Cleaning up London’s toxic air
Closed
672 Londoners have responded | 25/10/2021 - 19/07/2023
Discussions
In 2017, 69% of you told us you are likely to reduce your own energy consumption and 81% of you told us that air pollution is a big problem in London. Since then, the London Environment Strategy was published and the Mayor has committed to make London a zero carbon city.
The Environment Team at City Hall have been working on a plan to help London meet these ambitious targets: from making all new buildings zero carbon to implementing the Ultra Low Emission Zone. There’s a lot more to be done and we can’t do this alone.
We’re keen to know if you have tried to reduce your energy consumption and greenhouse emissions in the past few years? What did you do that worked and what more would you like to do if you could?
Have your say in our discussion below.
Closed
Community guidelines
Anything you publish will appear almost right away. We want anyone to feel welcome to get involved in a constructive way. Our community guidelines will help us all do this.
Read our guidelines
Want to join our next discussion?
New here? Join Talk London, City Hall's online community where you can have your say on London's biggest issues.
Join Talk LondonAlready have an account?
Log into your accountsparra
Community Member 2 years agobiggest problem is charcoal grill takeaway restaurants in Stepney tower hamlets and all the collections and deliveries to and from the restaurants
the charcoal grills and chip fat has made the buildings black so why are they allowed...
Show full commentbiggest problem is charcoal grill takeaway restaurants in Stepney tower hamlets and all the collections and deliveries to and from the restaurants
the charcoal grills and chip fat has made the buildings black so why are they allowed to open until 2 in the morning disturbing people. the air quality is poor because of the charcoal grill takeaways for sure
Show less of commentMurray46
Community Member 2 years agoSurprisingly, the proposed extension to the ultra low emission zone does nothing to address climate change. It is nothing to do with reducing CO2 emissions. It is purely to attempt to reduce the undesirable oxides of nitrogen (NO)x which...
Show full commentSurprisingly, the proposed extension to the ultra low emission zone does nothing to address climate change. It is nothing to do with reducing CO2 emissions. It is purely to attempt to reduce the undesirable oxides of nitrogen (NO)x which are formed when you burn fuel, in the presence of air which is 80% nitrogen. I suppose more efficient engines produce less (NO)x. Even so the extended ULEZ will only reduce the (NO)x by stopping vehicles whose owners can't afford the charge; otherwise there will be no change to (NO)x from extending the zone. It is only by encouraging the use of hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles that an elimination of both oxides of nitrogen and CO2 will occur.
Show less of commentMurray46
Community Member 2 years agoUltra Low Emissions Zone
The proposal to extend the ultra low emissions zone is wholly misguided for the following reasons:
There is another much more effective way to reduce emissions of CO2.
As a way to introduce this I would draw your...
Show full commentUltra Low Emissions Zone
The proposal to extend the ultra low emissions zone is wholly misguided for the following reasons:
There is another much more effective way to reduce emissions of CO2.
As a way to introduce this I would draw your attention to the article “World-first hydrogen double decker buses to help tackle London’s toxic air” 10th May 2019. At the time 20 buses had been ordered to work on three routes, 245, 7 and N7. As you know, the combustion of hydrogen results in an exhaust consisting of water only, no CO2 so no contributions to climate change.
What plans exist to expand the number of hydrogen bus routes in London?
As far as cars and vans are concerned, several companies including Ancaster-Hyundai in Croydon where I live are one of an increasing number of companies offering hydrogen powered cars. The problem at the moment is the small, though increasing, number of hydrogen fill points for cars and vans. Shell operate at least two hydrogen fill points one at Gatwick and one on Cobham Services on the M25 Jn 9/10.
What plans exist to provide car and small van hydrogen fill points in and around London?
Where is all the hydrogen going to come from? Preferably it will be from the electrical hydrolysis of sea water using power from wind turbines and solar panels. For example Denmark is currently building an off shore wind farm to produce 1 million tonnes of hydrogen annually.
What plans exist for producing hydrogen for London to distribute to the end points described above?
