Jump to content

C & R T responds to Government's Clean Air Strategy consultation


Ray T

Featured Posts

CRT Press Release

 

17 August 2018

 

CANAL & RIVER TRUST RESPONDS TO GOVERNMENT’S CLEAN AIR STRATEGY CONSULTATION

 

The Canal & River Trust has urged Government to consider the needs of boaters and put financial support into the development of new, cleaner technology for the waterway sector in its response to the Government’s draft Clean Air Strategy.

 

The charity is supportive of the Government’s proposed measures to improve air quality and believes the waterways have a role to play in combatting pollution and providing clean air spaces, as well as helping reduce transport pollution by moving journeys off road. 

 

However in recognising that the inland waterways make a very small but sometimes locally significant contribution to air pollution – namely through boat dependence on solid fuel burning stoves and diesel engines – the Trust is arguing for a coherent Government-supported approach, including investment in alternative technologies, to help address these issues and incentivise change.

 

The Trust wants to work with Government and local authorities on a sector-wide plan to develop solutions for reducing the impact from power and heating on boats while encouraging the uptake of reduced-emissions technology.  This would need to take into account the current difficulties boat owners face in making changes to engines and heating methods, particularly when the boat is someone’s home.

 

Peter Birch, national environment policy advisor at the Canal & River Trust said: “Our waterways offer a respite for many people, especially when they run through urban areas that lack other green and blue spaces.  We believe they have a vital role to play in improving wellbeing and can contribute to the reduction of air pollution.  We’re committed to working with others to create opportunities for improvement by diverting journeys off road and changing public behaviour.

 

“Boats on our canals and rivers only make a small contribution to emissions nationally but there can be localised problems.  We are working in partnership with local authorities and boaters to address these specific areas but would welcome additional investment in innovation and implementation for alternative technologies to help address these issues.  Many boaters are already very environmentally conscious but are hampered by a lack of ‘green’ alternatives to diesel engines and wood-burning stoves. 

 

“While we agree that vessels cannot remain exempt and must play their part in the battle to improve air quality, it is essential that the needs of boaters are accounted for when drafting any new legislation.”

 

The Government’s Clean Air Strategy can be read here:  https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-quality/clean-air-strategy-consultation/

 

-ends-

 

Fran Read

National Press Officer

I work Monday, and Wednesday to Friday.

For out-of-hours press enquiries call 0203 204 4514.

M  07796 610 427

 

E  fran.read@canalrivertrust.org.uk

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

That seems to me to be a fair and measured response.  It's also code for "we won't do anything until we are told to do so".

And - if you want something doing about boat emissions - 'you pay for it'

 

1 hour ago, Ray T said:

...........but would welcome additional investment in innovation and implementation for alternative technologies

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exhaust out put of the 747 & the airbus A320 taking off from Heathrow & Gatwick at this moment possibly pollutes more than the fires/engine exhaust from the boats in the London area for the whole day but it's much easier to take boater to task than try to sort Airlines  look how long the noise reduction took

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They reckon a 747 uses 1 gallon of fuel per second. Years ago the 747 and the Concord were reported to use about 18,000 gallons of fuel, one way from either London or Paris to New York. Also the biggest plane in the world, the Antonov 225 to fill it up with fuel cost £86,000 and that was about 20 years ago.  Gatwick airport is the busiest single runway airport in the world, the whole environs of it stink of aviation fuel and exhaust, as do other big airports. On an easterly wind we here in Stortford can smell aviation fuel and exhaust from Stansted airport.

An-225-Depart-MSP-1170x429.jpg

Edited by bizzard
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This CaRT article is also interesting

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/boating-blogs-and-features/boating-team/the-futures-bright-the-futures-green-cleaning-up-boating

 

"One thing is certain, the future must be greener, and whilst our waterways help create a greener environment where people walk and cycle and improve their wellbeing, boating needs to play an active part in creating that cleaner air solution, especially in urban areas."

 

I fear much conflict of interest ahead and it won't be good for boaters. Attracting more runners and cyclists to the canal may well turn out to be the end of boating as we know it;, runners want clean air and it will be very difficult to defend boating. The increasing density of liveaboards, some of whom are "financially marginal" so dependant on worn out engines and low cost poor quality fuel, is highlighting the problem, and politicians do like an easy fix, removing boats is easier than removing air travel.

 

A big problem is that for a cruising boat the diesel engine is by far the safest and best form of propulsion, and a multifuel stove the only viable form of heating (other than diesel).

 

....................Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well, I think I will take my injectors out today and see if I can reduce the smoke a bit by cleaning them.

I wonder if I can get a grant from CaRT or Sustrans to do this?

 

Does anybody know how many planes take off from the uk each day? I could not find a figure on the www?

