about tire microplastics in a comment in July.
In short, the heavier the vehicle, the more force it exerts on its tires. The more force with which tires are pressed into asphalt, the more tire dust (microplastic) they emit. Microplastics are bad. Thus, it is best to drive lighter vehicles. (Less weight exerted on a roadway per vehicle mile traveled has the added benefit of destroying said roadway less rapidly, reducing emissions originating from resurfacing.) You can do this by engineering vehicles to be smaller and/or by designing them with lightweight materials. I do not know what kind of engineering is necessary to improve the emissions profiles of the tires themselves.
Electric vehicles are heavier than gasoline vehicles, but the bigger issue in this regard is that SUVs are somehow becoming popular. We are driving bigger and heavier cars in general; not just because we're switching to electric. Anyway, while tire microplastics have obvious negative environmental effects and apparently have negative health effects, my impression is that gaseous exhaust emissions have a more dramatic effect in both respects, especially diesel. Even if this change induces the purchase of new, heavy EVs (rather than potentially less heavy gas ICEs) in place of old diesel cars, it is likely still a net positive environmentally and medically.
You should get new tires every 3-5 years, even if they are not completely worn down. The tires will start to degrade on their own, first they get very hard and lose grip and then they start to...
You should get new tires every 3-5 years, even if they are not completely worn down. The tires will start to degrade on their own, first they get very hard and lose grip and then they start to crumble into pieces. So even if you have a older car, I would certainly hope that you have new tires on it.
Well said to both of you. I'm one of those freaks that insists on riding a bicycle everywhere I can, but I also don't want the burden of environmental responsibility to fall so heavily on folks...
Well said to both of you. I'm one of those freaks that insists on riding a bicycle everywhere I can, but I also don't want the burden of environmental responsibility to fall so heavily on folks who are economically disadvantaged. When I was "forced" to buy a car (living in the USA, and in a place with harsh winters), I was lucky enough to be able to afford a Prius. Not everyone can, though.
The article mentioned a 2k pound "scrappage" incentive to replace old vehicles...but as you say, replacing an older car with a new Electric or PHEV might not be the right choice, if we consider lifetime emissions. It's also just frankly not enough, given new(er) car prices. More nuance in legislation is critical, because we (folks interested in tackling the climate crisis) need to ensure we don't just heave poorer folks into the wood chipper to do so.
If I were to write the policy, there's be a lot more nuance. In any case I'd scale usage/pollution fees to wealth. Ten bucks for a toll is less than a rounding error for many folks, but for others it means food.
The lifetime emissions of an electric vehicle are considerably lower than all gas-powered vehicles, even when you include manufacturing. It's not even close. There is plenty of nuance in this...
replacing an older car with a new Electric or PHEV might not be the right choice, if we consider lifetime emissions
The lifetime emissions of an electric vehicle are considerably lower than all gas-powered vehicles, even when you include manufacturing. It's not even close.
There is plenty of nuance in this policy. For one, it only affects 10–17% of London's commuter population at the very most. It also only affects old vehicles which likely cost their owners more in maintenance than the tax would charge them. The scrappage incentive is significant and could cover most or all of a down payment for a replacement.
Yes, this policy could theoretically cover the cost of 100% of new electric vehicles for everyone, but that is not something a regulatory body can afford. They just need to get the absolute worst polluters off the streets, because they're harming everyone's health and future—including their own.
Thank you for the clarification: I'll strike through the "electric" bit in my reply, since there's some (but not much) overlap in ICE and PHEVs, but only in cases where someone goes from a small...
Thank you for the clarification: I'll strike through the "electric" bit in my reply, since there's some (but not much) overlap in ICE and PHEVs, but only in cases where someone goes from a small to large vehicle (hence the "might" in my comment!).
I'm agreed that there's nuance, but I'm just overly-sensitive to poorer folks being hit hard, even (or especially) when I agree with the legislation.
We can't let perfect be the enemy of good - especially when we're talking about combating climate change. Things like 100% subsidization of new EVs for all isn't doable, of course, but I want to try to ensure that those who may not have the resources to make better climate-related decisions don't get hurt disproportionately (even though they may be edge cases).
The average UK resident drives 20 miles/day. That's not enough to deplete a typical PHEV battery, which I'm seeing as ~37 miles. At that rate, a given PHEV would rarely, if ever, engage its...
The average UK resident drives 20 miles/day. That's not enough to deplete a typical PHEV battery, which I'm seeing as ~37 miles. At that rate, a given PHEV would rarely, if ever, engage its gasoline engine. A lifetime of driving an average-ish distance in a PHEV is a lifetime of not emitting gasoline exhaust, which is functionally equivalent to the emissions of a fully electric vehicle.