Surely in view of the above the ULEZ expansion is at best a distraction and at worst a complete waste of resources given the opportunities to clean up London’s air and reduce climate change described above.
Show less of commentnoisecontrol2021
Community Member 2 years agoULEZ is not on and unfair for the outer London boroughs. One of the benefits is that where I live in Havering there will be a stop put to the cars that have been illegally modified where most of them don't qualify for ULEZ. Perhaps the...
Show full commentULEZ is not on and unfair for the outer London boroughs. One of the benefits is that where I live in Havering there will be a stop put to the cars that have been illegally modified where most of them don't qualify for ULEZ. Perhaps the priority should be for police to stop cars that are illegally modified making excessive car noise. That is the real danger on the road, which is very bad for public health.
Show less of commentLiam Hennessy
Community Member 3 years agoIn Nov 2014 City of London Corporation published "Riverside Walk Enhancement Strategy".
Show full commentEight years ago.
Page 55 item 8.3.2.3 White Lion Hill 'Proposal' says:
"In the short/medium term opportunities should be explored to develop a...
In Nov 2014 City of London Corporation published "Riverside Walk Enhancement Strategy".
Show less of commentEight years ago.
Page 55 item 8.3.2.3 White Lion Hill 'Proposal' says:
"In the short/medium term opportunities should be explored to develop a temporary scheme that will strengthen the pedestrian route linking Queen Victoria Street to the Riverside Walk."
Eight years ago...
By changing the pedestrian super-unfriendly junction of Puddle Dock and Upper Thames Street - allowing motor traffic approaching the river on Puddle Dock to turn right, as in a 'normal' T-junction - White Lion Hill could be immediately closed to motor traffic, and the Riverside Walk greatly improved.
Should be possible in about 8 weeks for a trial with temporary traffic lights.
Eight weeks - not eight years...
London is being seriously harmed by a dismal standard of 'Planning'.
It should not be accepted.
Buildcouncilho…
Community Member 3 years agoTo help the climate stop the constant demolition of buildings which could be refurbished and reused. The numbers of construction lorries on the roads is ridiculous and they are dangerous to others. Stop the cutting down of mature trees for...
Show full commentTo help the climate stop the constant demolition of buildings which could be refurbished and reused. The numbers of construction lorries on the roads is ridiculous and they are dangerous to others. Stop the cutting down of mature trees for developments who seem to hate greenery as it takes up expensive real estate. Only very mature trees provide O2 and clean the carbon dioxide. They also give areas character and provide wildlife a home. The clean homogenised replacement patches of green do not! Provide more recycling bins around streets to aid with littering.
Show less of commentReduce the crazy numbers of buses which run mostly empty?!
keela319
Community Member 3 years agoNowhere near enough is being done by Khan: Instead of pandering on about excess population, Khan wants to build evermore:
I visited Paris last week: A city with COHESIVE and HOMOGENOUS green parks in multiple spaces. The view from the...
Show full commentNowhere near enough is being done by Khan: Instead of pandering on about excess population, Khan wants to build evermore:
I visited Paris last week: A city with COHESIVE and HOMOGENOUS green parks in multiple spaces. The view from the Eiffel Tower confirm this view vie the ground:
London, in comparison is GREY!!, Few specks of "green", overcome and overrun by greed and developments of GREY asphalt, concrete and glass.
London, compared to a world class city as Paris (and Berlin!) is nothing: A dusty desert of dry dust due to overdevelopment.
Show less of commentsparra
Community Member 1 year agoit is turning into a large swimming pool of sludge all pavements wet full of algae. n moss. silt from charcoal grills and fat black buildings plus diesal vans non stop deliveries to takeaways. . they run the vans 28 hours a fay to get...
Show full commentit is turning into a large swimming pool of sludge all pavements wet full of algae. n moss. silt from charcoal grills and fat black buildings plus diesal vans non stop deliveries to takeaways. . they run the vans 28 hours a fay to get their moneys worh out if the 12 wuid a day charge. like living in an industrial estate in mile end and stepney.
Show less of commentFIB2021
Community Member 3 years agoHi, how are you?
