French MPs Vote To Scrap Low-Emission Zones (bbc.com) 196
sinij shares a report from the BBC: France's National Assembly has voted to abolish low-emission zones, a key measure introduced during President Emmanuel Macron's first term to reduce city pollution. So-called ZFEs (zones a faibles emissions) have been criticized for hitting those who cannot afford less-polluting vehicles the hardest. A handful of MPs from Macron's party joined opposition parties from the right and far right in voting 98-51 to scrap the zones, which have gradually been extended across French cities since 2019. [...]
The low-emission zones began with 15 of France's most polluted cities in 2019 and by the start of this year had been extended to every urban area with a population of more than 150,000, with a ban on cars registered before 1997. Those produced after 1997 need a round "Crit'Air" sticker to drive in low-emission zones, and there are six categories that correspond to various types of vehicle. The biggest restrictions have been applied in the most polluted cities, Paris and Lyon, as well as Montpellier and Grenoble. The BBC notes that while the abolition is expected to pass France's Senate, it must still be included in a broader bill approved by the lower house in June and cleared by the Constitutional Council, which isn't guaranteed.
The low-emission zones began with 15 of France's most polluted cities in 2019 and by the start of this year had been extended to every urban area with a population of more than 150,000, with a ban on cars registered before 1997. Those produced after 1997 need a round "Crit'Air" sticker to drive in low-emission zones, and there are six categories that correspond to various types of vehicle. The biggest restrictions have been applied in the most polluted cities, Paris and Lyon, as well as Montpellier and Grenoble. The BBC notes that while the abolition is expected to pass France's Senate, it must still be included in a broader bill approved by the lower house in June and cleared by the Constitutional Council, which isn't guaranteed.
Rolling back? Even in Europe? (Score:2)
Like I keep saying, there is going to have to be a technological solution.
And by that I mean a direct one, like CO2 scrubbing or something, not a "giving up the benefits of technology" solution.
Re: Rolling back? Even in Europe? (Score:3)
Obvious unanswered question (Score:4, Interesting)
So, how effective was the law in improving air quality in the affected areas? Did it do its job and is no longer necessary, or are the politicians just doing the popular thing?
Re:Obvious unanswered question (Score:4, Insightful)
So, how effective was the law in improving air quality in the affected areas? Did it do its job and is no longer necessary, or are the politicians just doing the popular thing?
I'm standing in the rain with an umbrella. Does the fact that I'm dry imply that the umbrella is no longer necessary?
Scrap these regulations and consumers/manufacturers will eventually default back to the cheapest option. Maybe one day that'll be BEVs, but for now it'll be old diesels that are still relatively common and available, or new ICEVs without expensive emission control technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really in this case - vehicles sold in France will still have to follow the EU wide regulations that prescribe the expensive emission control technologies.
Can't say about France, but its German equivalent can just as well be scrapped - it has been almost two decades since it has been introduced, so there are not many cars left that don't have a green emission sticker.
Re: (Score:3)
France made the mistake of going in heavily for diesel cars. They were thought to be better than petrol cars at the time, but it turned out not to be the case. They now have a lot of very polluting diesels on the road.
Even if the legislation passes, there may be legal challenges. I don't know what the situation is in France, but in the UK pollution has been cited as the cause of death for some people, and there is now a legal obligation on the government to reduce it due to the human right to life and healt
No surprise here. (Score:2)
Not everyone is well off and can afford to buy and connect an electric. In fact, most people aren't. On the other hand, a car is critical for social mobility and work. Why is anyone surprised that the elites who make our laws are so detached from reality?
Re: (Score:3)
The Zones aren't a clash between gas guzzlers and EVs; it's a clash between vehicles with good emissions controls (catalytic converters and the like) and ones that spew clouds of grey-blue smoke behind them and make you gag.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about France... though I would guess the figure would be lower, since "put an ugly non-aerodynamic box on an already-shitty pickup truck and charge stupid people 2x" is mostly a US thing; but according to Google, the average car price here topped $48K in 2024. That could put you in an IoniQ 5, a Kona, a Prologue, a Leaf, or if you're a trump voter, a tesla 3. And those are just (some) electrics you can buy cheaper than that top-selling F-Series road hulk. There are certainly more EV choices,
Manchester abolished it too. (Score:4, Informative)
We had plans a few years ago to introduce ULEZ in Greater Manchester, too. Turns out our common-sense politicians have foreseen the exact same problem in our community and abolished ULEZ plans before they even came into effect.
Now they are going to support Clean Air Zones via investment rather than imposing fines.
https://www.manchester.gov.uk/... [manchester.gov.uk]
Separate registrations and payment (Score:4, Insightful)
Before you fall over yourself to applaud these zones, you need to realize they have separate registration for such zones. For each one individually. For example letâ(TM)s take Belgium, you need to separately register for Brussels, Ghent and Antwerp. These are European cities of EU countries. A simple modern EU plate should be more than enough to indicate the emission levels. But they want to make extra money from tourists and poor people, and make life more fabulous for wealthy people. Fsck everything about these zones and especially how they are implemented. I am not even sure how this can be legal on a EU level.