I can't comment on the manufacturing process of PHEVs specifically, but I don't think it's substantively different from either ICEs or BEVs, which have comparable manufacturing emissions to one another. While I'm sure there are some number of people with regular 37+ mile commutes, they apparently comprise ~2–4% of the UK population (in London, that could be even lower). Even that's probably mostly 10 miles of petrol vs. 37 miles of electric: not net-zero, but approaching a rounding error. So my layman's conclusion is still that replacing an 8+ year-old ICE with a PHEV is an acceptable purchase, environmentally speaking.
For the record, I'm very aware that electric vehicles aren't "sustainable" and that the manufacturing process induces significant environmental damage. If we want to be net-zero, that means not driving cars in major cities... basically ever, with few exceptions. But if we are going to live in a society that values car ownership of any sort, it is better to exclusively own cars that minimally emit toxic, polluting gases.
According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Zone it was Boris Johnson's (Tory major of London then, later Tory prime minister) idea in 2015. Economically though it's been a...
it was Boris Johnson's (Tory major of London then, later Tory prime minister) idea in 2015. Economically though it's been a very long time. Specifically, the whole world has high inflation since the pandemic hit, and the UK has been hit harder than most because of Brexit raising the cost of imports from the EU. Thus "cost of living" resonates today.
I know in the US "autobesity" has taken hold and car dealers try really hard not to stock anything under $40,000. If it is like that in the UK anybody needing to replace their car will face an unpleasant surprise.
Environmental issues have not been as polarizing as they are in the US but the UK does have some feeling of crisis over the cost of living which can be blamed at least somewhat on Tory Brexit....
Environmental issues have not been as polarizing as they are in the US but the UK does have some feeling of crisis over the cost of living which can be blamed at least somewhat on Tory Brexit. There is fear though the the high level of support that the UK has for mitigating climate change could erode quickly if people see it makes things harder for them.
did they ask in good faith? I'm not from the UK, i'm American, but I am not unfamiliar with the opposition asking for positive things in bad faith and parading the no around and making it worse.
did they ask in good faith? I'm not from the UK, i'm American, but I am not unfamiliar with the opposition asking for positive things in bad faith and parading the no around and making it worse.
A lot of the politics around this is stemming from the Tories win in Uxbridge the other month. Labour were expected to win the by-election despite a strong Tory majority (Uxbridge had been...
A lot of the politics around this is stemming from the Tories win in Uxbridge the other month. Labour were expected to win the by-election despite a strong Tory majority (Uxbridge had been Johnson's seat until he resigned as an MP) but they failed to do so. It's claimed that a big reason why is because ULEZ was being expanded to the area and the Tories played to people's dislike of the scheme in their campaign. In reality this might have played a role, but it was also lot of votes that Labour were expected to take from the opposition and it's not surprising they didn't quite make it.
However this has meant that the Labour leadership are blaming Sadiq Khan for their not winning the seat and Tories are seizing on it as evidence that there is electoral potential in anti-green messaging. So what would have probably just led to some minor protests has become a hot political topic which everyone has an opinion on. And for the Tories, whatever their previous position, it's now seen as something which they can win votes by opposing.
Toxic exhaust from diesel engines and overall environmental damage caused by old, inefficient (extra polluting) gas engines disproportionately harms the poorest members of society. Those people do...
Toxic exhaust from diesel engines and overall environmental damage caused by old, inefficient (extra polluting) gas engines disproportionately harms the poorest members of society. Those people do not own vehicles at all. The wealthier a household is, the more likely they are to own a car. In London, only 22% of ultra-low-income households (<£10k/yr) own vehicles to begin with, as opposed to 74% of high-income households (>£100k/yr).
That 78% of low-income people who are breathing in diesel exhaust fumes are absolutely not benefitting from the current arrangement. They are dealing with higher cancer rates and directly experiencing extreme weather phenomena. The wealthy people in their protected, climate-controlled vehicles and insulated, luxury apartments do not experience these negative effects at the same rate.
The amount of money it costs to maintain a vehicle that would reasonably be affected by these standards (8+ years old for diesel, and 17+ years old for gas) is likely near the amount this tax levies for a typical workday commuter. The average UK driver travels ~7400 miles/yr in their car, which is more than enough to incur significant maintenance debt for an older vehicle: inspections, oil changes, tire rotations, wiper replacements; maybe new brake pads, tires, or air filters; transmission issues/replacements, engine breakdowns/overheating problems, new batteries, broken motors... the list goes on. Old vehicles are a net drain on individuals' finances, both inherently and because older parts are more expensive; especially as the cost of components has increased over time. Thus replacing the vehicle is a net positive both for the environment and for the individual, especially because the rule specifically offers a "scrappage incentive" of £2,000 to do so.