I live in Brazil and I have a paper on London to do, regarding smart cities. If you can help me, I'd appreciate it;
- What strategies have been adopted to implement the smart city guidelines;
- how was the receptivity of...
Show full commentHi, how are you?
I live in Brazil and I have a paper on London to do, regarding smart cities. If you can help me, I'd appreciate it;
- What strategies have been adopted to implement the smart city guidelines;
- how was the receptivity of the residents with the things installed;
- Was there a cost to the population (taxes derived from the implementation of such resources)?
- what are the city's prospects for the coming years.
Show less of commentTalk London
Official Representative 3 years agoHi FIB2021
We're fine, thanks for asking. Hope you are too?
Thank you for your questions. This discussion thread isn't the right place for this topic. Please have a look at this web page where you can find all the different ways to get in touch with the Smart London team: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/supporting-lo…
Good luck with your paper!
Talk London
keela319
Community Member 3 years agoHello FIB2021.
Show full commentI can help you: The population of London has doubled between 1990 and 2022 and is the majority driver for EXCESS population (= too many children)
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/792
https://data.london.gov...
Hello FIB2021.
I can help you: The population of London has doubled between 1990 and 2022 and is the majority driver for EXCESS population (= too many children)
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/792
https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/londons-population
London has developed ZERO "smart guideline which actually help to reduce traffic and overpopulation The Mayor does not care, except for business.
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/supporting-lo…
Nobody gives a f**k about about residents, the rich developers bribe politicians and then get planning approval.
9400 EXTRA people die in London from pollution each year https://www.londonair.org.uk/LondonAir/General/research.aspx
The city's prospectives are DOOM and gloom. No prospects because the city is based on Illegal money laundering, a criminal rich people's stock market and a FAILING property "market" with overinflated prices
LONDON IS HOPEFULLY DOOMED TO SINK INTO OBLIVION, considering its harbouring of criminals and dodgy investors that use tax haven accounts to invest, something happily tolerated by Khan (and Johnson).
Show less of commentHopefully, London is going to be destroyed by the very corruption in big business that it created.
steve1956
Community Member 3 years agoThe mayor of London Sadiq Khan has announced that he intends to expand the ultra low emission zone to include the whole of greater London . He says this is the only way to drive down emissions from vehicles and to meet the Uk climate...
Show full commentThe mayor of London Sadiq Khan has announced that he intends to expand the ultra low emission zone to include the whole of greater London . He says this is the only way to drive down emissions from vehicles and to meet the Uk climate change targets. I say he`s man on a mission to save the planet all by himself. The plan is to complete this change by the end of 2023. This means all vehicles which don`t meet the ULEZ emission standards will have to be sold or scrapped, unless their owners are prepared to pay a daily charge of £12.50.
Show less of commentThis will include all petrol cars more than 17 years old and all diesel models over 7 years old. I would guess that this will include over 100000 vehicles in the greater London area and many more coming in from outside. Perfectly good vehicles ,most cherished by their owners and all passing their annual MOT test. All will be rendered worthless ! It is a well known fact that manufacturing a new car puts up a massive amount of co2 emissions, which takes an average of 8 years to pay back ,ie for it to start being green. Better to leave the older vehicle to run its course and be scrapped at the end of its life.
Mayor Khan insists that his plan is feasible ,I say it s misguided. Does he think that all those people, many of them poorer people will have the cash to replace their vehicle ,what with energy bills going through the roof ,and soon to follow food, clothing , in fact anything delivered by road seeing massive increases. Oh yes ,as long as our Labour mayor can continue in his gas guzzling range rover and remove as many poorer people off the roads as possible he will achieve his goal. I would guess that deep down he despises the very people he claims to represent .The man has failed on every count, He`s a fool and the sooner he`s gone the better !
DaveO
Community Member 3 years agoAgreed. Better to provide incentives to go all electric than hit people with a stick. The cost of erecting thousands of cameras in Outer London is going to be colossal and guess who will be paying for that. Then as the revenue stream dries...
