Slashdot Mirror
Hanoi Plan To Ban Motorbikes By 2030 To Combat Pollution (bbc.com)
Hanoi -- a city of five million motorbikes -- is planning to ban the popular two-wheeled transport by 2030. From a report: The city council voted for the ban almost unanimously, hoping to unclog roads and reduce soaring levels of pollution. The council has also promised to increase public transport so that half the population are using it by 2030, instead of the current 12 percent. But some residents think it very unlikely the bikes will go for good. Council officials decided to put "immediate management measures" in place after a report found the number of motorbikes in Hanoi was set to grow at an "alarming" rate. Some studies suggest there are already as many as 2,500 motorbikes per kilometre. According to the non-governmental group GreenID, the city recorded 282 days of "excessive" levels of PM2.5, which is harmful to human health, last year.
I'd hazard that many of the bikes are using two stroke engines which are particularly dirty. Maybe the push should be to electric motorcycles?
Cars aren't necessarily the largest polluters. CO2 production and production of other nasty substances aren't always related. Running a two-stroke leaf-blower for a half hour can easily exceed several days worth of NOx and CO emissions from a passenger car. If a lot of the motorbikes are two-stroke, replacing those may be the best bang for the buck.
Banning motorcycles is just stupid. For one-person transportation, a modern motorcycle emits less than half of what a modern car does (per person). Even with NO pollution controls, like an ancient design, a typical motorcycle will emit less than a modern car.
Perhaps make it illegal to drive ancient motorcycles without modern pollution controls?
Also, motorcycles take up less parking, less space on the roads, and are almost no wear on the roads.
I know this story is from India but I suspect that this is also true in many other parts of the world, like Hanoi.
In India the primary means to cook food is by kerosene stoves. It seems this is even true in many large cities since electricity is either expensive and/or unreliable. People need to eat or they riot so the government subsidizes kerosene. The government wants to discourage use of motorcycles and auto-rickshaws, so they tax fuel for these highly. Do you see where this is going yet?
People that want to run their vehicles on the cheap will mix the gasoline with kerosene and get something that kind of burns and runs the engine but blue smoke and soot is produced. This is highly illegal but very difficult to enforce. Now imagine millions of these things on the road, all producing this thick smoke.
People that have the money to buy a car will want to keep it running, so they don't typically burn kerosene in them. It's also much easier to collect a fine or bribe from someone that actually has money than some poor auto-rickshaw driver that's making deliveries for pennies.
I see a solution here but I'm sure it's not popular, tax gasoline like kerosene. I don't mean raise kerosene taxes to the level of gasoline, that will lead to riots. Tax gasoline like kerosene.
I suspect that two-cycle engines can run on kerosene better than a four cycle engine. Lower taxes would lower costs. More money in the pockets of the public mean they can afford more cars and newer motorcycles. Cleaner air from lower gas taxes.
Since this requires lowering taxes this means it's not going to happen.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.