 

Maybe we can do some carbon trading? Can I keep my diesel engine if I promise never to get into an aeroplane????

 

.................Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am betting that if you worked out the fuel burn per distance.seat, the airplane would do better than the narrowboat. To start you off, the figure for a 747 is 3.7 litres per 100km per passenger, but the best planes (eg 787) do 2.5 and the average is 3.13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw an unverifiable stat somewhere that your average working narrowboat used less diesel in a year than an articulated lorry uses in a week.

According to this perhaps we should get all diesel artics converted to electrickery or get them off the roads. :ninja:

 

 

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is a topical issue at present to tackle emissions from internal combustion engines and there has been a major interest in alternative modes of propulsion for the roads in order to reduce the toxic effects caused by the diesel engine and petrol engine. There are various schemes now in existence to facilitate such a change and car firms like JLR are actively making alternatives such as hybrids and electric vehicles. As to the canals, the waterways press mentions the odd boat from time to time. Compared to roads emission on canals is small, though. Boaters only have to pass under a motorway bridge, or a busy A road, to notice the pollution, both noise and fumes. May be CRT should be more active in getting such issues resolved or reduced.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a boat scrappage scheme?Any boat over 20 hrs old would be replaced ,at government expense, with a brand new solar/wind power /nuclear,powered alternative.Problem solved!!!!?

Edited by Ian F B
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is we all make emissions and the clean up has to start everywhere at the same time otherwise groups point and say unfair. I have started to convert my boat to electric drive because the writing has been on the wall for years fro diesels, the best a boat can be is euro IV most arnt even that clean so get the sails and paddles out people..............................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

I am betting that if you worked out the fuel burn per distance.seat, the airplane would do better than the narrowboat. To start you off, the figure for a 747 is 3.7 litres per 100km per passenger, but the best planes (eg 787) do 2.5 and the average is 3.13.

This is possibly so but the sheer numbers are the contributing factor with on average between 1250/1300 take offs & landings at Heath row as to fuel consumption not sure of gallon-age as fuel  on aircraft is measured in LBS but as each gallon weighs 8 lbs it could be workout

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

I am betting that if you worked out the fuel burn per distance.seat, the airplane would do better than the narrowboat. To start you off, the figure for a 747 is 3.7 litres per 100km per passenger, but the best planes (eg 787) do 2.5 and the average is 3.13.

I like the old saying "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

I bet those fuel consumption figures don't include the take off.

My car returns a really good fuel consumption figure when going downhill.

 

My boat uses a litre per hour, or half a litre per hour per person. What does the 747 use per person per hour ? ?.

 

...................Dave

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, peterboat said:

The problem is we all make emissions and the clean up has to start everywhere at the same time otherwise groups point and say unfair. I have started to convert my boat to electric drive because the writing has been on the wall for years fro diesels, the best a boat can be is euro IV most arnt even that clean so get the sails and paddles out people..............................

 

It makes more sense however, to start with the biggest offenders. Air travel and shipping. 

 

Fiddling around at the margins with narrow boaters who collectively cause only a trivial amount of pollution is simply displacement activity. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, dmr said:

I like the old saying "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

I bet those fuel consumption figures don't include the take off.

My car returns a really good fuel consumption figure when going downhill.

 

My boat uses a litre per hour, or half a litre per hour per person. What does the 747 use per person per hour ? ?.

 

...................Dave

 

"Hour" is not a unit of distance though.....

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

It makes more sense however, to start with the biggest offenders. Air travel and shipping. 

 

Fiddling around at the margins with narrow boaters who collectively cause only a trivial amount of pollution is simply displacement activity. 

 

Mike, Unfortunately client earth who took the Government to court won the day twice!! so the Government has to do something about it which they are, you are doing exactly what I said pointing the finger and saying what about them!! Its far easier to make everybody obey the law than trying to deal with sections, we have been caught in the crossfire, and caught I can assure you we will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paul C said:

"Hour" is not a unit of distance though.....

Why is distance significant????

 

Thats my point about damn lies and statistics. The aviation industry likes to quote figures based on passengers and miles because it makes the figures look good. Air safety is often quoted in accidents per passenger mile because this makes the figures good,especially as take off and landing are the most difficult bits. If I personally want to fly then the accidents per "aeroplane journey" is the figure I would choose to look at. If a plane has a 0.1% of crashing on my journey then I would not fly, massaging that figure by the length of that journey or the number of passengers on the plane does nothing to reduce my personal risk.

 

To assess the global pollution produced by air travel the  pollutant produced per typical journey is the figure that matters, again including distance or passenger numbers is just a way to make the figures look better. We could then choose to present a breakdown based on number of passengers as this could give a "selfishness factor".