Yes, private jets and such owned by the 1% should be taxed/eliminated. But transportation emissions are not exclusively or even mostly the fault of the ultra-wealthy: they are the fault of everyone who drives an ICE vehicle, or in fact any car at all. It is unreasonable to perpetuate insane, society-wide environmental destruction on the basis that "well those other people are also causing problems." Yes, they are, but that doesn't absolve the rest of us. A private jet is apparently somewhere between 5 and 50 times more polluting than a car, but there were only about 90k private flights in the UK in 2022. In contrast, the average person took 337 car trips, few of which were electric. For a national population of 66.33 million people, that's 22.69 billion annual car trips. Even if we go for a statistics like private jets being 480x more polluting (believable), that's three orders of magnitude lower than annual car emissions in absolute terms. Overall private jet emissions, though terrible on a per-capita basis, do not come close to overall human greenhouse gas emissions, at around 2–3% total vs. 10% for cars.
It is important for us to address all sources of environmental destruction, including all car use.
I'm incredibly outspoken when it comes to walkable neighborhoods and better public transportation. I want all of that globally. What I see as the issue here is that people who can't afford newer cars are being screwed because they can't afford to get a new car, and can't afford to pay the daily fine. And there is no increase in more reliable public transportation to make up for the tax on the cars.
Install the public transportation, make it robust, and then levy the tax.
I agree that public transportation should be expanded. London's system is already pretty phenomenal. There are plenty of gaps, especially south of the Thames, which should be addressed. You need more than just "attractive" factors though; some people will never give up their cars because they actively refuse to take public transportation. Others will choose not to switch to electric because they qualitatively dislike those vehicles. It is necessary to save our planet from destruction by actively and intentionally stopping people from destroying it.
People should be aware that their choice to own and operate a gas-powered vehicle is actively harmful to the environment. A small tax is not going to force every single car owner to immediately purchase a new vehicle: that's ridiculous. Not that many people are driving gas vehicles older than 2006 (that's 17 years, far beyond the average of 10 years), which is the cutoff for the tax. (Honestly, you are paying more in annual maintenance for a car that old than a £12/day tax, which for weekday commuters is about £3k/yr.) The £2k scrappage incentive isn't going to cover an entire vehicle, but it sure goes a long way. And diesel-powered cars manufactured before 2015 are so toxic to people's health that a tax on them is more than worthwhile. How many millions are we spending in medical bills over lung cancer? That externality doesn't stop affecting drivers just because it's indirect. (Diesel automobiles are only 34% of the UK market to begin with, and diesel cars 8+ years in age are approximately half that.)
The truly poorest and most disadvantaged people in the system do not own vehicles to begin with. They are stuck breathing in noxious exhaust fumes on the streets because they are forced to suffer the costs of lifestyles of their wealthier counterparts. It is not more equitable to continue exposing disadvantaged people to poisonous gases or long-term environmental effects which they, and not drivers, will experience the most harshly; especially when this plan specifically targets old vehicles that are due for replacement anyway.
I've bought a 2015 ulez vehicle for £2.3k with a year MOT last month and that was out of a decent choice so it's not the biggest issue of shortfall on the scrappage.
People that are still using old cars are being environmentally responsible. A lot of a car’s emissions are from the construction process. But if you’re buying a brand new gas guzzler there should be taxes to push you towards better choices.
It is untrue that the manufacturing process of an ICE is a worse pollutant than the emissions of the vehicle. The vast majority of ICE automobile emissions are exhaust pollutants and tire microplastics. The manufacturing process of a lithium-ion battery (or any battery) is not net-zero, but it is also not very significant. Source: IEA: Comparative life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of a mid-size BEV and ICE vehicle.
It depends how much you drive and how many cars you buy. My point of reference is the SF Bay Area, where you have lots of rich people buying “environmentally responsible” cars, but they have one Tesla Model 3, one EV sports car, and their spouse has their own car. Compared to that, my friends that split one SUV between themselves and their SO are doing less harm and being less wasteful.
Is there a difference between tire micro plastics based on the age of the car? Do older cars have tires that release more microplastics than newer ice or electric cars?
There have been few or no attempts to regulate tire microplastics from leaching into soils and groundwater. I don't think tire manufacturers have had any incentive to structurally engineer their tires to not degrade over time; in fact, making tires longer-lasting kind of hurts their business model. The problem with tires is relatively clear, but there isn't a ton of research on the specifics yet and the public couldn't care less. Most general discussion is about tailpipe emissions. I collected a few papers about tire microplastics in a comment in July.
