The fight against the environmental zone in Rotterdam continues. A number of motorhome and car owners are currently involved in the lawsuit against the municipality of Rotterdam. They feel disadvantaged because of the “green” measure in the port city. The drivers in Rotterdam remain committed to the fact that the environmental zone has positive effects on air quality. The Rotterdam Classics Foundation and the FEHAC have a different opinion about this. They were present at the session, also to support the opponents of the environmental zone. The lawsuit took place on March 27 in the court of Rotterdam.
Multiple room with space for various pleas
The session in Rotterdam was held by the multiple chamber, which consists of 3 judges. Everyone appealed or pleaded during the judicial meeting. Once again, the environmental zone opposition asked critical questions that went further than just blocking a motor vehicle. The negligible share of pollution compared to real economic polluters was also cited. The sixteen delegates, who are fighting against the environmental zone, each had five minutes of speaking time during the second part of the session. They were able to make their objections known and to offer new perspectives.
Misunderstanding about ignoring advice of the General Objections Committee
During the session, a number of facts and questions emerged mainly from the corner of the environmental zone opposition. The shared burden principle in combination with the equality principle was one of them. The question was regularly asked why the advice of the General Objections Committee not to ban cars from before 1 January 1992 was ignored by the municipality. The municipality continued to insist on the emission of NoX and soot. Various calculations have already shown that the emission share of the banned cars is negligible. But the municipality of Rotterdam is probably still using the adage "it's just that way". The duped camper owners also have the option to "load and unload", but that does not correspond to the desire to use the camper "spontaneously and ad hoc".
No new facts from the municipality
The municipality had hired lawyer Roelof Reinders for his defense. He of course tried to defend the positions of the municipality. It was also remarkable that the municipality did not introduce any new facts or arguments. The defense did mention the "Soot and No2" mentioned in the price memorandum. The judge then indicated that "No2" was not mentioned at all. Furthermore, the concluding speech of the municipality surprised the opposition. The results from the first evaluation of the environmental zone were mentioned. That is also a strange fact. The first evaluation results will only be published in May of this year. In the meantime - well before the evaluation - it has become clear that the environmental zone does not contribute to air quality. Since the introduction of the environmental zone, the air quality in Rotterdam has even deteriorated. The “wet finger” fleet scan from which the opposite has been concluded and on which the municipality relies - cannot possibly remove this picture.
Verdict: at least in six weeks
The multiple chamber will now continue to consider a statement that can normally take up to six weeks, but given the "complexity" this may take longer. The Rotterdam Classics Foundation will continue its activities against the environmental zone in the coming period and announced, through a multi-track policy, to represent the interests of all car owners in Rotterdam and the Netherlands.
“Loyal to the environment, not symbolic”
In any case, the Foundation does a good job, because it has already shown that this environmental zone is really rattling on all sides. Sander Jongerius of the Rotterdam Classics Foundation emphasizes it again. "We are loyal to the environment, not symbolic." And that concept fully covers the load of this ill-considered Rotterdam measure. Not to mention the increase in the number of polluting cruise ships.
Source: Stichting Rotterdamse Klassiekers
First of all, as an owner of an old-timer / young-timer, the environmental zones are a thorn in the eye and of total arbitrariness. The article on Rotterdam environmental policy also refers to cruise ships.
If one is a bit aware of what is going on in the maritime world, emissions are also considerable here
subject to criticism and at all levels forcing merchant ships to use low-sulfur fuel. Installing expensive modifications such as SCRs, scrubbers, etc. in their exhaust gas systems. Further
More and more flex engines and LNG engines are being offered. The exclusion of ships without the aforementioned facilities is already in full swing.
But I don't read anywhere that ships from before a certain date are banned. It is a good thing that this development is taking place, which has been going on for a long time in the automobile industry, but why should those few drivers (predominantly enthusiasts, who drive few kilometers a year with their cherished property) be punished so? There are countless examples in which - without discriminating against a specific group - a cleaner environment can be achieved. And everyone benefits!