Over the past two decades, numerous progressive European nations have taken decisive steps to ban smoking in public places, driven by the well-established understanding that smoking poses a severe risk to public health. Applying a similar rationale to internal combustion engine (ICE) cars, which also have detrimental effects on the environment and public health, it’s clear that prohibiting their access to urban areas is a logical step. Stockholm, as the pioneer among European capitals, is setting a commendable example for others to follow suit. While these changes may pose challenges to the automotive industry, it’s evident that the collective wisdom of society will ultimately prevail in favor of a cleaner and healthier future.
In the aftermath of the Dieselgate scandal, many cities took the initiative to combat air pollution by implementing “diesel bans” targeting older and more polluting diesel vehicles. In 2018, Hamburg became the first European city to restrict access to Euro 5 or older emission standard diesel cars on specific city center streets. Darmstadt, Berlin, and Munich soon followed suit. Stuttgart adopted a comprehensive ban on diesel vehicles below Euro 6 standards within its low-emission zone, drawing inspiration from London’s Low-Emission Zone.
Furthermore, at the 2016 C40 Cities meeting in Mexico, the mayors of Paris, Mexico City, Madrid, and Athens made a collective commitment to phase out older, highly polluting diesel vehicles in their cities by 2025. The recent decision by Stockholm is likely to encourage these mayors to take more substantial actions, potentially including bans on older petrol cars.
London, on the other hand, has pursued a different approach by expanding the central Congestion Charge Zone and establishing the Ultra-Low Emission Zone, which covers all London boroughs. Rather than banning older and more polluting cars, London imposes daily charges on vehicles that do not meet specific emissions standards, both for petrol and diesel cars. This approach has demonstrated notable reductions in NOx emissions and a significant proportion of vehicles meeting strict emissions standards.
When drawing a parallel to the tobacco industry’s battle against smoking regulations, it’s evident that common sense and public health have eventually prevailed. Two decades ago, Ireland led the way in banning smoking in workplaces, including pubs and restaurants. Subsequent measures involved the removal of tobacco brand advertising from Formula 1, television, and magazines, and the introduction of graphic warning images on cigarette packs. Despite extensive efforts by the tobacco industry, these measures have made a positive impact, reducing smoking rates worldwide.
In both cases, whether addressing air pollution or tobacco consumption, the shift towards a cleaner and healthier future demonstrates the importance of implementing effective policies and regulations, even in the face of powerful opposition. Just as anti-smoking measures have led to significant public health improvements, restrictions on older, polluting vehicles are essential for reducing harmful emissions and improving air quality in urban areas.
The delay in implementing smoking bans, despite the overwhelming scientific and medical evidence linking smoking to cancer and other health issues, is indeed a cause for outrage. For decades, second-hand smoke has affected many people, leading to a serious public health crisis. Today, smoking indoors or near children is met with widespread outrage, reflecting society’s evolving understanding of the harmful effects of smoking on public health.
Banning smoking in places where it can harm others is considered a normal and necessary public health measure. With far more non-smokers worldwide than smokers, it is essential to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. New Zealand’s decision to prohibit young people born after 2009 from buying tobacco products may sound like an extreme measure, but it reflects the growing recognition of the health risks associated with smoking.
Read more: Toyota to Send Twice the Number of Cars to Rebelle Rally, Doubling Down on Commitment to Women in Motorsports
Taxing cigarettes has proven insufficient in reducing smoking rates because the tobacco industry continues to promote smoking as a desirable lifestyle choice, and people are willing to pay more for the product. It has become evident that taxing alone cannot eliminate the health hazards and environmental harm caused by the tobacco industry.
The only logical and responsible solution is to ban smoking in public spaces, considering the principle of democracy where personal freedom should not infringe upon the rights of others to breathe clean air. While individuals have the right to make choices that may harm their health, they should not have the right to endanger the health of non-smokers.
Drawing a parallel to smoking, burning fossil fuels in internal combustion engines (ICEs) is a severe environmental and health issue. Diesel cars, in particular, emit harmful pollutants. To address this, a study in 2004 demonstrated that a diesel car idling for 30 minutes in a closed garage had significantly lower particulate matter (PM) emissions than three cigarettes left to burn for the same duration.
Considering the public health hazards associated with vehicle emissions, some cities are taking steps to limit access to ICE vehicles in urban areas. Stockholm’s recent decision is an example, which may encourage other cities to follow suit. Banning ICE vehicles from urban areas is a logical step toward reducing air pollution and promoting electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as cleaner alternatives.
Just as smoking bans in public spaces have become widely accepted and supported, the ban on ICE vehicles in city centers is a compelling measure to improve air quality, reduce emissions, and protect public health. It may face opposition from the automotive industry and traditional vehicle enthusiasts, but the long-term benefits for public health and the environment are clear. The parallel to smoking regulations is a powerful argument in favor of such bans, highlighting the need for responsible and sustainable transportation solutions.
Table of Contents
|Please Follow us on Social Media|
|Wheelwale Home||Click Here|