In short, the heavier the vehicle, the more force it exerts on its tires. The more force with which tires are pressed into asphalt, the more tire dust (microplastic) they emit. Microplastics are bad. Thus, it is best to drive lighter vehicles. (Less weight exerted on a roadway per vehicle mile traveled has the added benefit of destroying said roadway less rapidly, reducing emissions originating from resurfacing.) You can do this by engineering vehicles to be smaller and/or by designing them with lightweight materials. I do not know what kind of engineering is necessary to improve the emissions profiles of the tires themselves.
Electric vehicles are heavier than gasoline vehicles, but the bigger issue in this regard is that SUVs are somehow becoming popular. We are driving bigger and heavier cars in general; not just because we're switching to electric. Anyway, while tire microplastics have obvious negative environmental effects and apparently have negative health effects, my impression is that gaseous exhaust emissions have a more dramatic effect in both respects, especially diesel. Even if this change induces the purchase of new, heavy EVs (rather than potentially less heavy gas ICEs) in place of old diesel cars, it is likely still a net positive environmentally and medically.
You should get new tires every 3-5 years, even if they are not completely worn down. The tires will start to degrade on their own, first they get very hard and lose grip and then they start to crumble into pieces. So even if you have a older car, I would certainly hope that you have new tires on it.
Well said to both of you. I'm one of those freaks that insists on riding a bicycle everywhere I can, but I also don't want the burden of environmental responsibility to fall so heavily on folks who are economically disadvantaged. When I was "forced" to buy a car (living in the USA, and in a place with harsh winters), I was lucky enough to be able to afford a Prius. Not everyone can, though.
The article mentioned a 2k pound "scrappage" incentive to replace old vehicles...but as you say, replacing an older car with a new
Electric orPHEV might not be the right choice, if we consider lifetime emissions. It's also just frankly not enough, given new(er) car prices. More nuance in legislation is critical, because we (folks interested in tackling the climate crisis) need to ensure we don't just heave poorer folks into the wood chipper to do so.If I were to write the policy, there's be a lot more nuance. In any case I'd scale usage/pollution fees to wealth. Ten bucks for a toll is less than a rounding error for many folks, but for others it means food.
The lifetime emissions of an electric vehicle are considerably lower than all gas-powered vehicles, even when you include manufacturing. It's not even close.
There is plenty of nuance in this policy. For one, it only affects 10–17% of London's commuter population at the very most. It also only affects old vehicles which likely cost their owners more in maintenance than the tax would charge them. The scrappage incentive is significant and could cover most or all of a down payment for a replacement.
Yes, this policy could theoretically cover the cost of 100% of new electric vehicles for everyone, but that is not something a regulatory body can afford. They just need to get the absolute worst polluters off the streets, because they're harming everyone's health and future—including their own.
Thank you for the clarification: I'll strike through the "electric" bit in my reply, since there's some (but not much) overlap in ICE and PHEVs, but only in cases where someone goes from a small to large vehicle (hence the "might" in my comment!).
I'm agreed that there's nuance, but I'm just overly-sensitive to poorer folks being hit hard, even (or especially) when I agree with the legislation.
We can't let perfect be the enemy of good - especially when we're talking about combating climate change. Things like 100% subsidization of new EVs for all isn't doable, of course, but I want to try to ensure that those who may not have the resources to make better climate-related decisions don't get hurt disproportionately (even though they may be edge cases).
The average UK resident drives 20 miles/day. That's not enough to deplete a typical PHEV battery, which I'm seeing as ~37 miles. At that rate, a given PHEV would rarely, if ever, engage its gasoline engine. A lifetime of driving an average-ish distance in a PHEV is a lifetime of not emitting gasoline exhaust, which is functionally equivalent to the emissions of a fully electric vehicle.
I can't comment on the manufacturing process of PHEVs specifically, but I don't think it's substantively different from either ICEs or BEVs, which have comparable manufacturing emissions to one another. While I'm sure there are some number of people with regular 37+ mile commutes, they apparently comprise ~2–4% of the UK population (in London, that could be even lower). Even that's probably mostly 10 miles of petrol vs. 37 miles of electric: not net-zero, but approaching a rounding error. So my layman's conclusion is still that replacing an 8+ year-old ICE with a PHEV is an acceptable purchase, environmentally speaking.
For the record, I'm very aware that electric vehicles aren't "sustainable" and that the manufacturing process induces significant environmental damage. If we want to be net-zero, that means not driving cars in major cities... basically ever, with few exceptions. But if we are going to live in a society that values car ownership of any sort, it is better to exclusively own cars that minimally emit toxic, polluting gases.
