Boris Johnson and the 'invisible crisis' of air pollution

A 'low emission zone' sign in London.
Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Cleaner air. I think we can agree that we need more of it. It is therefore good news is that phase 3 and, indeed, phase 4 of the capital's Low Emission Zone (LEZ) programme came into effect yesterday, obliging owners of a larger group of polluting vehicles than before to either drive something cleaner or pay a daily fine of £100 each time they spew health-hurting stuff from their exhausts when using the capital's roads.

For this blessing many would forgive the cry of self-congratulation that came from Boris Johnson - a sound he produced for a Transport for London press release despite having not been sighted in London this year. But the growls of the stauncher critics of his record on environmental issues invite us to inspect it critically.

LEZ phase 3, you might recall, had originally been scheduled for October 2010 but was delayed by the mayor on the grounds that it would hurt many small businesses just as the recession was taking a bite out of their profits. I'd all but forgotten about it until last month when a decorator friend told me that unless he got the cash together to dump the van he uses for getting himself and his ladders around town and bought something that had been registered as new after 1 January 2002 and therefore met the Euro 3 EU standard for engines, he would be plying his trade exclusively in the Home Counties for some time to come.

His story reminded me that Boris's postponement of phase 3 had a respectable justification - even fairly old vans of the cleanliness required can cost a tidy sum and he wanted to give people more time to replace or adapt the ones they had. As ever, there were balances to be struck and judgements to be made about priorities. But the problem is that, according to Boris's own study, London's bad air has been taking a terrible toll on its people, with over 4,000 a year dying prematurely as a result of it, perhaps by as much as nine years.

Simon Birkett, director of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CAL), compares Boris's reaction to all this with the more vigorous public health response of the authorities to London's Great Smog of 1952, which is believed to have led to the same number of deaths in a shorter space of time.

He describes the mayor's response to "this invisible crisis" as "a succession of backward steps," with putting off LEZ Phase 3 among them. A comparison between the Great Smog's impact and that of London's contemporary air pollution was also made by Professor John Whitelegg when he launched his recent report on pay-as-you-go road pricing, commissioned by the London Assembly's Greens.

On a lighter note - as we say in radio - Transport For London's latest Travel in London report, published just before Christmas, reports downward trends in emissions of both PM10 particle and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) continuing through 2010, although the rate of decrease has slowed (see tables 7.1 and 7.2 in section starting on page 157 of the report). And for CAL, London's Greens and I'm sure its Lib Dems and its Labour green wing too, this is nothing like fast enough. Indeed, the Greens' Darren Johnson has called 2011 "one of the worst years for air pollution since the pollution spike in 2003."

There's lots more to explore in the Travel in London report (which I've read only a little of so far) and much more to say about Boris's approach to air quality and how it might be improved on. Give me time. Meanwhile, your considered, sane and informed comments are, as ever, very welcome.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments

11 comments, displaying oldest first

  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • TheGreenMan

    4 January 2012 9:05PM

    "Meanwhile, your considered, sane and informed comments are, as ever, very welcome."

    What about the ones you usually get?

  • ukpoliticalreform

    5 January 2012 7:40AM

    Now I am not one for urban myth but one I did hear in relation to the congestion charge and its review before being compulsory was that several traffic light signals were deliberately kept red longer to increase traffic congsetion thus promoting the need for a toll.

    Another point here is that I have to commute to London to work and it is still cheaper (just) to travel by car. The only way to improve on air quality is to make transport by train cheaper but as this is a capitalist toy subsidised by the tax payer and rail travel paying folk the problems will continue.

  • MELANIEBELLAMY

    5 January 2012 9:57AM

    This will be the death of the market traders
    How much will it cost the police ambulance and fire service to become compliant in time for the Olympics ?

    Those old police vans hope there are no more riots like the summer when all those old police vehicles were on the streets

  • thereverent

    5 January 2012 10:16AM

    Transport For London's latest Travel in London report, published just before Christmas, reports downward trends in emissions of both PM10 particle and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) continuing through 2010, although the rate of decrease has slowed


    This would have been helped as older vehicles are taken off the road and replaced by newer cleaner ones.

