Congestion charge in Sheffield

[apelike]

Charge cars and it will signal the end of the city centre ,and play right into the hands of Meadowhall.

 

From what I can gather they do not wish to charge private cars. According to their blurb this is what is proposed;

 

Buses, Coaches and HGVs £50 a day

Taxis, Private Hire Vehicles, Vans/LGVs £10 a day

 

The money will be collected through a central government portal yet to be fully developed. Any revenue raised locally through the charging CAZ will then be given back to the Council once the government have taken their cut but may only be used to support further work to improve air quality. Now does the bit in bold mean they will subsidise or give out grants for drivers to upgrade their vehicles as it is very vague bit of text.

 

All this is also assuming that people will change habits or vehicles because they are being charged otherwise the pollution will still be generated.

[Michael_N]

I wouldn’t get too worked up about it, as the government have today rejected the Leeds CAZ plan, on the grounds that it’s too costly! Can’t see Sheffield getting one anytime soon!

 

As for charging buses and taxis - absolute joke!

[lil-minx92]

That must be a huge relief to relatives of those who have died.

 

There are not 500 families claiming that their loved one died from air pollution.

 

Nobody died last year from air pollution in Sheffield. Or the year before etc etc

[the fonz]

There are not 500 families claiming that their loved one died from air pollution.

 

Nobody died last year from air pollution in Sheffield. Or the year before etc etc

 

Google is your friend, no one ever dies from air pollution........

 

How does air pollution affect our health? Our physical and psychological wellbeing is affected differently by the kind of air pollution we are exposed to.

 

There are many organs and bodily functions that can be harmed, the consequences including:

Respiratory diseases

Cardiovascular damage

Fatigue, headaches and anxiety

Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat

Damage to reproductive organs

Harm to the liver, spleen and blood

Nervous system damage.

 

Urban populations are more exposed to suffer the effects of air pollution and, in this context, people who are already ill are particularly vulnerable, as are children and the elderly.

 

https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/effects-air-pollution-human-health/

 

and someone who hopefully knows what they are talking about, the World Health Organisation, say

 

"Evidence shows that air pollution at current levels in European cities is responsible for a significant burden of deaths, hospital admissions and exacerbation of symptoms. WHO/Europe works to make sure that the available evidence on the health risks of air pollution is used in public debate and in policy-making.

 

The air we breathe contains emissions from motor vehicles, industry, heating and commercial sources, as well as tobacco smoke and household fuels. Air pollution harms human health, particularly in those already vulnerable because of their age or existing health problems".

 

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-quality/air-quality

Edited November 15, 2018 by the fonz

[Cyclone]

There are not 500 families claiming that their loved one died from air pollution.

 

Nobody died last year from air pollution in Sheffield. Or the year before etc etc

 

Nobody died from air pollution in Sheffield is a ridiculous assertion.

[lil-minx92]

Google is your friend, no one ever dies from air pollution........

 

How does air pollution affect our health? Our physical and psychological wellbeing is affected differently by the kind of air pollution we are exposed to.

 

There are many organs and bodily functions that can be harmed, the consequences including:

Respiratory diseases

Cardiovascular damage

Fatigue, headaches and anxiety

Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat

Damage to reproductive organs

Harm to the liver, spleen and blood

Nervous system damage.

 

Urban populations are more exposed to suffer the effects of air pollution and, in this context, people who are already ill are particularly vulnerable, as are children and the elderly.

 

https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/effects-air-pollution-human-health/

 

and someone who hopefully knows what they are talking about, the World Health Organisation, say

 

"Evidence shows that air pollution at current levels in European cities is responsible for a significant burden of deaths, hospital admissions and exacerbation of symptoms. WHO/Europe works to make sure that the available evidence on the health risks of air pollution is used in public debate and in policy-making.

 

The air we breathe contains emissions from motor vehicles, industry, heating and commercial sources, as well as tobacco smoke and household fuels. Air pollution harms human health, particularly in those already vulnerable because of their age or existing health problems".

 

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-quality/air-quality

 

Google is also a fools enemy.. a little information is a dangerous thing.

 

I'm not contesting that air pollution has a negative effect on health. But to say 500 people a year die from air pollution in Sheffield every year is pure speculation.

Smoking is a lot worse for your health- many smokers will die from lung cancer etc, but even in those cases its impossible to categorically confirm that smoking was the cause.

Its even more difficult to relate air pollution to any specific death, so if you cant do this you cant tot up the number of deaths and come up with 500.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2018 at 11:07 ----------

 

Nobody died from air pollution in Sheffield is a ridiculous assertion.

 

Why is it?

[Cyclone]

Isn't it self evident?

 

Unless you're asserting that air pollution is not at all harmful to health? WHich you're not, you've said you accept that in the last post.

 

What you've then done though is failed to understand statistics at all and called it speculation.

You don't have to have someone walk into a cloud of smog and die from immediate asphiation in order to attribute deaths to air pollution. But that seems to be your argument. If they didn't die choking and saying "can't breath, so much pollution" then you deny that anyone dies from air pollution. Thus you conclude that air pollution kills no-one. Which can only lead to the argument that we don't need to do anything about air pollution, because it's not killing anyone. It's a reductionist and unhelpfully simply way of looking at the problem.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Cyclone

[geared]

I wouldn’t get too worked up about it, as the government have today rejected the Leeds CAZ plan, on the grounds that it’s too costly! Can’t see Sheffield getting one anytime soon!

 

from what I remember about the Leeds plan they basically wanted to cover the entire city, which obviously would cost an absolute fortune in infastructure and running costs.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2018 at 11:31 ----------

 

There are not 500 families claiming that their loved one died from air pollution.

 

Nobody died last year from air pollution in Sheffield. Or the year before etc etc

 

"Evidence shows that air pollution at current levels in European cities is responsible for a significant burden of deaths, hospital admissions and exacerbation of symptoms. WHO/Europe works to make sure that the available evidence on the health risks of air pollution is used in public debate and in policy-making.

 

Don't forget that this scheme only seeks to target one portion of air pollution, specifically NOx emissions.

[Planner1]

from what I remember about the Leeds plan they basically wanted to cover the entire city, which obviously would cost an absolute fortune in infastructure and running costs.

According to this: https://news.leeds.gov.uk/final-clean-air-charging-zone-proposals-revealed/

they were covering "more than half" the city and were asking for £40m, same as Sheffield

[lil-minx92]

Isn't it self evident?

 

Unless you're asserting that air pollution is not at all harmful to health? WHich you're not, you've said you accept that in the last post.

 

What you've then done though is failed to understand statistics at all and called it speculation.

You don't have to have someone walk into a cloud of smog and die from immediate asphiation in order to attribute deaths to air pollution. But that seems to be your argument. If they didn't die choking and saying "can't breath, so much pollution" then you deny that anyone dies from air pollution. Thus you conclude that air pollution kills no-one. Which can only lead to the argument that we don't need to do anything about air pollution, because it's not killing anyone. It's a reductionist and unhelpfully simply way of looking at the problem.

 

Im not saying somebody has to walk into a cloud of smog and die to be counted as an air pollution death

Im questioning where the 500 figure comes from. How is it determined? You can count the number of people who die of a heart attack, but not those who died from air pollution. Even if you strapped an air monitoring contraption to a new born baby and monitored it its readings for a life time you still couldnt categorically record the cause of death as air pollution if it eventually died of some respiratory disease.