The effectiveness of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) has been a subject of debate, with no clear consensus even among scientific studies. So, it’s not surprising that the expanded version, now the world’s largest such zone, is not receiving unanimous support.
There are several arguments against it, some of which I can understand to varying degrees:
- It may not make a significant overall difference, considering that London’s air quality is already improving and more polluting cars will naturally be phased out over time.
- Many people don’t particularly want to drive around London but have limited alternatives.
- It could disproportionately affect those who can least afford it, especially shift workers.
- If the goal is truly to improve air quality, other measures such as banning domestic fireplaces and wood burners could be more effective. However, these measures may not bring in revenue for Transport for London.
- Applying the ULEZ to those visiting Heathrow airport could result in significant costs for holidaymakers.
- The inclusion of motorcycles in the ULEZ may be seen as pointless.
- If authorities didn’t want us to drive diesel cars, they shouldn’t have encouraged their use for the past two decades.
- Ultimately, some argue that the ULEZ feels like an attack on personal freedoms.
On the other hand, there is a compelling counter-argument to the issue of personal freedoms, questioning whether we should have the freedom to harm the health of others, particularly infants.
With conflicting viewpoints and no consensus, the ULEZ appears to be a divisive topic, potentially impacting votes on the peripheries of London. Interestingly, the protesters causing damage to ULEZ infrastructure, including about 500 cameras according to the BBC, don’t seem to be as unpopular as other recent dissenters. Nevertheless, the ULEZ is now in operation.