Show full commentAgreed. Better to provide incentives to go all electric than hit people with a stick. The cost of erecting thousands of cameras in Outer London is going to be colossal and guess who will be paying for that. Then as the revenue stream dries up (this is what this is about after all) the criteria for conformant vehicles will be tightened up in the name of Pollution and Climate Change. The irony is that the reasoning for the ULEZ expansion is to reduce pollution, emissions and congestion and yet the Report states the vast majority of vehicles are already compliant so how are these goals achieved. There is no logic at all in the Report. Even if everyone who owned a non-compliant vehicle could afford to purchase a new one I doubt that would be possible in light of the problems with buying new cars due to the semi-conductor shortage which is reported to last into 2024. This whole proposal is misguided and our Mayor who surely has nothing but contempt for those he allegedly represents is trying to implement this at a time when everyone is facing huge increases in costs for everything but oh no he doesn't care, lets put even more pressure on Londoners and this measure will hit the poorest who rely on their vehicles and who cannot afford new ones and who cannot use Public Transport because it is rubbish. In Outer London we have far less options. I can either drive to Banstead in 10-15 minutes or use a Bus which takes well over an hour and is unreliable and I won't mention the Train service which is dire with a station situated miles away from the high street and with one having to take one's life into their hands trying to cross the A217. The Mayor simply has no idea and whilst he pretends to care he really doesn't give a hoot about real people. He only cares about his own image. The way he treated the Metropolitan Police Commissioner says how callous an individual he is.
Show less of commentAnonymous - account deleted
Community Member 3 years agoThis is a great inspiring article. thank you for share. we also provide assignment help , content writing services, resume writing services, essay writing services, exam help services, in different countries.
Show full commentAustralia assignment help,
...
This is a great inspiring article. thank you for share. we also provide assignment help , content writing services, resume writing services, essay writing services, exam help services, in different countries.
Show less of commentAustralia assignment help,
Canada assignment help, UK assignment help, India assignment help,
USA assignment help,
jostai
Community Member 3 years agoULEZ is not fair and is not right.
The scheme unfairly penalises those with reliable well looked after older cars who cannot afford to or do not want to scrap them.
How can it be right that I can be charged for driving 2 miles in to...
Show full commentULEZ is not fair and is not right.
The scheme unfairly penalises those with reliable well looked after older cars who cannot afford to or do not want to scrap them.
How can it be right that I can be charged for driving 2 miles in to the zone which would create minimal emissions in the zone yet a newer, but still polluting vehicle can drive in the zone FOC all day creating far more harmful emissions all be it at a lower rate per mile.
Surly the fairest and most effective solution is a charge for all vehicles based on total emissions created or total miles driven in the zone using black box technology similar to that of insurance companies.
Failing that why are there no schemes, grants help or advice to modify existing vehicles to be more compliant either by retrofit euro rating upgrade or EV conversion. This would save good vehicles from the scrapyard while also making them less polluting.
Also the 40 year threshold is too long for historic recognition I have a 1990 Honda motorbike that I am restoring it is only a 399cc petrol engine so it is quite small but because it was built before euro rating was introduced it is £12.50 per day.
My 2010 daily drive is a Euro 5 diesel the car is well loved and well looked after why is there no help to upgrade the exhaust to Euro 6 standard.
I feel this ULEZ scheme is more about raising revenue from those who can least afford it than meaningfully improving air quality.
It is a great concern that this unfair and discriminatory scheme may be rolled out to all London boroughs
Show less of commentMaria Seale
Community Member 3 years agoDo you actually enforce the Clean Air Act?
There has been a huge increase in people with log burners and open fires.
Due to the increase in the cost of gas and electricity this is likely to increase further.
People need to know more...
Show full commentDo you actually enforce the Clean Air Act?
There has been a huge increase in people with log burners and open fires.
Due to the increase in the cost of gas and electricity this is likely to increase further.
People need to know more about the Act, the reasons why it is in place, what alternative fuels they should use and what sanctions there are if smokeless fuel is not used.
This action will educate Londoners and help reduce emissions.
Show less of commentMaria Seale
Community Member 3 years agoI have received help to insulate my home and I have updated my boiler at great cost. I recycle and try to buy food with less packaging.
