1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184 
1111111111
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
There you have ii — the LEZ, red in tooth and claw. But it is worth considering another question: will it work?
We are intrigued by one sentence in the economic impact assessment published by TfL: "In aggregate net terms the impact would be very small," it says. "The estimated range of increased costs represents around only 0.1% of the total operating costs of the industry."
We could be accused of taking this sentence out of context, but let's put road transport into some context here. In terms of vehicle emissions it seems generally assumed that 90% of the bad stuff is caused by 10% of the vehicle parc. Here's another statistic: it would take more than 30 of the latest CVs to produce the same level of emissions as a single vehicle built 30 years ago.
We would argue that trucks are pretty clean things. A combination of EU macro legislation and simple market forces pushing out inefficiency means the environmental footprint of a modern truck is positively diminutive.
Let's consider the example of Heathrow