Blog latest

Conference report: Air quality: moving forwards not backwards to protect public health

Friday, 19 February 2010 12:36

by Simon Birkett, Founder of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL)

I emphasised two points at the Progressive London conference.

First, air pollution in London is much worse than most of us have realised.  It averages over twice the maximum level recommended by the World Health Organisation near our busiest roads.  Why has the government therefore failed to use the readily understood international metric of ‘premature deaths’ to warn people about the impact of poor air quality when it saw updated health assessments in 2001, 2006 and 2009?  Why has it been so slow generally in updating air quality statistics?

Up to date information about ‘premature deaths’ due to air pollution is important for policy makers too.  For example, CCAL found, through a Freedom of Information request, the government told Mayor Livingstone it estimated there would be 1,031 premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles (PM10) in London in 2005.  In fact this number was based only on the effects of short term exposure to air pollution (which were based on estimates produced in 1998). Evidence suggests the government knew as early as 2006 there would have been around 3,460 (or up to 7,900) premature deaths due to long term exposure to dangerous airborne particles in London in 2005. Surely, Mayor Livingstone would have been much bolder if he had known the full scale of the air quality problem.

The extent of London’s air quality problems is not limited to PM10.  Two days before the Progressive London conference, Marylebone Road breached the legal limit of 18 hours of high nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations allowed for a whole year, which only entered into force on 1 January 2010 (having been in legislation since 1999).  Sadly this was no surprise since London has the highest average concentrations of NO2 of any capital city in western, or eastern, Europe.

Second, Mayor’s Johnson’s draft Air Quality Strategy is ‘not fit for purpose’.  The strategy is required by law to ‘include policies and proposals for the achievement in Greater London of the air quality standards and objectives’ and it misses this mark by a wide margin.  The European Commission, when rejecting last December the UK’s application for a time extension to comply with legal standards for PM10 said London’s air quality plan did not even meet the ‘minimum requirements’ for such a delay.  CCAL responded recently to consultations on four of Mayor Johnson’s other strategies and said they were ‘not fit for purpose’ for similar reasons.

Mayor Johnson has been taking one or two big steps backwards on air quality (such as with the delay of Phase 3 of the London low emission zone and the proposed scrapping of the western extension of the congestion charging zone) when several bold steps forward are needed urgently.  We need a focus on well thought-through, systematic measures not ad-hoc chaotic traffic bans as the Mayor proposes.  Top positive actions needed include: Mayoral ‘u-turns’ on recent decisions; one or more additional inner low emission zones (there were over 40 across Germany by the end of last year); a government funded scrappage scheme for pre-Euro 4 taxis; the clean-up of harmful emissions of oxides of nitrogen from the bus fleet; and a campaign to build public understanding of the health risks of poor air quality.

CCAL urges the government to waste no further time in giving Mayor Johnson the responsibility, powers and money, if necessary, to comply fully with health based air quality laws for PM10 in Greater London in 2010.  The challenges of complying with similar laws for NO2 will require ‘everything including the kitchen sink’ with many measures led by central government.

Much would be achieved if London cleaned up its air and complied with air quality laws by 2012.  Premature deaths and illness could be reduced significantly and London would show the world how a leading city tackled the wider problems of air pollution and sustainability.  In fact, if the UK was successful just in complying fully with its legal requirements to protect health, London would deserve a standing ovation at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.