Ah yes, it's all about the poor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The BBC would never state that LTN's are socially unjust , they protect the status quo.
They are not enforced (Score:3)
Just got back from a trip in France. Been to a couple of these low emission zones.
We had a rental car. At first we thought the zone was only the city center so we took a cab to go to a restaurant but it turns out it's the whole city (including where we stayed).
Our rental car didn't have the Crit'air sticker (or I didn't find it) so from what I understand we were technically illegal. But so did most people in these cities. It was very hard to find information on how to comply (especially as a non-resident tourist).
The cab driver (who happened to be driving an EV) explained to us that it was BS and that these zones were not enforced.
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Diesel cars were popular because governments focused purely on CO2 a few years back. Diesels emit less CO2 than gasoline engines, but they emit more of other things:
https://www.osha.gov/diesel-ex... [osha.gov]
This is what happens when you focus too tightly on one thing, you get more of something else - and that something else is usually worse than the thing you were trying to reduce in the first place. See the same thing happening with foods (fat, salt, sugar).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It's gotten worse in recent years. It used to be you could exchange a bad engine with a rebuilt one for a reasonable cost. Over the last decade or so, to keep up with the heat of doing more with a smaller engine, they've gone to plated cylinders that can't be resurfaced. The only option is a brand new one from the factory. That financially totals a 5 year old car if it has a bad engine.
That's not exactly a new thing, but now it's universal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Something like Minister Prime? Sounds political...do they say it backwards over there or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Member of Parliament.
Just like over there there some silly stuff in British English but MP isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, sorry it's early.
"Just like over here there is some silly stuff in British English but MP isn't one of them."
Re: (Score:2)
Are you actually that proud of your ignorance?
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of giving something a name is so that others understand what you're referring to.
I called it gasoline, and you understood. So this term while not the original one now has widespread understanding and usage.
The word also appears in the oxford english dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with these measures is that they are often introduced a little bit to soon. Like the city of Amsterdam banning non-electric commercial vehicles; more or less out of the blue, so many tradesmen might just have invested in a new diesel van, and won't have the capital to invest in an electric one. The city offered a "transit point" at the town edge where tradies can borrow EV vans of various sizes... after they transfer all their stock and tools from one van to the other. So not at all practical. Interestingly, the council kind of shot themselves in the foot with that one They ordered new electric garbage trucks but those will not arrive before 2027. Problem? No, of course they got themselves an exemption and will continue to use the diesel ones.
The city of Rotterdam tried to ban older petrol automobiles from the center as well, but a judge actually overturned that, stating that the burden imposed on the public far exceeded the expected benefit.
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have this arse-over-tit. The problem is that these measures have been introduced much too *late*. We have public health catastrophes caused by ICE vehicles in the form of deaths from CVD, respiratory conditions, inflammatory conditions, etc, all caused by PM and exhaust gases. Plus, of course, CO2.
What was needed was a clever populist framing for these policies, aimed at helping highlighting the very real problems in people’s lives that ICE use causes, identifying the villains, helping victims, and driving the transition. But only anti-progress parties are willing to be populist about their approach now, and they pursue dumbshit policies that ruin things for ordinary people.
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't get what you're gently ribbing me about, here. The direct (LEZ) and indirect (populism) topics are both serious, so why would I not make points about them in a serious manner? It's utterly commonplace to hold strong views about these topics. People went round hitting ULEZ cameras in London with a baseball bat. They definitely wouldn't be fun people to have at parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what libtards the world over believe nobody really wants dirty air, or is seeking to destroy the planet for the hell of it. In fact almost everyone is willing sacrifice for a cleaner greener world when they can. Even the guys 'rolling coal' generally love the outdoors and want to preserve it but they feel they have to protest lefty-loonies actively seeking to completely take away their livelihoods.
It is poverty not affluence that leads to environmental degradation.
People made decisions at the margi
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:2)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cars aren't better nor are the corrupt economic systems that allowed such pollution and economic exploitation in the first place, this is exactly what classism looks like, corruption and environmental degradation and poor people suffering
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cars manufactured now are better. Cars manufactured before 1997 aren't better now.
This is massively regressive tax to only marginally reduce emissions. People that drive old cars are elderly and poor. If you ban these cars, they might not be able to afford to drive, lose job and social connections, etc. So you are going to actually cause more deaths to prevent hypothetical deaths from emissions. It does not make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love the numbers on how many cars over 28 years old are driving around France.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:2)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The unreliability reputation is a bit of a myth driven by three things: the 2CV which was made very cheaply, the DS which was overly complex and WW2 sabotage during manufacture of vehicles made for the German army. The current statistics for reliability are typical of any large manufacturer. And people don't seem to associate the same unreliability with Peugeot when often the main difference is the badge on the front.
As a kid here in Canada oner of my neighbors has a Citroen SM. I always though that was the coolest car. Till I grew up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine it's less than other similar countries, just because the French beat the living shit out of their cars.
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:2)
Re: Well, well, ... (Score:2)
Re: license not freedom (Score:2)
Re: license not freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody is forcing you to buy anything.
