That is too short of a time to draw any conclusions. We know the sea levels have risen and fallen many time without the intervention of man, we also know we have a natural cycle of getting hotter and cooler, we can say mans use of some gases has reduced the size of the ozone layer, so southern hemisphere has got warmer as a result, but look at the output of one eruption and what man produced is nothing in comparison.
The amount of change is indeed, not unknown throughout the world's history. The
rate of change, however, is unprecedented.
That in some areas may be a problem. However slowing the traffic to 50 MPH on a decline as with the Aston by-pass in North Wales is not going to help, and same really in Wrexham, although not to same extent,
Why not?
and it does not say electric cars are exempt from speed limit, so clearly not to get cleaner air.
That's an administrative issue. The idea behind the sped limit reduction is to reduce oxides of nitrogen. They are higher, the more load the engine is under. Reduce the engine load and you reduce the NOx - hence the lower sped limit. Quite patently, EVs do not produce tailpipe NOx, so hey should, indeed, be able to enjoy the higher speed limit. However, that then causes problems with policing. Now, as it happens, it's something I have advocated for some time now, as an incentive for people to switch to EVs - allow them exemption from the reduced speed limits in emission control areas. As we have largely abdicated responsibility for road policing to cameras, it shouldn't be too hard to get the computer to check the DVLA database before issuing the fixed penalty notice if the vehicle is, indeed, electric. However, when you see the number of incorrect ULEZ fines, you soon see that the DVLA' database is not infallible - (usually because someone has put a private plate on the car, from a previous ICE vehicle).
I would be interested to know what the 20 MPH speed limit has done, but any reduction with transport is likely countered by the increase in wood burning.
That's a bizarre non-sequitur?! Do people go out and say "boo hoo! I can't drive my car as much these days! Whatever shall I do? I know! I'll go and buy a woodstove"!
And the problem is people take unknown wood to burn, some treated, and even laburnum, which is poisonous, and it is well documented on how much cleaner London became with the invention of the motor car and lorry, horses were far worst to the motor car, and out clean air acts did stop the burning of coal, but no one is policing that any more, and to burn wood efficiently with low particular emissions means an after burn or catalytic converter and a set output, which means some storage medium so it can run at set output, these systems are expensive, and people burn wood to save money, so in the main wood burning means pollution, as people can't afford the £15k+ to fit efficient systems.
Largely true, (if somewhat off-topic), but even with the rise in woodstoves, the air quality in our cities is nothing
LIKE as filthy as before the Clean Air Act! If it is as dirty, where are the "pea souper" smogs?
So all we save using electric cars is lost due to wood burning fires returning. And the cost of making the EV to the environment out weighs any gains made running it, so the environmental gains running electric are cancelled out. As for running cost it is only cheaper due to the tax put on liquid fuel.
BS, I'm afraid. You're mixing up "air quality" and "CO2". Two completely separate environmental problems. The environmental cost of building an EV (in terms of CO)
is about 60-70% greater than a similar ICE, but that is typically recouped in tailpipe CO2 savings during use, after 2-5 years, depending on the CO2 per kWh of electricity generation in the country where the vehicle is being operated. It' a couple of years in the UK, or about 20-30,000 miles. After that, the EV has an increasing next CO2 saving over the ICE.