    I still think Boris and TfL need to bite the bullet with some issues:
    Gyratories like Vauxhall need to be removed as any congestion in one direction causes holds ups around the whole gyratory (and hence more air pollution).
    Oxford Street ad Regents Street need to be pedestrianised (lots of diesel vehicles moving slowly next to crowds of people is particually bad for peopes health.
    Some smaller streets in central London (particually in Soho and the City) should be pedestrianised as they are only used as Taxi rat runs.

  • Tussyisme

    5 January 2012 10:40AM

    Posted on a previous blog re reducing emissions:

    Pay-as-you-go scheme - eminently sensible as it's attitudes towards driving that have to change: from the currently dominant one of a socially cost-free activity/individual 'freedom' 'right' etc to one which recognises the impact on others as well as the environment. Being made to pay for the privilege of driving should help that shift.But a car-free zone 1 should become an essential part of making London a 'world-class city'. Ken's political boldness in opting for congestion charging in the face of the gainsayers is what's needed again. Perhaps this could become a cross-party initiative. Random vox pops on the city's streets/buses shows support for such a move. Meantime @downfader refreshingly reminds us of the noise created by motorised traffic, so often ignored in environmental and health assessments of road transport.

  • thereverent

    5 January 2012 12:37PM

    I don't like gyratory systems, and don't think they work.

    Using Vauxhall as an example the south side is four lanes wide, but each exit is either one lane or one lane with a bus lane. So the traffic flow is limited by the road they exit the gyratory, the extra lanes just become a car park when traffic is heavy.

    Drivers unfamiliar with the layout often get in the wrong lane then change lanes unexpectedly.

    They are unpleasant for pedestrians and difficult for cyclists to get round.

  • newsed1

    5 January 2012 7:18PM

    Gyratories like Vauxhall need to be removed as any congestion in one direction causes holds ups around the whole gyratory (and hence more air pollution).

    Dave and therev - Vauxhall used to a huge inner-city motorway flowing very quickly indeed. Too quickly, many said. Remind me who turned it into a gyratory?

    Also, the pay-as-you-go scheme is, simply, bugger all to do with pollution. Demanding payment will not stop the dirtiest vehicles driving into London. Indeed the commercial vehicles that will pay are also the most polluting.

    Way back in 1993 I went to see a demo of a pollution monitor on Blackfriars bridgehead. It used a laser to analyse exhaust gases and then photograph the rear of the offending vehicles. A fine could be sent instantly.

    This system is cheap, simple and could be hooked up to the C-Charge cameras. Why isn't it used? A month's worth of fingering the actual - not estimated - polluters would sort out London for good.

    Of course, it might chase 80 percent of black cabs off the road. But then I hear the bloke behind the original Boris bus proposal has now got a plan to sort out the problem of ageing, diesel powered, 1.8 tonne cabs....

  • newsed1

    5 January 2012 7:21PM

    Oh, I should have said that the Low-Emission (really, pollution) zone uses Euro engine ratings in order to rank vehicles.

    Of course, this is useless in the real world. Badly maintained, badly driven and aged engines will all give out more pollution. It could a EU4, but throughly knackered.

    Two years ago, Berlin banned all diesel vehicles registered before Jan 2006 from its central zone.

  • tvnewswatch

    5 January 2012 8:40PM

    Why is it "good news that phase 3 and phase 4 of the capital's Low Emission Zone (LEZ) programme came into effect"?

    This has hit thousands of motorists who own such vehicles extremely hard and who may have little choice other than to fork out a lot of money for a new or second hand vehicle.

    Many of the vehicles concerned are just old and pump out no more pollution than vehicles made after 2002. I have a Daihatsu Fourtrak which has passed the emissions tests required to obtain an MoT. However because it is a diesel and is classed as a 4x4 light utility vehicle it is now banned within London.

    What many do not understand is that it is not just central London, it is every London borough that is affected. Many people owning such vehicles may not even drive into central London, yet because they live in one of the outlying boroughs they are now forced of the road.

    Off the road unless they pay out at least £2000 for a DPF [Diesel Particulate Filter], by a post 2002 diesel vehicle [or any petrol vehicle] or pay a minimum of £100 to drive on London's streets.

    In an already tightening recession this new restriction will force some businesses [especially sole traders] to fold.

    Even if every owner could afford to replace their vehicles, what is the impact of scrapping otherwise reliable vehicles to obtain new one. Surely the carbon footprint of a new vehicle is just as destructive as the supposed reduction of a small amount of pollution emanated from vehicles that are fine for the rest of Britain's roads.