I drive my car only when necessary. I do less than 4K miles per year.
I live in a Victorian terrace...
Show full commentI have received help to insulate my home and I have updated my boiler at great cost. I recycle and try to buy food with less packaging.
I drive my car only when necessary. I do less than 4K miles per year.
I live in a Victorian terrace so there is little I can do to stop heat loss. I need to replace the windows as they are beyond repair but the cost will be 17k. I cannot afford this. You will see below why.
Expanding ULEZ to the suburbs will affect residents unfairly. We already walk a lot and use our cars to the minimum as they are so expensive to run. However, having a car is a necessity when you live on the outskirts of London. Hospital visits to Surrey and getting across London to help elderly relatives late at night. I am a Single parent supporting others and i travel alone at night so rely on a car. I moved to Twickenham for a better quality of life and cheaper housing. There is no tube line here. Bus services have been cut. I cannot afford to change my 20 year old car.
I cannot afford a secondhand car or any car. My credit has been ruined by economic abuse of my ex-husband.
I am not an unusual example as I have spoken to other residents in my road who say the same thing about changing their cars. We want to reduce emissions but there is no money to to it.
Scrappage schemes and incentives to get hybrid or electric cars need to cover 80% of the true cost. At the moment these schemes are excluding us. If you really want us to move over to lower emissions you need to fund more to help us do this. I really need your help and so do others who are working and struggling already with the cost of living. I am earning less than I did before 2008 and I am a professional. God help us please.
I am already frugal and limiting every penny I spend due to gas, petrol and mortgage interest rates.
Please listen to my call in to BBC Radio London on Friday 4 March at 8.36am.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0blym2n
Show less of commentZrzavy
Community Member 3 years agoThe ULEZ scheme is badly flawed. The mayor wants to clean up London's air. That is not unreasonable. I demonstrate my point as follows. My car does not meet the emission standards so I would have to pay the ULEZ charge. My car is 22 years...
Show full commentThe ULEZ scheme is badly flawed. The mayor wants to clean up London's air. That is not unreasonable. I demonstrate my point as follows. My car does not meet the emission standards so I would have to pay the ULEZ charge. My car is 22 years old and has almost been wrapped in cotton wool since new. I cannot (sensibly) scrap it. I could not find a cheap used car in the same 'as new' state as mine. It would be environmentally bad to scrap a perfectly good car with emissions as low as the day I bought it. I drive 2000 miles annually - 50 in the ULEZ . The emissions produced by manufacturing a new car far exceeds the additional emissions my car is likely to produce for its remaining life. On the other hand, somebody who has a 'small green car' and commutes every day into London and doing a high mileage produces vastly more harmful emissions than I do by maybe going into the ULEZ area three times annually. But the high emissions produced by the daily commuter is deemed acceptable, but the emissions my car produces during the 50 miles I might drive within the ULEZ is not. If the mayor wants to reduce emissions then all cars should pay (other than electric cars). I would not scrap my car which is better than the new ones.
Show less of commentjostai
Community Member 3 years agoI absolutely agree. This is an unfair and badly flawed scheme that is really for revenue raising rather the pollution reduction
Show full commentI absolutely agree. This is an unfair and badly flawed scheme that is really for revenue raising rather the pollution reduction
Show less of commentNic Lee
Community Member 3 years agoThere are too many golf courses in London that are underused yet grossly subsidised. Convert some and parts of others to parks and housing.
Nic Lee
Community Member 3 years agoEvery south/south-east/south-west facing and every flat roof should be covered in solar panels
msn.com
Community Member 3 years agoIf LGA is serious in its wish to reduce emissions from vehicles then it should start by this year introducing a ban on all private cars that are not battery powered (Disability exceptions apply) from driving anywhere in the Congestion...
Show full commentIf LGA is serious in its wish to reduce emissions from vehicles then it should start by this year introducing a ban on all private cars that are not battery powered (Disability exceptions apply) from driving anywhere in the Congestion Charge Zone on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays of each week. This should be extended after a period of one year to include non-battery powered delivery vehicles, taxis, and public transport.
