THE A It THAT
Page 50
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
F. 4 lections can be inconvenient. Once the back-slapping (or sulking, if you were
on the wrong side) is over, there follows a period during which no-one knows what's going on.
One example of this is the fate of the United Kingdom National Air Quality Strategy, published last November by the Conservative administration, calling for the achievement of specific air-quality standards by 2005.
Some of the steps along the way were to involve fiscal incentives to prod people in the right direction with a strategy for reducing the amount of traffic on the roads and a reduction in the level of particulates permitted in fuels. Local authorities were to play their part in the policing of air quality and vehicles could be checked by people such as the Vehicle Inspectorate. That was before the general election.
There was nothing in the Queen's Speech on any transport-related subject and enquiries addressed to the new "super ministry" headed by John Prescott drew a blank.
No decisions have yet been made on any specific policy area it seems that only parts of the new administration have hit the ground running. Yet unpopular though the proposals contained in the strategy document might be, to some sections of industry there is little doubt that some action to improve air quality is going to be necessary.
An EC framework Directive on Air Quality was published last year. When it takes effect all member states will be required to take action to improve air quality. And while the range of pollutants mentioned in the Directive is not as exhaustive, or the standards as stringent, as that proposed by the UK, it does at least require some action to be taken.
However, those who hope that the change in government will lead to a softer line on air pollution might be disappointed. At least one source believes the new administration has not taken any formal action on the strategy document precisely because it feels that the standards proposed do not go far enough.
Grapevine
"I hear, on the grapevine that Labour wants to issue a new consultation document which may result in the publication of a fresh strategy," says John Lee, assistant head of public health and environmental services for Newcastle City Council. "I understand that Mr Prescott does not believe that the targets set by the last Government are strict enough."
So what is likely to be proposed and what are the implications for the haulage industry of a tighter regime of air quality manage
ment? It is clear from scientific papers from around the world, and from statements made by the World Health Organisation in recent years, that the noise and air pollution coming from road traffic has serious implications for health in general and the respiratory function of children in particular. The consensus is that the pollutants responsible for much of the damage are those set down in the UK Air Quality Strategy Document which targets such pollutants as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, fine particles and sulphur dioxide.
A recent report from Eurostat, the statistical office of the EC, claims that transport now outstrips industry as the biggest consumer of energy, taking 64% of the Ell's total petroleum production in 1994.
Dangers It is not only those with a direct interest in health who are warning of the dangers of the unrestrained use of motor vehicles. BP says road transport is responsible for 90% of the carbon monoxide (CO), 50% of the oxides of nitrogen (N0x), and 25% of carbon dioxide (CO2). In high concentrations, carbon monoxide has a toxic effect, while oxides of nitrogen cause photochemical smog and ozone damage to materials and vegetation. For those who suffer from respiratory problems ozone is also an irritant while carbon dioxide leads to global warming. And that's only part of the story.
Diesel, long thought of as a "green" fuel because of its low carbon dioxide output and absence of cancer inducing (carcinogenic) benzene, is now found to be responsible for the transmission of airborne particulates— tiny bits of matter which penetrate deep into the lungs causing added respiratory and heart problems for those already at risk.
The message is not new and a great deal of work has been going on for a number of years designed to deal with the problem.
This has included the European Programme on Engines, Fuels and Emissions (EPEFE), part of the Tripartite Initiative which has been trying to discover the extent of the pollution caused by various fuel blends and engines. Before that the Americans ran a more limited set of tests as part of their AQIRP programme.
The European research found that tinkering with the blend of fuel might reduce the emissions of one pollutant but could increase those of another, Nonetheless there have been significant improvements in fuel compositions and engine designs which have allowed politicians to demand ever tighter limits on emission levels.
The problem now is that while lead emissions have fallen significantly, other pollutants such as carbon dioxide and particulates are increasing and in most countries sulphur dioxide shows no sign of falling.
According to the Eurostat report, "...the fail in lead emissions has been, for the most part, caused by regulatory standards..." It is, in other words, only the imposition of law that forces the pace and it would be unrealistic to think otherwise. In Europe, the new 0.05% sulphur diesel (Euro-2 standard) has been mandatory since last October in spite of concerns over the alleged absence of lubrication increasing wear to fuel injection pumps.
The difficulty for the UK Government is how far to push the unilateral argument for a reduction in pollution without causing serious damage to the ability of this country to compete alongside its European partners. For the moment the EC air quality framework directive has no teeth and requires a series of further directives to give it effect But the target reductions are not as great as those sought in the UK.
Problem
The Freight Transport Association says the problem can only be dealt with as part of an all-embracing transport policy and, if rumours can be believed, this is also the view of the new Secretary of State, although it may be some months before his thoughts become apparent.
Meanwhile the haulage industry is left to reflect on the likely charges that will fall upon it with the implementation of any "green" policy. In last November's Budget the Chancellor announced a minimum increase of 5% per annum in vehicle excise duty: in 1996 this amounted to a rise in the price of fuel of 3p/lit.
In Brussels the standards being put together under the European Auto Oil programme on emissions, which will form the basis of the Euro-3 standards, will probably add 5% to the cost of a new truck. As part of the same programme, the oil industry is being asked to further cut sulphur from diesels and benzene from petrol, adding about 0,16% to the cost of fuel.
If the incentives of the 1996 Budget are carried through by the present Chancellor, it might be possible to mitigate some of these expenses although the cost of the retrofit particulate trap necessary to qualify for the £500 Government incentive is around .C4,000.
Unfortunately there is no guarantee that Gordon Brown will feel obliged to follow any of the proposals set down by his predecessor. The outlook from Whitehall is distinctly foggy E by Patrick Hook