    Furthermore one could obtain any petrol vehicle and belch as many fumes as one likes without hindrance. I could, should I have a spare £13,000 buy a Hummer H2 and would be free to drive anywhere in London. Yet this would use at least three times the fuel than my older diesel powered Fourtrak. What would that do for the planet or London's pollution?

    Another important factor not raised is that the DPF can itself create problems. Not only is it expensive but it also needs to burn off the soot every few miles, a process called regeneration. This has to be done at speeds in excess of 38 mph for at least 15 minutes. Failing to do so may clog the filter requiring an expensive cleaning or even replacement see this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2011/10/diesel_particulate_filters.html . Additionally, sparks can occur during the regeneration process which has been known to cause brush fires in the US http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2011/10cleaire.php .

    The effect on the air from this new legislation will be negligible. The London Air Network regularly tweets Low pollution levels for London and while there are spikes, they are rare.

    The big effect will be in the pockets of the sole traders, small businesses and individuals who will be forced into further debt. Such statistics will be hard to prove, and will only be ignored by a press which is increasingly just becoming a mouthpiece of government/mayoral policy.

    Take the less than 30 seconds the issue got on yesterdays BBC London TV news report or the 2 minute piece the previous day, both of which failed to address the concerns of those affected financially by the LEZ. Even the Transport and Haulage Assoc spokeswoman claimed motorists had received enough notice to comply and failed reveal the costs.

    While DVLA letters went out to owners inside the London boroughs in early 2010, not everyone outside would be aware. Even 12 month's notice is hardly a timely warning in terms of finding an extra few thousand pounds to comply with the new restrictions. It was just a few months longer to worry about how one will cope without a vehicle one can't afford to replace.

  • thereverent

    6 January 2012 3:10PM

    Many of the vehicles concerned are just old and pump out no more pollution than vehicles made after 2002. I have a Daihatsu Fourtrak which has passed the emissions tests required to obtain an MoT. However because it is a diesel and is classed as a 4x4 light utility vehicle it is now banned within London.


    Diesel 4x4 don't belong in cities, even if they are small. The MoT emissions test is fairly lax as it tests for Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbons. Not Particulate Matter (PM) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) which London has very high levels of.


    What many do not understand is that it is not just central London, it is every London borough that is affected. Many people owning such vehicles may not even drive into central London, yet because they live in one of the outlying boroughs they are now forced of the road.


    Outer London also suffers from low air quality.


    Even if every owner could afford to replace their vehicles, what is the impact of scrapping otherwise reliable vehicles to obtain new one. Surely the carbon footprint of a new vehicle is just as destructive as the supposed reduction of a small amount of pollution emanated from vehicles that are fine for the rest of Britain's roads.


    I think the non-conforming vehicles will be sold to other areas of the UK rather than scrapped (if they are still worth running).
    You are mixing up carbon emissions with air pollution. The LEZ is aimed at reducing air pollution in London.


    Furthermore one could obtain any petrol vehicle and belch as many fumes as one likes without hindrance. I could, should I have a spare £13,000 buy a Hummer H2 and would be free to drive anywhere in London. Yet this would use at least three times the fuel than my older diesel powered Fourtrak. What would that do for the planet or London's pollution?


    Petrol cars produce less harmful exhaust fumes. Deisel engines produce Particulate Matter (PM) which petrol engines don't and 24 times more Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). It's these which are the particually harmful.


    The effect on the air from this new legislation will be negligible. The London Air Network regularly tweets Low pollution levels for London and while there are spikes, they are rare.


    We have some of the worst air quality of cities in Europe.
    When it is clear (like this morning) you can see the grey/brown layer on the horizon as you look across London from high buildings.

Comments on this page are now closed.

Find your MP

Latest from the London blogosphere

Bestsellers from the Guardian shop

Guardian Bookshop

This week's bestsellers

  1. 1.  Send Up the Clowns

    by Simon Hoggart £8.99

  2. 2.  Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere

    by Paul Mason £14.99

  3. 3.  Pity the Billionaire

    by Thomas Frank £14.99

  4. 4.  Britain's Empire

    by Richard Gott £25.00

  5. 5.  Mafia State

    by Luke Harding £20.00

Dave Hill's London blog weekly archives

Jan 2012
M T W T F S S
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31 1 2 3 4 5

Find the latest jobs in your sector:

Browse all jobs