London has very good public transportation though, so we are really at this point where it makes sense to levy the tax.
Note that at least 90% of people in London have an ULEZ-compliant car; the bar is incredibly low in terms of what is allowed.
Why is this stirring political passions? The Tories literally asked the mayor to expand the zone to MUCH bigger than it is now and he said "no".
According to this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Zone
it was Boris Johnson's (Tory major of London then, later Tory prime minister) idea in 2015. Economically though it's been a very long time. Specifically, the whole world has high inflation since the pandemic hit, and the UK has been hit harder than most because of Brexit raising the cost of imports from the EU. Thus "cost of living" resonates today.
I know in the US "autobesity" has taken hold and car dealers try really hard not to stock anything under $40,000. If it is like that in the UK anybody needing to replace their car will face an unpleasant surprise.
Environmental issues have not been as polarizing as they are in the US but the UK does have some feeling of crisis over the cost of living which can be blamed at least somewhat on Tory Brexit. There is fear though the the high level of support that the UK has for mitigating climate change could erode quickly if people see it makes things harder for them.
did they ask in good faith? I'm not from the UK, i'm American, but I am not unfamiliar with the opposition asking for positive things in bad faith and parading the no around and making it worse.
A lot of the politics around this is stemming from the Tories win in Uxbridge the other month. Labour were expected to win the by-election despite a strong Tory majority (Uxbridge had been Johnson's seat until he resigned as an MP) but they failed to do so. It's claimed that a big reason why is because ULEZ was being expanded to the area and the Tories played to people's dislike of the scheme in their campaign. In reality this might have played a role, but it was also lot of votes that Labour were expected to take from the opposition and it's not surprising they didn't quite make it.
However this has meant that the Labour leadership are blaming Sadiq Khan for their not winning the seat and Tories are seizing on it as evidence that there is electoral potential in anti-green messaging. So what would have probably just led to some minor protests has become a hot political topic which everyone has an opinion on. And for the Tories, whatever their previous position, it's now seen as something which they can win votes by opposing.
Have they gone after the emissions of the top economic classes first? Or is this just a squeeze on the classes that can't afford otherwise?
Toxic exhaust from diesel engines and overall environmental damage caused by old, inefficient (extra polluting) gas engines disproportionately harms the poorest members of society. Those people do not own vehicles at all. The wealthier a household is, the more likely they are to own a car. In London, only 22% of ultra-low-income households (<£10k/yr) own vehicles to begin with, as opposed to 74% of high-income households (>£100k/yr).
That 78% of low-income people who are breathing in diesel exhaust fumes are absolutely not benefitting from the current arrangement. They are dealing with higher cancer rates and directly experiencing extreme weather phenomena. The wealthy people in their protected, climate-controlled vehicles and insulated, luxury apartments do not experience these negative effects at the same rate.
The amount of money it costs to maintain a vehicle that would reasonably be affected by these standards (8+ years old for diesel, and 17+ years old for gas) is likely near the amount this tax levies for a typical workday commuter. The average UK driver travels ~7400 miles/yr in their car, which is more than enough to incur significant maintenance debt for an older vehicle: inspections, oil changes, tire rotations, wiper replacements; maybe new brake pads, tires, or air filters; transmission issues/replacements, engine breakdowns/overheating problems, new batteries, broken motors... the list goes on. Old vehicles are a net drain on individuals' finances, both inherently and because older parts are more expensive; especially as the cost of components has increased over time. Thus replacing the vehicle is a net positive both for the environment and for the individual, especially because the rule specifically offers a "scrappage incentive" of £2,000 to do so.
Yes, private jets and such owned by the 1% should be taxed/eliminated. But transportation emissions are not exclusively or even mostly the fault of the ultra-wealthy: they are the fault of everyone who drives an ICE vehicle, or in fact any car at all. It is unreasonable to perpetuate insane, society-wide environmental destruction on the basis that "well those other people are also causing problems." Yes, they are, but that doesn't absolve the rest of us. A private jet is apparently somewhere between 5 and 50 times more polluting than a car, but there were only about 90k private flights in the UK in 2022. In contrast, the average person took 337 car trips, few of which were electric. For a national population of 66.33 million people, that's 22.69 billion annual car trips. Even if we go for a statistics like private jets being 480x more polluting (believable), that's three orders of magnitude lower than annual car emissions in absolute terms. Overall private jet emissions, though terrible on a per-capita basis, do not come close to overall human greenhouse gas emissions, at around 2–3% total vs. 10% for cars.
It is important for us to address all sources of environmental destruction, including all car use.