If you don't want to curtail your pollution in the big cities, then use the pubic transportation.
Re: license not freedom (Score:2)
Re: license not freedom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad I don't live where you life...that sounds pretty draconian....
Where country do you live by the way....?
Re: license not freedom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: license not freedom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, no new pure ICE cars after 2030, but there is the loophole of hybrids until 2035.
Anyway, new BEV car sales will be in the majority by 2030 so the discussion on new ICE car bans will become a moot point.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to X, then you must Y.
This is being forced by definition for any value of X != Y.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been done in the UK, and in London for example older, cheaper cars are exempt. It's only more expensive vehicles with big engines that are affected, and if yours is one there was a scheme where you could scrap it and get more than it was worth back from the government.
I wonder if it is different in France, or if this is just anti-woke nonsense. Air quality has measurably and significantly improved in London. Even where I live, when they switched to electric busses there was a step change visible on
Re: (Score:2)
The zones do not require EVs or nothing. That is a strawman argument.
The Low-Emissions Zones mostly address not-CO2 emissions: things like NOx, CO, O3, and particulates - the things that most directly relate to human health. These also happen to be things that are being tight [wikipedia.org]
Re: license not freedom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Nit-pick: the Camry wasn't available in Europe in model year 2007.)
Depends. A 2007 vehicle would probably fall under Crit'air 2. (If you'd followed the wikipedia link, you'd have seen that.) By and large, those are also allowed into the Low-Emissions Zones (usually they group 1-3 together, and start placing restrictions on 4+).
Is your kid driving that car in France? If that Cam
Re: license not freedom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no moral right to force people to buy technology that doesn't work well for them either. I know, your answer is going to be "An EV works for me so it works for you and I am the average person and you are not so screw you
I not necessarily saying that there's an equivalence, but if it's okay to pass laws to ban smoking based on how generating unhealthy air impacts others, is it okay to pass laws to ban old cars based on generating unhealthy air impacts others? It's interesting that banning smoking only became acceptable after smoking became less cool and acceptable.
Re: license not freedom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Driving has become a necessity for mobility in
> most modern life.
Only if that is the way you have chosen to structure your life. I have not. I've had myself properly organized such that, except for 3 years out of the last 25, my commute to work has been on mass transit. Right now, it is about 40 minutes door-to-door. Driving could chop 10-15 minutes off that; or bad traffic could add another 10-15 minutes (or more), particularly if there's a sportsball game in my way that day. Either way, that t
Re: (Score:2)
But how many decades did it take before smoking bans were implemented? That lag in law making is common when the law is perceived as being controversial.
Another example is mandating that new cars have seat belts in 1965 in the UK, but then it took to 1983 before seat belt wearing became compulsory.
Governments have the right to ban things that harm their citizens but it can take decades getting scientific consensus and overcoming lobby groups with their vested interests.
So yes, governments can ban vehicles a
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look a moron.
If you can't make your point without completely inventing stuff I have said, then you don't have a valid point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:license not freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really twisted misrepresentation of what I said.
You have freedom of movement. You don't have the right to roll coal while you do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: license not freedom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but then don't complain if poor people start knifing you because they live in the middle of nowhere and can't get a job because they can't reach it.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are so far in the middle of nowhere that they can't get to the job without a 1997 car, how are they going to get me?
Re: Doing what's popular (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This disgusting populist move, is not helping the needy *who cannot afford any car*. It is poisoning them.
Most fair for everyone, and better for everyone's health and, oh yes, the future of the planet, is to ban cars in cities for everyone and give the space and the air back to the people.
Fight for that, coal-rollers.
Re: Doing what's popular (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am pointing out that the opposition to this is from populists supporting rich, selfish car drivers who want to keep driving their cars in our cities.
They are not proudly fighting the good fight to defend the rights of the poor-but-not-that-poor.
Re: Doing what's popular (Score:2)
Re: Doing what's popular (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once we call out lying politicians and force them to do what si *right* and commit to the obviously beneficial ban, they will also be obliged to commit to improved and cheaper, or free, public transportation.
And we will all benefit.
Re: Doing what's popular (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone's just gotten whinier and needs to bitch about something....geez.
Re: (Score:2)
This tells us a lot about you and the bubble you live in.
Re: Doing what's popular (Score:2)
Re: Doing what's popular (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy means that everybody's concerns are listened. Some people need to reach jobs with old cars because they can't afford any different. Either you provide them with economic assistance, or you can't expect to take it and shut up, because that's what democracy means: they have a saying.
Re: (Score:3)
No, doing what is most fair for everyone.
Although it's amazing how those two intersect. What's most fair usually is pretty popular... well except with populists but they're losing popularity.
Re: Doing what's popular (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
European cars tend to be smaller and therefore pollute less. Except that they have more diesel cars which is worse for smog but better for CO2.
Higher population density doesn't help Europe.
According to this list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Rome is worse than Philly but a bit better than LA.
This ranking also seems to agree: https://www.iqair.com/ca/world... [iqair.com],
In short European cities appears to have comparable air quality to US cities.