Isn't the counterargument that people expected London's ULEZ to be generally popular because it was grounded in those arguments? Same with congestion pricing in NYC?
Unfortunately I don't think governments have sold the benefits of clean air well at all. Too often policies like ULEZ/congestion charge have been caught up with carbon / net zero by 2050. My point is that rather than focus on those longer-term arguments, governments should now focus on the immediate health and economic benefits of clean air. If policies are designed well enough then the kicker will be that CO2 emissions also drop sharply too.
I suppose I'd differ a bit on that analysis. Specifically to ULEZ, it's true it was successfully demagogued to align it with carbon. But both Johnson and Khan (Khan specifically tying it to his late-onset asthma from running in London to explain his clean air rationale) were actually pretty disciplined at putting the clean air grounding across.
The challenge is that interests opposed to any regulation are going to simply lie their arses off - as Trump did in the campaign about being for "clean air and clean water" before promptly gutting the EPA on not just climate but all pollution monitoring. There's no good-faith discussion to be had on much at the moment I'm afraid. The cancer has gotten into the bones of the discourse.
Isn't the counterargument that people expected London's ULEZ to be generally popular because it was grounded in those arguments? Same with congestion pricing in NYC?
Unfortunately I don't think governments have sold the benefits of clean air well at all. Too often policies like ULEZ/congestion charge have been caught up with carbon / net zero by 2050. My point is that rather than focus on those longer-term arguments, governments should now focus on the immediate health and economic benefits of clean air. If policies are designed well enough then the kicker will be that CO2 emissions also drop sharply too.
I suppose I'd differ a bit on that analysis. Specifically to ULEZ, it's true it was successfully demagogued to align it with carbon. But both Johnson and Khan (Khan specifically tying it to his late-onset asthma from running in London to explain his clean air rationale) were actually pretty disciplined at putting the clean air grounding across.
The challenge is that interests opposed to any regulation are going to simply lie their arses off - as Trump did in the campaign about being for "clean air and clean water" before promptly gutting the EPA on not just climate but all pollution monitoring. There's no good-faith discussion to be had on much at the moment I'm afraid. The cancer has gotten into the bones of the discourse.
“The cancer has gotten into the bones of the discourse.”
Alas, I fear you might be right.
Assuming EVs and ice vehicles weigh the same is a mighty big assumption
It's worth checking out chart 3 in the footnote to that para. EV's produce less PM2.5 even when accounting for weight https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electric-vehicles-air-pollution