 

Of course liveaboard continuous cruising probably does have quite a bad "selfishness factor" in terms of fuel used to travel, but then we would have to factor in the domestic side of fuel use too (and the back pumping but that's another story? ).

 

............Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there are issues over historic craft.  Take the Bolinders out and fit electric motors?!? May as well scrap them....  

They could easily be a casualty if this dubious initiative gets legs. The exhaust of a Bolinder is so far away from the modern requirement for a diesel (well, they’re not strictly a diesel, of course, they’re a crude oil engine, but I digress) that they don’t even speak the same language.

Modern engines are measured in p.p.m. of this gas, that gas, how much NOx etc. Bolinders are measured in the output of BCBs (Black Crunchy Bits. BTW we thought about that before Terry did - RIP-).  

If I hear weasel phrases like ‘we all have to do a bit’ to justify an initiative that sideswipes these pieces of living history out of existence, I shall scream!   I’m doing my bit alright, low emission vehicle, here I come; house insulated out the whazoo; videoconferencing rather than jumping on planes or even trains, bring it on.  BUT leave my historic craft alone!!

 

/end rant.

I do hope - should something  be brought forward - that a suitable arrangement/derogation for these old craft can be worked out. Or they’ll just disappear, with a few forlorn relics sitting in museums.....    it’s a super-Herculean task for them to be kept going as it is.

Here’s hoping.

Tim Noakes

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So taking delight in winding the speedwheel full on on the covered locks on farmers bridge as the cyclists sped past the other morning shouldn’t be encouraged then.....??....oh well....it made me smile! I’m afraid I’m not giving up either the JP in my boat or my 40 year old Land Rover as my daily drive without a fight...

  • Greenie 2
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I think the real conflict is going to come is in the centre of cities like London. They are looking at banning land based residents from using wood burning stoves and it is just a matter of time before diesel cars get banned, are these people, particularly around canal areas, just going to sit on their hands and say yes that is fine we don't mind all of these smoky narrowboats who pay no local Council Taxes being exempt from the legislation that will apply to us land based residents. Somehow I don't think so. If they are forced to live by these rules, you can be pretty sure that they are going to insist that we do as well. As a CC'er I can go an moor up in the middle of nowhere and light my coal fire, but someone trying to keep warm in the centre of London if they ban wood/coal fires is going to struggle since it isn't something they are able to 'discretely' do, and as soon as they light their fire, the surrounding land based residents will be straight on to the phone to an enforcement department.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, peterboat said:

Mike, Unfortunately client earth who took the Government to court won the day twice!! so the Government has to do something about it which they are, you are doing exactly what I said pointing the finger and saying what about them!! Its far easier to make everybody obey the law than trying to deal with sections, we have been caught in the crossfire, and caught I can assure you we will be.

Granted it needs to include all polluters be they large or small  but my "beef" legislation will be inflicted on the small groups & followed up to implement same  the restrictions will be conveyed to air & sea travel & then the "Can't implement that,  it will take X #of years to implement this, we can't do any thing it's a problem for the engine manufacturer, & the sloping shoulder big business loads of clout swings into action  so the requirement of the biggies is watered down, but the  small group have to conform to the original requirements  mean while air travel & big business carry on polluting ,& small Joe Public has to foot his own bill to incorporate the required changes Joe Biggie company gets Gov grants to incorporate their watered down requirements if they do indeed bring them in at all other than on paper as an aside we live in an area that has a valley used by the French Air Force for training & the streams of black smoke, unburnt fuel coming from the jet pipe is OTT there is a strip of grass that is affected by the unburnt fuel falls on it as the height of the passes is twixt 100/200ft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Wanderer Vagabond

You make a very good point - we are caught both ways, boatman’s range (where we really do cook all our food other than in the peak of summer) and an engine that smokes a little all the time and like a WW1 destroyer trying to avoid a submarine when idling and/or cold and/or poorly adjusted (Mac please take note).

And it’s started - I seem to remember some very tense times in Stalybridge a yer or so ago when this very point came up over our range. At the time -IIRC, while ago now - we brushed it off, mobile, exempt, BS like that.  But in future??

Worrying.

As you said ....”Where the real conflict will come...”.  Yep.

 

From our perspective we can do nothing about the engine (we go to extreme lengths already to reduce the smoke, as that’s wasted money as far as we are concerned and she already drinks fuel like a sailor on shore leave) so it will be heels firmly dug in on that score, fight to the death stuff.

As regarding the range?  I imagine we’ll tend towards using a gas stove in sensitive locations, in fact we do it already.  It doesn’t warm the cabin, but makes it a little clammy instead, but its handleable.   Oh joy....

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.