nby, this story?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/27/westminster-council-first-charge-extra-park-diesel-cars-air-pollution-emissions

Try the BBC News App - posted there 2 hours ago. Diesel cars will be charged 50% more for parking.

Thanks both - yep, it's a parking surcharge rather than a vehicle ban:

"Westminster City Council is banning or charging extra for diesel cars.

Will this kill the London Taxi?

Jan 28, 2017 at 12:06 PM | Unregistered Commenter golf charlie"

stewgreen & not banned yet

So Westminster City Council ARE NOT banning taxis, buses, bin lorries, ambulances, delivery trucks, etc that need to burn diesel on Westminsters streets, just those who choose to, because the Green Blob decided it was better for them to burn diesel.

It is a Green Blob Tax, on people who did what the Green Blob wanted them to do. I wonder why no one trusts the Green Blob?

French and German car manufacturers have invested heavily in diesel cars, and they are going to get hit harder still financially, especially if the EU has it's way.

Heat that spiral a little bit different,
Contraction subtraction fractionation efferent.
===============

https://www.westminster.gov.uk/trial-diesel-based-parking-surcharge-low-emission-neighbourhood

I hope anti-fracking protesters enforce a ban on diesel fuelled protesters, journalists and broadcasters from turning up. Better still if they insist on battery cars only. Their protests would be so much quieter.

Electric vehicles mass? Ozone alert.
============

For kim:

https://priuschat.com/threads/ozone-from-electric-motors.18097/

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150914095216AAT1qHc

I think the "big panic" will be low noise emissions.

Thanks, nby. There's a post over at Judy's by Roger Caizza which is provoking a nice discussion of 'bad ozone'(ground level) as opposed to 'good ozone'(stratospheric).

That's judithcurry.com
===============

Rifkind on Twitter:

"Re today's column, I've just had my first email from an air pollution denier."

https://twitter.com/hugorifkind

stewgreen, woodburning stoves may not have been invented in Scandanavia, but many famous names originated in those colder countries with lots of trees, and not so much coal. Are they not getting upset about the prospect of trying to heat their winter saunas and country retreats with solar power?

gc - there is a large body of work on sauna emissions and health impacts. It is an area of ongoing interest.

For example:

https://www2.uef.fi/documents/1129563/1129576/PUPO+loppuraportti.pdf/914f7583-a17f-4d4d-a54f-38efe7d439a0

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es5053683

Picking up your theme of low emission saunas:

https://www.gasum.com/en/About-gasum/for-the-media/News/2016/Kallio-district-now-heated-with-100-Finnish-biogas/

The train is leaving the station, and, heh, it's a diesel-electric.

Water transport is cheaper than by rail. Obviously, everything should just be transported by water.

Well, pipelines are probably safer.
===============

I was given to understand that the growth in diesel use was significantly driven by governmental obsessions with higher efficiency, i.e. less CO2 emissions than petrol vehicles.

Then there was the bio-diesel débâcle.

Spot a common theme here? Notwithstanding improvements in diesel technology, kowtowing to environmentalist demands will often lead to bad or counterproductive laws and regulations.

Many particulates and nitrogen oxides are real pollution. Carbon dioxide is not real pollution. Yet Greenpeace and friends are not capable of a rational analysis where both costs and benefits are carefully identified and weighed up. They want to ban everything now, while still enjoying the fruits of industrialisation on their iPhones at Starbucks, and face the consequences of their own wilful ignorance later. There is a real need for Drs Against Greenpeace.Org