Show less of commentAt the same time it should add new routes for buses to better service residents of newly developed areas and improve services on existing routes.
noisecontrol2021
Community Member 3 years agoOn top of air pollution, Havering Council which is run by Conservatives do nothing to tackle pollution coming from cars that are illegally modified with making excessive noise not to mention the toxic chemicals being released.
Show full commentJust like...
On top of air pollution, Havering Council which is run by Conservatives do nothing to tackle pollution coming from cars that are illegally modified with making excessive noise not to mention the toxic chemicals being released.
Show less of commentJust like Conservatives do nothing about climate change and have let everyone down not to mention how they messed up everything with Covid, they are now neglecting more serious matters to do with the environment. How would anyone on this forum feel loads of cars were outside your home that has its exhaust modified in a way to release nothing but untold pollution with noise louder than fireworks? You would be fuming and more to the point you would want to ensure the council does its job instead of being lazy and showing absolutely no care. This is what Havering Council have done. There is no law enforcement in place to challenge these drivers. To add even more disgrace to what this council have neglected is the fact anyone driving a car or van in Havering can sound their horn whenever they feel lke it, if this happened in central London or elsewhere the driver would get a fine. In Havering drivers are immune from any penalty fines because its lawless and anything which was mentoned above stands in this disgrace of a borough that do not care about climate change.
Buildcouncilho…
Community Member 3 years agoA huge addition to air pollution where I live is the vast increase in the use of outdoor fire pits, bbq’s and open fires in houses. People burn anything to save money so. The summer is worse as soon as there is a hint of sun I can’t breathe...
Show full commentA huge addition to air pollution where I live is the vast increase in the use of outdoor fire pits, bbq’s and open fires in houses. People burn anything to save money so. The summer is worse as soon as there is a hint of sun I can’t breathe because of smoky fires. In the winter our area suffers from the high numbers of cabbies running their cars while stationary for hours, polluting the air. People need a leaflet drop reminding them of helping keep the air clean by not doing certain things especially burning rubbish and household waste in bonfires in their gardens! I would like to cycle places but still even in 20mph zones people speed near you and the number of lorries on the road driving at speed scare me off!
Show less of commentWatchful
Community Member 3 years agoThe proposals for 'journey charge' are poorly thought through as means to improving London's emissions. In December 2021 sale of Electric cars increased to 25% of all cars sold in the UK, and across 2021 up threefold over 2020. At current...
Show full commentThe proposals for 'journey charge' are poorly thought through as means to improving London's emissions. In December 2021 sale of Electric cars increased to 25% of all cars sold in the UK, and across 2021 up threefold over 2020. At current rate, the majority of new cars in London will be electric within a year or two. And 70% of that electricity is generated using renewable and nuclear sources, with that percentage rising.
Rolling out 'journey charge' ostensibly for the purpose of cleaning London's air or reducing its emissions is misguided. It just puts a massive additional cost burden on Londoners, at a time that emissions from vehicles is plummeting.
Getting London's budget addicted to 'journey charge' is therefore a mistake. Unlike heroin, such taxes create dependency to the revenue source and are impossible to go 'cold turkey' on and roll back.
Show less of commentDaveO
Community Member 3 years agoAgree. We the taxpayers of London will have to pay for a massive infrastructure programme to install cameras. The revenue generated over time from the ULEZ will reduce. I suspect that what will happen if this goes ahead is that the...
Show full commentAgree. We the taxpayers of London will have to pay for a massive infrastructure programme to install cameras. The revenue generated over time from the ULEZ will reduce. I suspect that what will happen if this goes ahead is that the Compliance criteria will be tightened up as revenue is reduced so unless you buy an all electric car you are going to have to pay at some point. The Mayor needs to be more creative in generating revenue for London. Public Transport is never going to generate the profits it used to (well, the tube generated profit which was used to subsidise the bus network) with home working which will inevitably increase over time. Get creative Sadiq and look at other means of generating funds. Perhaps if you hadn't been so misguided to freeze fares when you became Mayor the first time around you would still have money in your coffers to fund stuff
Show less of comment