Air pollution kills. It’s a shame few politicians have dared point this out in recent weeks.
There are many issues where good policy doesn’t equal good politics. Building on the green belt is a long-running one. Council tax reform is another. And last week London’s ULEZ came to the fore, turning the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election seemingly into a referendum on the policy. The latter seems to have run away with itself a little, so it’s worth revisiting what it is trying to do.
The ULEZ, which was announced by Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson in 2015 and introduced in 2019, charges non-compliant vehicles – generally petrol cars made before 2006 and diesel cars made before 2015 – £12.50 for entering the ULEZ area. The area covered at the start was the same part of central London covered by the Congestion Charge, was expanded out to the North and South circular roads in 2021, and will expand to cover the whole of Greater London on 29th August.
What was likely wilfully brushed over in the campaigning for the current by-election – and indeed in other recent anti-ULEZ campaigning – is that relatively few cars fall foul of the restrictions. Transport for London estimates that 90 per cent of traffic in Outer London now comply. For those that don’t comply, the burden falls disproportionately on poorer people, but the Mayor has brought in and extended a means-tested scrappage scheme to soften at least some of the impact.
Such a policy has been introduced and expanded because of the impact that air pollution has on health in Greater London. It is linked to stunted lung development and strokes among other health problems. And an estimated 3,800 people died as a result of PM2.5 – one of the pollutants that contributes to local air pollution – in London in 2017. And it is poorer people who are most exposed to this pollution. As Sadiq Khan has been forthright in saying, policies such as ULEZ are important for tackling one of the capital’s major challenges.
The policy has had a swift impact to date. In both the original and expanded zones nitrogen oxide emissions were at least one fifth lower than would otherwise have been the case in the 12 months after it was introduced.
Given this, the political reaction to the policy in recent weeks has been disappointing. The approach that was taken by the Conservatives is perhaps unsurprising (in spite of the policy being the brainchild of a Tory Mayor who went on to be Prime Minister). Keir Starmer’s reaction was somewhat more unexpected – asking Sadiq Khan to reflect on voters’ reaction to the policy. Given the asthma issues the Mayor has suffered as a result of air pollution, and the book he has written on the subject, it is probably fair to say that Khan has already done a great deal of reflection on it and the health impacts it has.
It would be naive to think that short term issues at the ballot box won’t affect the thinking of politicians. But politicians should also have more conviction over their policies and the reason they are put in place. In all of the furore of recent days there has been precious few voices articulating why the policy is important – to reduce the number of people dying from the air that they breathe. It’s a shame few politicians have dared point this out in recent weeks.
While the decision to extend London’s Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) may be politically difficult, it is both timely and necessary.
Cities Outlook 2020 takes an in-depth look at air pollution. Senior Analyst Kathrin Enenkel and Researcher Valentine Quinio join Andrew Carter to discuss the main findings and recommendations from the report.
Extending London’s Ultra-Low Emission Zone across the Capital will have been a politically tough decision, but it is the right one to make.
Andrew Carter talks to Caroline Russell and Andrea Lee on how to improve air quality in our cities
Leave a comment
Be the first to add a comment.